DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “thin” (in the context of limitation, “functional thin film”) in claims 1, 2, 10 and 18 is indefinite because the term can indicate the method of application of the film (i.e., thin film coating methods versus thick film coating methods), and the term can also refer to the thickness of the film. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain which interpretation is intended.
If “thin” refers to the thickness of the film, it is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takamatsu et al. (US 2011/0300356 A1)(Takamatsu).
Takamatsu anticipates claim 1 as shown by the comparison of the teaching of Takamatsu and claim 1:
Claim 1 limitation
Takamatsu disclosure
A laminated glass, comprising
Laminated glass (title)
an outer glass pane
glass plate 1 (exterior glass plate) (paragraph [0035] and Figure 1)
an inner glass pane
the glass plate 5 (interior glass plate) (paragraph [0036] and Figure 1)
a functional thin film
an infrared reflecting layer 7
wherein the functional thin film is located between the outer glass pane and the inner glass pane;
(the infrared reflecting film 7 is part of the functional plastic film sheet 3 which is between the inner and outer glass sheets as shown in Figures 1 and 2)
the functional coating is applied on a surface of the outer glass pane, the inner glass pane, or the functional thin film, and
an infrared absorbing layer 8 (paragraph [0042])(which is on a surface of the functional thin film in Figure 2)
the functional coating is obtained by curing a functional coating composition;
A hard coating film containing an acrylic resin as a main component and having fine particles of tin-doped indium oxide (ITO) dispersed therein was formed by roll coating as an infrared absorbing layer 8 on one side of the plastic film in such a manner that the hard coating film had a thickness of 5 µm after curing (paragraph [0067)]
the functional coating can absorb infrared light and/or ultraviolet light,
an infrared absorbing layer 8 (paragraph [0042])
and has a thickness of 3 µm to 20 µm;
A hard coating film containing an acrylic resin as a main component and having fine particles of tin-doped indium oxide (ITO) dispersed therein was formed by roll coating as an infrared absorbing layer 8 on one side of the plastic film in such a manner that the hard coating film had a thickness of 5 µm after curing (paragraph [0067)]
and the functional thin film comprises at least two alternately stacked resin thin films,
The infrared reflecting layer 7 … is preferably in the form of … a multilayer film laminate in which two kinds of polymer thin films of different refractive indexes are alternately laminated on each other (paragraph [0042])
and has a visible light transmittance of greater than or equal to 70%.
heat insulating laminated glass (referred to as a sixth glass) that has a visible light transmittance of 70% or higher
Further as to the last limitation, if the laminated glass, as a whole, has a visible transmittance of 70% or higher, a portion of the laminate such as the hard coating film must necessarily have a visible transmittance of 70% or more.
As to claims 8 and 9, Takamatsu discloses two layers 2, 4 (corresponding to the claimed binding layers) in between the outer and inner glasses and the functional plastic film 3 (which includes the infrared absorbing layer and infrared reflecting layer). See paragraph [0040] and Figure 1. The layers may be EVA or PVB. Id. The outer layer 2 has a transmittance of greater than 85%. See paragraph [0041].
Claim 18 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure of a curved glass laminate. The reference suggests such a product.
As to claim 19, Takamatsu teaches the outer glass plate is a clear glass having a visible transmittance of greater than 85%. See paragraph [0035]. Takamatsu further teaches the interior glass plate may be clear or colored and exemplifies an interior glass having visible transmittance of 81.2%. See paragraph [0142].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. (US 2011/0300356 A1)(Takamatsu) as applied to claim 1 above.
Takamatsu anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above. Takamatsu fails to disclose the infrared reflecting layer 7 (corresponding to claimed functional thin film) has a thickness of 50 to 200 µm.
However, it has been held to have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have changed the size of the infrared reflecting layer of Takamatsu because changind the size of a prior art product has been held to be within the level of ordainry skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
As to claim 3, Takamatsu teaches the laminate has a visible transmittance of greater than 70% and a total solar transmittance of less than 85%. Thus, Takamatsu fails to disclose a range for total solar transmittance that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claim 3 range.
