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 .
Drawings
The drawings with 9 sheets of Figs. 1-16 received on 10/21/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to claim 26 in the submission dated 05/06/2026 in response to the office action mailed 03/06/2026 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 4, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 23, 25, and 29-30 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-28 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13 and 15 (Group I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/06/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II and Group III lack the same or corresponding special technical feature and said special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art. The arguments are persuasive and Group II and Group III encompassing claims 17-19, 21-22, 24, and 26-29 will be examined.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “a first polymer layer” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this layer is the first polymer layer of claim 1 or another polymer layer.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to mean “a second polymer layer”.
Claims 22 and 24 are dependent on claim 21 and hence inherit its deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couillard et al., US 2017/0182739 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Couillard), and further in view of Lezzi et al., US 2019/0002330 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lezzi).
As to claim 17, Couillard teaches (Figs. 1-4) a sensor (a sensor, para [0041]) comprising:
an enclosure (cabinets and automobiles, para [0003]); and
a window attached to the enclosure so as to enclose an interior of the enclosure (100, laminate structures incorporated as outer panels for cabinets and appliances, and windows for automobiles, paras [0003] and [0020], Fig. 1), wherein the window comprises:
a first glass-based layer (101, a first substrate 101 is a glass substrate, paras [0020]-[0021], Fig. 1) having a thickness tG1 (T1, the first substrate 101 has a thickness T1, para [0024], Fig. 1) and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG1 (CTE, the first substrate 101 is a glass substrate having a coefficient of thermal expansion CTE, para [0025], Fig. 1);
a second glass-based layer (107, a second substrate 107 is a glass substrate, (paras [0020]-[0021], Fig. 1) having a thickness tG2 (T2, the second substrate 107 has a thickness T2, para [0024], Fig. 1) and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG2 (CTE, the second substrate 107 is a glass substrate having a coefficient of thermal expansion CTE, para [0025], Fig. 1); and
a first polymer layer (113, the interlayer 113 is a polymer such as ethylene vinyl acetate, para [0031], Fig. 1) disposed between the first glass-based layer and the second glass-based layer (113, the interlayer 113 attaches the first substrate 101 to the second substrate 107, paras [0020] and [0031], Fig. 1) having a thickness tP1 (T3, the interlayer 113 has a thickness T3, para [0020], Fig. 1) and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEP1 (113, polymers, including ethylene vinyl acetate have a coefficient of thermal expansion, Fig. 1),
wherein:
the first glass-based layer comprises a compressive stress of greater than or equal to 5 MPa (101, the first glass substrate can have a compressive stress greater than about 100 MPa, para [0022], Fig. 1) arising from a difference between CTEG1 and GTEG2 (101, 107, the CTEs of the first and second substrates are mismatched, para [0030], Fig. 1),
tG1 is less than or equal to 300 μm (T1, the glass thickness of the first substrate 101 ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm, this includes the range of less than or equal to 300 μm, para [0024], Fig. 1), and
tG2 is greater than 2.0 mm (T2, the glass thickness of the second substrate 107 ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm, this includes the range of greater than 2.0 mm, para [0024], Fig. 1).
Couillard does not teach a detection element disposed in the enclosure; and the first glass-based layer comprises a compressive stress of greater than or equal to 5 MPa and less than or equal to 40 MPa.
Couillard and Lezzi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Lezzi teaches a detection element disposed in the enclosure (1210, 1218, 1220, “a device 1210 (e.g., handheld computer, tablet, portable computer, cellular phone, television, display board, etc.) includes one or more glass-based articles 1212, 1214, 1216… includes electronic components 1218 and a housing 1220,” para [0189], Fig. 29); and
a window attached to the enclosure so as to enclose an interior of the enclosure (1212, 1214, 1216, the housing 1220 includes glass-based articles 1212, 1214, 1216, para [0189], Fig. 29), wherein the window comprises:
a first glass-based layer (1412, a first glass-based layer 1412, para [0194], Fig. 31), a second glass-based layer (1416, a second glass-based layer 1416, para [0194], Fig. 31), and a first polymer layer (1414, a polymer interlayer 1414, para [0194], Fig. 31); and
the first glass-based layer comprises a compressive stress of greater than or equal to 5 MPa and less than or equal to 40 MPa (automotive glass having a thickness of 0.5 mm or less have a compressive stress of at least 50 MPa, as shown in Fig. 15 this includes the range less than or equal to 40 MPa, para [0081], Figs. 14 and 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Couillard with the sensor having a detection element disposed in the enclosure and a glass layer having a compressive stress less than or equal to 40 MPa of Lezzi, because doing so provides glass articles having stress profiles that strengthen the exterior portions of glass, which in turn act to mitigate cracking and damage while at the same time allow for a variety of other desirable glass qualities such as geometry, surface quality, transmittance of visible light, and flexibility (para [0056]).
Couillard does not explicitly teach tG1 is less than or equal to 300 μm, and tG2 is greater than 2.0 mm.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of tG1 is less than or equal to 300 μm and tG2 is greater than 2.0 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraphs [0005] and [0021] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses the first and second substrate 101, 107 have a thickness T1, T2 that ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the first glass base layer thickness tG1 to have the claimed range of less than or equal to 300 µm and the second glass base layer thickness tG2 to have the claimed range of greater than 2.0 mm for the purposes of providing enhanced structural rigidity (para [0005]).
As to claim 18, Couillard in view of Lezzi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Couillard further teaches the sensor, wherein:
tG1 is less than or equal to 200 μm (T1, the glass thickness of the first substrate 101 ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm, this includes the range of less than or equal to 300 μm, para [0024], Fig. 1), and
tG2 is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.8 mm (T2, the glass thickness of the second substrate 107 ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm, this includes the range of greater than 2.0 mm, para [0024], Fig. 1).
Couillard does not explicitly teach tG1 is less than or equal to 300 μm, and tG2 is greater than 2.0 mm.
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of tG1 is less than or equal to 200 μm and tG2 is greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.8 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraphs [0005] and [0021] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses the first and second substrate 101, 107 have a thickness T1, T2 that ranges from 0.1 mm to 3 mm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the first glass base layer thickness tG1 to have the claimed range of less than or equal to 200 µm and the second glass base layer thickness tG2 to have the claimed range of greater than or equal to 2.5 and less than or equal to 3.8 mm for the purposes of providing enhanced structural rigidity (para [0005]).
As to claim 19, Couillard in view of Lezzi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Couillard further teaches the sensor, wherein: the first glass-based layer forms an outer surface of the window that is exposed to an environment outside of the enclosure (111, laminate structures incorporated as outer panels for cabinets and appliances, and windows for automobiles including exterior paneling, thus the first substrate 101 has a surface 111 that is considered the outside surface, paras [0003] and [0020], Fig. 1).
Couillard does not teach the sensor, wherein: the first glass-based layer is formed from a glass exhibiting an anomalous fracture behavior when subjected to a Vickers diamond indenter test.
Couillard and Lezzi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Lezzi teaches the first glass-based layer is formed from a glass exhibiting an anomalous fracture behavior (616, the glass-based article 610 has been strengthened to a degree that dicing has occurred upon the fracture, forming a plurality of small granular chunks 616, para [0090], Fig. 7) when subjected to a Vickers diamond indenter test (the surfaces of each test sheet were subjected to standard Vickers indentation where various levels of force were applied, para [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Couillard with the glass exhibiting anomalous fracture behavior of Lezzi, because doing so provides glass articles having stress profiles that strengthen the exterior portions of glass, which in turn act to mitigate cracking and damage while at the same time allow for a variety of other desirable glass qualities such as geometry, surface quality, transmittance of visible light, and flexibility (para [0056]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couillard et al., US 2017/0182739 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Couillard), in view of Lezzi et al., US 2019/0002330 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lezzi), and further in view of Joshi et al., US 2021/0221100 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Joshi).
As to claim 21, Couillard in view of Lezzi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Couillard further teaches the second glass-based layer comprises a second compressive stress (107, the second glass substrate has a compressive stress, para [0022], Fig. 1).
Couillard does not teach the sensor according to claim 17, further comprising:
a third glass-based layer having a thickness tm and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG3, and
a [second] polymer layer disposed between the first glass-based layer and the third glass-based layer having a thickness tP2 and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEP2, wherein:
|CTEG2 – CTEG3| > 0.5 ppm/°C, and
tG3 is less than or equal to 10% of tG2.