However, the range taught by Takamatsu overlaps the presently claimed range, and overlapping ranges have bene held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claims 4-6, Takamatsu fails to disclose laminated glasses having the visible transmittance and total solar transmittance as recited in claims 4-6. However, it was well-known in the art at the time of filing to employ different glasses in the laminate depending upon the end use of the automotive glass. Windshields require high transmittance, whereas side windows, sunroofs or privacy glass require lower transmittance and total solar radiation transmittance. The Transmittance can be altered by selecting glass sheets with more coloring ingredients to achieve these end results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have decreased the visible and solar transmittance of the laminate of Takamatsu by choosing lower transmittance glass compositions. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held to be obvious to apply a known technique to a known device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. (US 2011/0300356 A1)(Takamatsu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kakuta et al. (US 2023/0176426 A1)(Kakuta).
Takamatsu anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above.
Takamatsu fails to disclose the incorporation of a switchable element selected from a PDLC switchable film, an SPD switchable film, or an EC switchable film.
Kokuta teaches incorporating a light control member into an automobile laminate such as a PDLC film. See the abstract and paragraph [0129].
Therefore it would have been obvious to have incorporated switchable element such as a PDLC film into the laminate of Takamatsu as suggested by Kokuta. The rationale for doing so is that it would have been obvious applied a known technique to a known device. See MPEP 2143 I.D.
It would have been obvious to have placed the switchable element between any of the layers of Takamatsu, including between the functional film and the inner glass.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. (US 2011/0300356 A1)(Takamatsu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hara et al. (US 2019/0176439 A1).
Takamatsu anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above.
As to claim 10, Takamatsu teaches the plastic film sheet with the infrared reflecting coating has a solar reflectance of 20% or higher. See paragraph [0022]. Takamatsu further teaches setting “the total lamination number of the alternating two kinds of polymer films to 5 to 200.” See paragraph [0129]. Each of these ranges overlap the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Takamatsu differs from claim 10 by not disclosing the difference in refractive index between the layers in the IR reflecting stack.
Hara discloses an IR reflecting films which has a difference in refractive index between layers of 0.1 or larger. See paragraph [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a difference in refractive index of 0.1 or larger in the IR reflecting layer of Takamatsu as suggested by Hara. The rationale for doing so is that it would have been obvious applied a known technique to a known device. See MPEP 2143 I.D.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu et al. (US 2011/0300356 A1)(Takamatsu) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagen et al. (US 2020/0384739 A1)(Hagen).
Takamatsu anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above.
Takamatsu fails to disclose the incorporation of “a low-emissivity plated film deposited on the surface of the inner glass pane that is closer to the interior of a vehicle, the low-emissivity plated film comprises at least one transparent electrically conductive oxide layer, and the laminated glass has an emissivity of 0.01 to 0.25 as measured inside the vehicle.”
Hagen discloses it is well known in the art to incorporate “a coating reflecting thermal radiation is applied on the interior-side of the inner pane (side 4). Such coatings are known, for example, from WO2013/131667A1. The thermal-radiation-reflecting coating can also be referred to as a coating with low emissivity, an emissivity-reducing coating, low-E coating, or low-E layer. Its role is to reflect thermal radiation, i.e., in particular, IR radiation of longer wavelength than the IR component of solar radiation.” See paragraph [0028]. The coating includes a transparent (electrically) conductive oxide. See paragraph [0029].
It would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the interior face of the laminate of Takamatsu with the low emissivity coating of Hagen. The motivation for doing so is that such coatings have the advantage of “at low outside temperatures, the low-E coating reflects heat back into the interior and reduces the cooling of the interior. At high outside temperatures, the low-E coating reflects the thermal radiation of the heated composite pane outward and reduces the heating of the interior. On the interior side of the inner pane, the coating according to the invention reduces the emission of thermal radiation from the pane into the interior particularly effectively in the summer and reduces the emission of heat into the external environment in the winter.” See paragraph [0028] of Hagen.
As to the claimed emissivity, it was known to one of ordinary skill in the art to increase the thicknesses of the glass and resin layers to decrease the emissivity of the resultant laminate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest a laminated glass having a functional coating formed from raw materials comprising a chelating agent, a silica sol, a transparent resin and an infrared absorbent in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 1. The structure implied by the recitation of the raw materials is a cured coating comprising silica, resin, chelating agent an infrared absorbent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Anderson (US 2017/0361577 A1) teaches cesium tungsten oxide as an IR absorbent in glass interlayers (abstract and paragraph [0005]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