Couillard and Joshi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Joshi teaches a window (100a, laminated glass structure 100a, para [0065], Fig. 2), comprising:
a first glass-based layer (12, glass sheet 12, para [0065], Fig. 2) having a thickness tG1 (112, the thickness 112 of the glass sheet 12 is 0.10 mm, para [0073], Fig. 2),
a second glass-based layer (16, the substrate 16 is made of glass, paras [0065] and [0067], Fig. 2) having a thickness tG2 (116, the thickness 116 of the substrate 16 is 3 mm, para [0068], Fig. 2) and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG2 (16, the second coefficient of thermal expansion of the substrate 16 of glass is provided in Table 1 as 3-9 ppm/°C, Table 1, Fig. 2), and
a first polymer layer (22, a first adhesive 22 is a thermally curable adhesive, is a polymer such as polyurethane polyvinylbutyrate, para [0074], Fig. 2); and further comprising:
a third glass-based layer (44, a buffer layer 44 is made of glass, paras [0065] and [0080], Fig. 2) having a thickness tG3 (144, the thickness 144 of the buffer layer 44 is 0.1 mm, para [0077], Fig. 2) and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG3 (44, the buffer layer 44 has a CTE of 20 ppm/°C, para [0079], Fig. 2), and
a [second] polymer layer (24, a second adhesive 24 is a polymer such as polyurethane polyvinylbutyrate, para [0074], Fig. 2) disposed between the first glass-based layer (12, glass sheet 12, para [0065], Fig. 2) and the third glass-based layer (44, a buffer layer 44 is made of glass, paras [0065] and [0080], Fig. 2) having a thickness tP2 (124, the second adhesive 24 has a thickness 124 between 0.1 mm and 5 mm, para [0075], Fig. 2) and a coefficient of thermal expansion CTEP2 (24, a second adhesive 24 is a polymer such as polyurethane polyvinylbutyrate, PVB has a coefficient of thermal expansion, para [0074], Fig. 2), wherein:
|CTEG2 – CTEG3| > 0.5 ppm/°C (the difference between the second coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG2=3-9 ppm/°C and the third coefficient of thermal expansion CTEG3=20 ppm/°C is greater than 0.5 ppm/°C), and
tG3 is less than or equal to 10% of tG2 (144, 116, the thickness 144 (0.1 mm) of the buffer layer 44 is 3.3% the thickness 116 (3 mm) of the substrate 16, paras [0068] and [0077], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Couillard with the third glass-based layer and second polymer layer of Joshi, because doing so improves stress states compared to conventional laminated glass structures in the face of environmental conditions that lead to expansion of the substrate in these structures (para [0095]).
As to claim 22, Couillard in view of Lezzi and further in view of Joshi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21.
Couillard does not teach the sensor, wherein both tG1 and tG3 are less than or equal to 200 μm, wherein tG2 is greater than or equal to 2.5 mm and less than or equal to 3.8mm.
Couillard and Joshi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Joshi teaches a window (100a, laminated glass structure 100a, para [0065], Fig. 2), wherein both tG1 and tG3 are less than or equal to 200 μm (112, 144, the thickness 112 of the glass sheet 12 is 0.10 mm, and the thickness 144 of the buffer layer 44 is 0.1 mm, paras [0073] and [0077], Fig. 2), wherein tG2 is greater than or equal to 2.5 mm and less than or equal to 3.8 mm (116, the thickness 116 of the substrate 16 is 3 mm, paras [0068], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Couillard with the thicknesses of the first, second and third glass-based layers of Joshi, because doing so improves stress states compared to conventional laminated glass structures in the face of environmental conditions that lead to expansion of the substrate in these structures (para [0095]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Couillard et al., US 2017/0182739 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Couillard), in view of Lezzi et al., US 2019/0002330 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lezzi), in view of Joshi et al., US 2021/0221100 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Joshi), and further in view of Cherekdjian et al., US 2015/0202845 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Cherekdjian).
As to claim 24, Couillard in view of Lezzi and further in view of Joshi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21.
Couillard does not teach the sensor of claim 21, wherein the first glass-based layer and the third glass-based layer are formed of the same glass composition such that CTEG1=CTEG3, wherein tG1=tG3 and both tG1 and tG3 are less than or equal to 150 μm.
Couillard and Joshi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Joshi teaches a window (100a, laminated glass structure 100a, para [0065], Fig. 2), wherein tG1=tG3 and both tG1 and tG3 are less than or equal to 150 μm (112, 144, the thickness 112 of the glass sheet 12 is 0.10 mm, and the thickness 144 of the buffer layer 44 is 0.1 mm, paras [0073] and [0077], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Couillard with the thicknesses of the first and third glass layers of Joshi, because doing so improves stress states compared to conventional laminated glass structures in the face of environmental conditions that lead to expansion of the substrate in these structures (para [0095]).
Couillard and Cherekdjian are related as glass laminate structures.
However, Cherekdjian teaches a window (10, ballistic resistant glazing structure 10, para [0025], Fig. 1), wherein the first glass-based layer and the third glass-based layer are formed of the same glass composition such that CTEG1=CTEG3 (12, the laminate structure 10 has a plurality of thin CS glass sheets 12 laminated together by PVB interlayers 14 between adjacent pairs of CS glass sheets, the first and third glass sheets are the same CS glass sheet 12, thus have the same coefficient of thermal expansion, para [0025], Fig. 1),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the window of Couillard with the first and third glass layer formed of the same material of Cherekdjian, because doing so optimizes mechanical properties such as fracture toughness and hardness (para [0023]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Lezzi et al., US 2019/0002330 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lezzi), and further in view Couillard et al., US 2017/0182739 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Couillard).
As to claim 26, Lezzi teaches a method (100, method for thermally strengthening automotive glass, para [0128], Figs. 16 and 17), comprising:
disposing a first polymer layer (1414, interlayer 1414 is a polymer material, para [0194], Fig. 31) between a first glass-based layer (1416, a second glass-based layer 1416, para [0194], Fig. 31) and a second glass-based layer (1412, a first glass-based layer 1412, para [0194], Fig. 31), wherein the first glass-based layer has a thickness that is less than or equal to 15% of a thickness of the second glass-based layer (1416, the second glass-based layer 1416 has a thickness in the range of 0.3 mm to 0.5 mm, which is 15% the thickness of the first glass-based layer 1412, para [0202], Fig. 31) and wherein the thickness of the second glass-based layer is greater than 2.0 mm (1412, the first glass-based layer 1412 has a thickness of 2.0 mm to 3.0 mm, para [0203], Fig. 31);
curing the first polymer layer in an environment at a curing temperature Tc to form a window (1414, para [0214] of Lezzi states that the methods within the disclosures WO2014/022663 and WO2015/054112 are incorporated by reference, thus the methods of strengthening or hardening the polymer layer are taught in para [0034] of WO2014/022663, specifically curing the polymer is taught in para [0028] of WO2015/054112, para [0214], Fig. 31);
after the curing, returning a temperature of the first glass-based layer and the second glass-based layer to a usage temperature that is greater than or equal to 0°C and less than or equal to 30°C (400b, the glass sheet is cooled to room temperature, testing takes place at room temperature 25°C, paras. [0083] and [0161], Fig. 22); and
attaching the window to an enclosure so as to enclose an interior of the enclosure (1212, 1214, 1216, the housing 1220 includes glass-based articles 1212, 1214, 1216, para [0189], Fig. 29), wherein a detection element is disposed in the enclosure (1210, 1218, 1220, “a device 1210 (e.g., handheld computer, tablet, portable computer, cellular phone, television, display board, etc.) includes one or more glass-based articles 1212, 1214, 1216… includes electronic components 1218 and a housing 1220,” para [0189], Fig. 29), and wherein:
Tc differs from the usage temperature by at least 20°C (the curing temperatures of polymer materials such as PVB, EVA and TPU are greater than room temperature (25°C) by at least 20°C, para [0194]) such that returning the temperature to the usage temperature results in the first glass-based layer having a compressive stress that is greater than or equal to 8 MPa and less than or equal to 40 MPa (automotive glass having a thickness of 0.5 mm or less have a compressive stress of at least 50 MPa, as shown in Fig. 15 this includes the range less than or equal to 40 MPa, para [0081], Figs. 14 and 15).
Lezzi does not teach the method wherein: a first coefficient of thermal expansion of the first glass-based layer differs from a second coefficient of thermal expansion of the second glass-based layer by at least 0.5 ppm/°C.
Lezzi and Couillard are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Couillard teaches a first polymer layer (113, the interlayer 113 is a polymer such as ethylene vinyl acetate, para [0031], Fig. 1) between a first glass-based layer (101, a first substrate 101 is a glass substrate, paras [0020]-[0021], Fig. 1) and a second glass-based layer (107, a second substrate 107 is a glass substrate, (paras [0020]-[0021], Fig. 1), wherein:
a first coefficient of thermal expansion of the first glass-based layer differs from a second coefficient of thermal expansion of the second glass-based layer by at least 0.5 ppm/°C (CTE1, CTE2, the difference between the first and second CTEs can range from 1x10-6/°C to 130x10-6/°C which is close to 0.5 ppm/°C, para [0030], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lezzi with the difference of the first and second coefficient of thermal expansion of Couillard for the purposes of providing enhanced structural rigidity (para [0005]).
Couillard teaches a value of 1x10-6/°C which is close to the claimed range of 0.5 ppm/°C.
Thus, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the difference of the first coefficient of thermal expansion and second coefficient of thermal expansion such that 1x10-6/°C is 0.5 ppm/°C since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Couillard to have the difference to be 0.5 ppm/°C for the purpose of providing enhanced structural rigidity (para [0005]).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Lezzi et al., US 2019/0002330 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Lezzi), in view Couillard et al., US 2017/0182739 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Couillard), and further in view of Joshi et al., (US 2021/0221100 A1 hereinafter referred to as Joshi).
As to claim 27, Lezzi in view of Couillard teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 26.
Lezzi does not teach the method of claim 26, further comprising, prior to the curing, disposing a second polymer layer between the first glass-based layer and a third glass-based layer, wherein the third glass-based layer has a thickness that is less than or equal to 10% of a thickness of the second glass-based layer.
Lezzi and Joshi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Joshi teaches a method, comprising:
disposing a first polymer layer (22, a first adhesive 22 is a thermally curable adhesive, is a polymer such as polyurethane polyvinylbutyrate, para [0074], Fig. 2) between a first glass-based layer (12, glass sheet 12, para [0065], Fig. 2) and a second glass-based layer (16, the substrate 16 is made of glass, paras [0065] and [0067], Fig. 2),
further comprising, prior to the curing, disposing a second polymer layer (24, a second adhesive 24 is a polymer such as polyurethane polyvinylbutyrate, para [0074], Fig. 2) between the first glass-based layer (12, glass sheet 12, para [0065], Fig. 2) and a third glass-based layer (44, a buffer layer 44 is made of glass, paras [0065] and [0080], Fig. 2), wherein the third glass-based layer has a thickness (144, the thickness 144 of the buffer layer 44 is 2.5 mm, para [0077], Fig. 2) that is less than or equal to 10% (144, 116, the thickness 144 (2.5 mm) of the buffer layer 44 is 5% the thickness 116 (50 mm) of the substrate 16, paras [0068] and [0077], Fig. 2) of a thickness of the second glass-based layer (116, the thickness 116 of the substrate 16 is 50 mm, para [0068], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lezzi with the second polymer layer and third glass-based layer of Joshi, because doing so improves stress states compared to conventional laminated glass structures in the face of environmental conditions that lead to expansion of the substrate in these structures (para [0095]).
As to claim 28, Lezzi in view of Couillard and further in view of Joshi teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27.
Lezzi does not teach the method of claim 26, wherein a third coefficient of thermal expansion of the third glass-based layer differs from the second coefficient of thermal expansion by at least 0.5 ppm/°C such that, after being returned to the usage temperature, the third glass-based layer comprises a second compressive stress.
Lezzi and Joshi are related as laminated glass sheets.
However, Joshi teaches a third coefficient of thermal expansion of the third glass-based layer (44, the buffer layer 44 has a CTE of 20 ppm/°C, para [0079], Fig. 2) differs from the second coefficient of thermal expansion (16, the second coefficient of thermal expansion of the substrate 16 of glass is provided in Table 1 as 3-9 ppm/°C, Table 1, Fig. 2) by at least 0.5 ppm/°C such that (the difference between the previous CTE values is greater than 0.5 ppm/°C), after being returned to the usage temperature, the third glass-based layer comprises a second compressive stress (44, the buffer layer 44 has a CTE of 10 ppm/°C at 20°C usable temperature, para [0079], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lezzi with the third coefficient of thermal expansion of Joshi, because doing so improves stress states compared to conventional laminated glass structures in the face of environmental conditions that lead to expansion of the substrate in these structures (para [0095]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fischer et al. (US 2017/0355176 A1) teaches a glass-polymer laminate having compressive stress.
Noda (US 2017/0326843 A1) teaches a glass resin laminate of varying thickness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/J.A.J./JENNIFER A JONES
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
8/28/2026
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights