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 are objected to because Figure 4, has an additional floating "104" that is not pointing to anything. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 11B shows a different embodiment than Figure 11A but "52" listed as being an "embedded wire" is listed in both when the images are clearly depicting different components. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 1, line 16 "passive of active" is presumed to be "passive or active." Page 4 has bus bar being spelled two different ways as “bus bar” and “busbar” in line 17, 18, and 21. Label “18” is missing from the list of reference numerals on page 10. Page 11 labels “18” as a coating but it is not specific what kind of coating this may include, (i.e. the black paint/ obscurations “6” would be a coating). Label “54” is called “thin flat copper sheet (electrical conductor)”, “thin copper strip”, “conductor”, “connector conductor”, “flat conductor”, “thin flat conductor” on page 13 line 31, page 14 lines 3, 5, 7, and 9, page 15 lines 14, 18, 22 etc. Label “32” is described as the “wire” on page 16 line 19 instead of previously defined “point 1,” it is previously shown that “52” is the “embedded wire.” Label “52” is referred to as “harness connectors round” on page 17, line 2 while the “harness connector” is previously described as “30” and “52” is previously described as “embedded wire.” Page 17 line 32 says “hardness connector” and is presumed to be “harness connector.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are: “a protection means serving to protect” in claim 1 and “a protection means is a combination of a bridging means and a reinforcement element configured to work collaboratively” in claim 17.
Protection means is recognized to be made up of the either a bridging means or reinforcement element or a combination of the two, to allow for watertight electrical connection. The bridging means further has the structure of a conductive coating, an additional embedded wire, and/or a conductor passing through one interlayer (see e.g. pg. 8, line 10-21 of instant application). A reinforcement element is recognized to mean a single or multiple components such as gas and/or additional electrical connector components such as molded thermoplastic or thermoform plastic as (see e.g. page 16 line 1-4 of instant application).
Because these claim limitation(s) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the conductor" in the third and fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Where claim 12 depends on claim 1 but references language from claims 9 and 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the pane" in the second line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pane" in the second and third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the pane" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For claims 13 and 15-16 it is unclear which panes are being used of the two panes (outer pane and inner pane) described in claim 1. If it is both then please replace “the pane” with “the panes.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. Mannheim Astete et al (US11697271-B2) in view of Verrat-Debailleul et al (US9630551-B2). Both of these patents show embodiments for a laminant glazing for application in vehicles, particularly in panoramic roofs. They also both had a focus on mechanical protection and low costs.
Regarding claim 1, Mannheim Astete B2 teaches of a laminated glazing (see e.g. switchable laminated glazing in claim 1), having two panes, an outer pane and an inner pane, each pane having an exterior surface oriented towards the outside of the laminated glazing, an interior surface oriented towards the inside of the laminated glazing (see e.g. exterior glass layer and interior glass layer both having an inner and outer surface in claim 1),
and an edge surface; an edge sealing means disposed in between said outer and inner panes and applied around the periphery of the glazing (see e.g. edge seal and spacers around the perimeter of the liquid crystal layer in claims 1 and 2);
a curable liquid optically clear adhesive added into the laminate in at least a portion of the void between the two panes and serving to permanently join at least a portion of the interior surfaces of said two panes (see e.g. cured liquid optically clear adhesive to seal liquid crystal layer in place in claim 1);
an active insert (see e.g. liquid crystal layer in claim 1).;
Mannheim Astete B2 does not specifically teach an electrical connection point for the active insert, an active insert, a wiring connector with an electrical connection point, or a protection means to protect a single and a composite pane.
Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches of an electrical connection point for the active insert (see e.g. has a light source mounted to glazing in claim 1 where there are electrical contacts 10:24-29);
a wiring connector having at least one electrical connection point (see e.g. where the LED/light from claim 1, has holes for passing electrical connections in 1:66-67 and connecting passes between the light and the connection point in 5:28-37);
and a protection means serving to protect the wiring connector (see e.g. an encapsulation structure surrounding the edge face of the glazing, protecting the light and by extension, electronic connections from any fluids in claim 1 and claim 16 and 5:28-35 of Verrat-Debailleul).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminant glazing of Mannheim Astete by the electrical active insert, connections, and protection taught by Verrat-Debailleul because it allows for more variations of active layers, combined with more protection for the laminant on the edges. It would have more capabilities with electrical active inserts and corresponding connection points and would be more resistant to water damage and/or physical damage like moving out of place.
Regarding claim 4, Mannheim Astete B2 teaches the composite pane comprises a glass layer, a solid polymer interlayer and a sacrificial layer (see e.g. claim 1 where there is an exterior glass layer, at least one plastic bonding layer, and an intermediate glass layer).
Regarding claim 5, Mannheim Astete B2 teaches the sacrificial layer is selected from the group consisting of a glass layer, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polycarbonate (PC), and a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (see e.g. intermediate glass layer from claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Mannheim Astete B2 teaches the active insert comprises: a switchable film selected from suspended particle device (SPD), polymer dispensed liquid crystal (PDLC), PNLC, liquid crystal (LC), electrochromic, electrophoretic, electrowetting, photochromic, and thermochromic; an optoelectronic devices such as photovoltaic cells, photodiodes, LED, and light sensors; a capacitive devices selected from touch sensors, heating, and antennas; flexible light guiding devices; displays; HUD or holographic films; and piezoelectric components for haptic feedback (see e.g. liquid crystal layer is switchable claim 2 and 2:18-19).
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 1-6, and 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) in view of Mannheim Astete et al (WO2020003252-A1, with all citations to US20210138767-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches the of a laminated glazing (see e.g. “light-emitting diode module” for a vehicle with a “laminated glazing” in abstract and paragraph 108), having two panes (see e.g. “first glass/transparent sheet” 1 and “second glass sheet” 1’ in Figure 1A and paragraphs 9 and 232), an outer pane and an inner pane, each pane having an exterior surface oriented towards the outside of the laminated glazing, an interior surface oriented towards the inside of the laminated glazing (see e.g. “first main face” 11, “second main face” 12 for the “first glass/transparent sheet” 1 in Figure 1A and paragraph 232, where the “second glass sheet” 1’ optionally has an external main face in paragraph 108);
an active insert having at least one electrical connection point (see e.g. “light-emitting diodes” which may be “semiconductor chips” within the “emitting chips” 2 w in paragraphs 182-184, and 249 and Figure 1A);
PNG
media_image1.png
444
780
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A: Labeled Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) Published 2011
a wiring connector having at least one electrical connection point (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 and 75-77);
PNG
media_image2.png
363
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1B: Labeled Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) Published 2011
and a protection means serving to protect the wiring connector (see e.g. describes multiple avenues for protection means such as a “polymer encapsulation” 7, “external adhesives” 4, embedding “chips” 2, “protective layers” including flange (31 and 32) in paragraphs 30, 85-90, 116, 256, and 263).
Verrat-Debailleul et al does not teach about an edge surface between the outer and inner panes or the use of a curable liquid optically clear adhesive. The inner and outer sides of the second glass face are also not labeled.
Mannheim Astete et al teaches an edge surface; an edge sealing means disposed in between said outer and inner panes and applied around the periphery of the glazing (see e.g. “perimeter seal” 22 to keep a space between the “interior layer” 203 and the “intermediate layer” 202 while allowing the “curable liquid optically clear adhesive (LOCA)” 12 to stay within the structure to in Figure 6 and paragraph 30).
PNG
media_image3.png
447
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 6: Labeled Mannheim Astete et al (WO2020003252-A1) Published 2020.
Mannheim Astete et al teaches a curable liquid optically clear adhesive added into the laminate in at least a portion of the void between the two panes and serving to permanently join at least a portion of the interior surfaces of said two panes (see e.g. “cured liquid optically clear adhesive” to embed liquid crystal layer in place in paragraph 23 and 25); Additionally, Mannheim labels every layer of the glass faces (see e.g. “outer surface of 201” 101, “inner surface of 201” 102, “inner surface of 203” 105, and “outer surface of 203” 106 in Figure 3 and 6 and in paragraph 23).
PNG
media_image4.png
386
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Labeled Mannheim Astete et al (WO2020003252-A1) Published 2020
Verrat-Debailleul et al and Mannheim Astete et al are analogous in the art as both are improving upon laminates in automobiles that are required to be durable, clear, and have electronics such as lights incorporated within the layers. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer/adhesive of the glazing taught in Verrat-Debailleul with at least a portion of LOCA as an adhesive with additional edge seals to keep the LOCA within the embodiment as taught in Mannheim, because it would limit or eliminate the requirement for the active insert to be a certain thickness less than the surrounding glass panes. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the embodiment shown in Figure 3 with the embodiment shown in Figure 6 of Mannheim as they are both of glazing laminants with the main difference being that Figure 6, has perimeter seals, that make using LOCA cleaner and less messy and that Figure 6 has an optional performance layer, that gives additional function but is not always necessary.
Regarding claim 2, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches panes are selected from the group consisting of a single pane and a composite pane (see e.g. “the first sheet” 1 can be made from glass or plastic, specifically mineral or float glass or an organic sheet such as PC, PMMA, PU, ionomer resin and the “the second sheet” 1’ may be made from mineral or float glass or organic sheets such as PC in paragraphs 96-104). Verrat-Debailleul does not teach of a composite pane that contains both glass, an interlayer, and a polymer layer, the specific composite type pane in the instant application or that the composite pane could optionally be the first glazing glass sheet.
However, Mannheim Astete teaches that each pane may be selected from a group of either single panes or composite panes (see e.g. “the interior glass layer” 203 is shown as part of the “second stack” 20 showing it is a singular glass layer, while the “exterior glass layer” 201 and “intermediate glass layer” 202 shows a double glass pane or composite in the “first stack” 10 of where 201, 202, and 203 are made of either soda-lime glass and borosilicate glass, or for 202 and 203 additionally can be made from aluminosilicate glass as in paragraphs 11-12, and 31 and in Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of the panes and the placement taught in Verrat-Debailleul with the composite structure and varied placement taught in Mannheim, because it would allow for more protection and support. Additionally, the additional interlayer could be made of functional materials that enhance capabilities beyond the bonding of glass, such as UV absorption as evidenced by Mannheim in paragraph 22.
Regarding claim 3, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches the single pane is a glass layer (see e.g. Figure 1A, where “first glass/transparent sheet” 1 and “second glass sheet” 1’ are shown to be a singular glass pane and not layered, where they are made of clear glass such as soda-lime standard composition glass in paragraphs 110 and 112).
Regarding claim 4, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches the composite pane comprises an organic glass or polymer film with an additional polymer layer (see e.g. “the first sheet” 1 can be made from glass or plastic, specifically mineral or float glass or an organic sheet such as PC, PMMA, PU, ionomer resin and the “the second sheet” 1’ may be made from mineral or float glass or organic sheets such as PC in paragraphs 96-104 and glazing may have layer called “protective layer” over “first or second faces” made out of PU, PE, or silicone in paragraph 85). Verrat-Debailleul et al does not teach both the glass layer or a sacrificial layer with this composite pane.
Mannheim Astete teaches the composite pane comprises a glass layer, a solid polymer interlayer and a sacrificial layer (see e.g. there is an “exterior glass layer” 201, “at least one plastic bonding layer” 4, and an “intermediate glass layer” 202 as seen in Figure 3 and paragraphs 11 and 21).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of the composite pane taught in Verrat-Debailleul with the composite structure taught in Mannheim, because it would allow for more protection and support as well as make the overall material more reinforced. The sacrificial layer, also serves to make manufacturing easier. Additionally, the additional interlayer could be made of functional materials that enhance capabilities beyond the bonding of glass, such as UV absorption as evidenced by Mannheim in paragraph 22. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminant glazing of Verrat-Debailleul to include a protective layer as it can act either as an additional function layer or an additional adhesive, making the laminant even more durable and functional (see e.g. radiation protection, scratch protection or softened to become adhesive in paragraphs 85-89 and 95).
Regarding claim 5, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that PMMA and PET are materials that can be used to make a composite pane (see e.g. the “the first and second sheet” 1 and 1’ may be made from mineral or float glass or organic sheets such as PC, PMMA, PU, or resin in paragraphs 96-104 and the glazings may have a layer called “protective layer” over “first or second faces” 11 or 12 made out of PU, PE, PET, or silicone in paragraphs 85 and 95). However, Verrat-Debailleul et al does not teach specifically of a sacrificial layer.
However, Mannheim Astete teaches the sacrificial layer is selected from the group consisting of a glass layer, a polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a polycarbonate (PC), and a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (see e.g. “intermediate glass layer” 202, is made of either soda-lime glass, borosilicate glass, or aluminosilicate glass as in paragraph 31).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the materials of the composite pane taught in Verrat-Debailleul with the sacrificial materials and structure taught in Mannheim, because it would allow for more protection and support as well as make the overall material more reinforced. The sacrificial layer, also serves to make manufacturing easier and more material options would further lessen costs.
Regarding claim 6, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches of the protection means is a bridging means that provides electrical connection from the wiring connector connection point to the active insert electrical connection point (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the embedded “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 75-77, 90, and 130), Verrat-Debailleul further teaches that the bridging means does not pass through the edge sealing (see e.g. in Figure 1A, where the embedded “emitting chip” 2 is lower than the “interlayer” 50 evidenced by the “protective layer” embedding the chip by extending onto the edge face between the side part of the “bracket” 3 and the “edge face” 10 in paragraph 90).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Verrat-Debailleul to have a connection medium so that it could be more versatile in the kind of active insert used and the kind of power source used to light the LEDS.
Regarding claim 12, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the protection means is a reinforcement element (see e.g. “polymer encapsulation” 7 and/or a “sealing means” 80 in Figures 1A and 8 and paragraphs 15, 35, and 256), Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the reinforcement element is bonded to at least one edge surface of said two panes enclosing said at least one edge surface and the conductor in electrical contact with the active insert (see e.g. Figure 1A shows the “polymer encapsulation” 7 on one edge of the glazing, where it is surrounding the “emitting chip” 2 and by extension the “light emitting diodes” in paragraph 47 and can be attached via the application of an “external adhesive” 4 and/or an “internal sealing adhesive” 6 as seen in Figures 1A and 8 and paragraphs 42-47, 263), and prevents movement of the conductor, and provides a watertight seal (see e.g. where the “polymer encapsulation” 7 acts as a long term seal from water and chemicals in paragraph 256, and further the “sealing means” 80 further protects against water and moisture in paragraph 309 and Figure 8).
PNG
media_image5.png
591
734
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 8: Labeled Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) Published 2011
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Figure 1 embodiment with the Figure 8 embodiment because they are performing the same function, using different materials. The internal sealing adhesive also makes for a stronger and more resilient construction, which would be better for protecting inserts from water and movement.
Regarding claim 13, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the reinforcement element comprises one or more components bonded to the pane (see e.g. where the “external adhesive” 4 is placed on the “light emitting diodes” to secure them to surface facing the glazing or one of the main faces of the glazing in Figure 1A and paragraphs 30, 192, 260, and 263 and/or in another embodiment “internal sealing adhesive” 6 surrounds components and ensures they are bonded to the glazing in paragraph 302 and in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 14, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the reinforcement element is molded (see e.g. the “polymer encapsulation” 7 can be made of polyurethane (PU) that is cured in a mold in paragraph 37), to at least one edge surface of said two panes (see e.g. Figures 1A and 8 shows the “polymer encapsulation” 7 on one edge of the glazing, where it is surrounding the “emitting chip” 2 and by extension the “light emitting diodes” in paragraph 47).
and a protection means serving to protect the wiring connector (see e.g. describes multiple avenues for protection means such as a “polymer encapsulation” 7, “external adhesives” 4, embedding “chips” 2, “protective layers” including flange (31 and 32) of the “bracket” 3 in paragraphs 30, 85-90, 116, 256, and 263).
Regarding claim 17, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches the protection means is a combination of a bridging means point (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the embedded “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 75-77, 90, and 130), and a reinforcement element (see e.g. “polymer encapsulation” 7 and/or a “sealing means” 80 in Figures 1A and 8 and paragraphs 15, 35, and 256) configured to work collaboratively.
Mannheim Astete et al does not teach an active insert with electrical needs for protection.
Regarding claim 18, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches of an active insert such as photodiodes, LED, and light sensors; capacitive devices selected from touch sensors, heating, and antennas; flexible light guiding devices; displays; HUD or holographic films; and piezoelectric components for haptic (see e.g. “light emitting diode” and “emitting chip” 2 in paragraphs 182-184 and 249, and Figure 1A). Verrat-Debailleul does not explicitly disclose the use of films as active inserts.
Mannheim Astete teaches the active insert comprises a switchable film selected from suspended particle device (SPD), polymer dispensed liquid crystal (PDLC), PNLC, liquid crystal (LC), electrochromic, electrophoretic, electrowetting, photochromic, and thermochromic; an optoelectronic device such as photovoltaic cells, (see e.g. the “liquid crystal layer” 16 is switchable that can change their light transmittance in response to an electrical field and others such as electrochromic, photochromic, thermochromic, and electric field sensitive films in paragraph 6 and 10). Further, Mannheim discusses the use of additional functional films (see e.g. “performance layer” 18 sandwiched between the “exterior glass layer” 201 and “intermediate glass layer” 202, where it could be a UV reflective film, IR reflective film, or a low emissivity coating in paragraphs 28-29 and Figure 6).
However, it should be noted that the claim does not positively require the way of making the switchable film but rather an intended use as the claim is only directed to being an active insert and not made from a specific process. The prior art meets the structural and chemical limitations set forth and there is nothing on record to evidence that the prior art product could not function in the desired capacity or that there is some additional implied structure associated with the term. The burden is shifted upon the Applicant to evidence the contrary.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the type of active insert taught in Verrat-Debailleul with the film active inserts taught in Mannheim, because it would allow for more potential uses for laminant glazings and would be obvious once the LOCA from Mannheim was implemented and film thickness was less of a consideration.
Regarding claim 19, Verrat-Debailleul et al does not teach LOCA, however Mannheim et al teaches the liquid optically clear adhesive and that it is cured by exposure to UV, temperature, chemical reaction or other curing methods but further does not teach how it is added to the surface, whether by means of injection, dispensing, spraying, jet- spraying, spin coating or die casting.
However, all the processes listed are common in the art when adding polymers, coatings, and adhesives to a surface. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 20, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that each pane is a single layer made of glass (see e.g. Figure 1A, where “first glass/transparent sheet” 1 and “second glass sheet” 1’ are shown to be a singular glass pane and not layered, where they are made of clear glass such as soda-lime standard composition glass in paragraphs 110 and 112).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) in view of Mannheim Astete et al (WO2020003252-A1, with all citations to US 2021/0138767-A1) as applied to claim 1-12 above, in further view of Alonzo et al (WO2020112435-A1) and as evidenced by Hidnert (1954), and Engineering Toolbox.
Regarding claim 15, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the reinforcement element comprises one or more components bonded to the pane (see e.g. where the “external adhesive” 4 is placed on the “light emitting diodes” to secure them to surface facing the glazing or one of the main faces of the glazing in Figure 1A and paragraphs 30, 192, 260, and 263 and/or in another embodiment “internal sealing adhesive” 6 surrounds components and ensures they are bonded to the glazing in paragraph 302 and in Figure 8). Where the adhesive materials would be made of UV-curable adhesive, acrylic, PU, thermoplastic resin, Polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), silicone, PET, or PE (see e.g. paragraphs 42-46, 48, and 95) and the sheets would be made of mineral/float glass such as soda-lime glass like Planilux glass or Venus glass from Saint-Gobain Glass or organic sheets such as PC, PMMA, PU, Ionomer resin, or Polyolefins (see e.g. paragraphs 96-97, 106, and 110-114).
Mannheim et al further teaches of the type of glass used in glazing panes (see e.g. “the interior glass layer” 203, “exterior glass layer” 201, and “intermediate glass layer” 202 are made of either soda-lime glass and borosilicate glass, or for 202 and 203 additionally can be made from aluminosilicate glass as in paragraphs 11-12, and 31 and in Figure 3), but does not teach a brand that can be used for easy comparison and does not teach of adhesives securing a reinforcement element around the glazing laminant.
Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the specific coefficient of thermal expansion of the materials used. In particular, the adhesive’s coefficient of thermal expansion that is no more than twice that of the pane. It is reasonable to conclude that the thermal expansion coefficient is inherent to Verrat-Debailleul et al’s materials. Support for said conclusion is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Alonzo et al teaches of an adhesive with a coefficient of thermal expansion that is no more than twice that of the pane, (see e.g. “frame” (second CTE) and “glass sheet” (first CTE) have a ratio of coefficients of thermal expansion, where the
2
n
d
C
T
E
1
s
t
C
T
E
is less than 2 and if it is more than 2, additional “adhesive” must be added with a high elongation to accommodate the large different in CTE values in paragraph 25 and 55).
Additionally, as evidenced by Alonzo, the idea of the coefficients of thermal expansion being similar for attaching materials is a known fact within the art for a reliable and strong constructions (see e.g. “frame” materials with similar coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) as the “glass sheet” requires adhesives with lower elongation, while frames with greater differences in CTE as the “glass sheet” requires more structural adhesives with a high elongation in paragraph 25).
Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al and Alonzo et al are analogous in the art because they are both using the same materials to create similar constructions for use in automobiles. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminant glazing of Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al with the coefficient of thermal expansion ratios taught in Alonzo et al because having adhesives that bond well with glass surfaces, ensures the glass surface, whether a windshield or part of the car interior is safe and won’t fall apart, damaging the interior of the glass laminant.
Regarding claim 16, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the reinforcement element is molded (see e.g. the “polymer encapsulation” 7 can be made of polyurethane (PU) that is cured in a mold in paragraph 37), to at least one edge surface of said two panes (see e.g. Figures 1A and 8 shows the “polymer encapsulation” 7 on one edge of the glazing, where it is surrounding the “emitting chip” 2 and by extension the “light emitting diodes” in paragraph 47).
Mannheim et al further teaches of the type of glass used in glazing panes (see e.g. “the interior glass layer” 203, “exterior glass layer” 201, and “intermediate glass layer” 202 are made of either soda-lime glass and borosilicate glass, or for 202 and 203 additionally can be made from aluminosilicate glass as in paragraphs 11-12, and 31 and in Figure 3), but does not teach a brand that can be used for easy comparison and does not teach of a reinforcement piece surrounding the glazing.
Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al teaches the claimed invention above but fails to teach the specific coefficient of thermal expansion of the materials used. In particular, the polymer’s coefficient of thermal expansion that is no more than twice that of the pane. It is reasonable to conclude that the thermal expansion coefficient is inherent to Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al’s materials. Support for said conclusion is found in the use of like materials which would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Alonzo et al teaches of a polymer (see e.g. where one type of “frame” materials were PC/ABS in paragraph 89) with a coefficient of thermal expansion that is no more than twice that of the pane, (see e.g. “frame” (second CTE) and “glass sheet” (first CTE) have a ratio of coefficients of thermal expansion, where the
2
n
d
C
T
E
1
s
t
C
T
E
is less than 2 and if it is more than 2, additional “adhesive” must be added with a high elongation to accommodate the large different in CTE values in paragraph 25 and 55).
Additionally, as evidenced by Alonzo, the idea of the coefficients of thermal expansion being similar for attaching materials is a known fact within the art for a reliable and strong constructions (see e.g. “frame” materials with similar coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) as the “glass sheet” requires adhesives with lower elongation, while frames with greater differences in CTE as the “glass sheet” requires more structural adhesives with a high elongation in paragraph 25).
Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al and Alonzo et al are analogous in the art because they are both using the same materials to create similar constructions for use in automobiles. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the laminant glazing of Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al with the coefficient of thermal expansion ratios taught in Alonzo et al because having polymers that mold well with glass surfaces, ensures the glass surface, whether a windshield or part of the car interior is safe and won’t fall apart, damaging the interior of the glass laminant.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) in view of Mannheim Astete et al (WO2020003252-A1, with all citations to US20210138767-A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view Labrot et al (US20190022984-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that there is a bridging means and that conductive materials may be used in such components such as the bracket (see e.g. “bracket” 3 that supports the diodes can be made from an electrically conductive material in paragraphs 12 and 131 and Figure 1A). Further, Verrat-Debailleul teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the conductive coated area; and wherein the active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the conductive coated area (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 and 75-77). Verrat-Debailleul et al fails to teaches of a conductive coating/layer applied to an interior surface of the glazing and a definitive outboard connection point.
Mannheim et al teaches of the active insert being directly within the laminant layers (see e.g. “liquid crystal layer” 16 within “LOCA” 12 in Figures 3 and 6) However, Mannheim et al also does not teach of a conductive coating as its functional insert does not rely on electricity.
Labrot et al teaches that the bridging means comprises a conductive coating (see e.g. “electroconducting layer” in paragraph 161), applied to at least a portion of at least one pane interior surface such that the coated area extends from the active insert connection point to the wiring connector connection point (see e.g. where an optional “electroconducting layer” may be added to the “second opposite main face” 12, “third main face” 13, or the “fourth opposite main face” 14, covering up to 90% and being closer to the face than the “AMOLED screen” in paragraphs 161 and 163-168); Labrot does not teach the connector being bonded to an outboard portion of the conductive coating or the active insert connection point being bonded to a portion of the conductive coated area. Further Labrot et al teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the conductive coated area (see e.g. “exterior part” 45 of the “flexible connecting part” 40, connects to an outside “connector” 8 in Figure 9 and paragraphs 12-14); and wherein the active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the conductive coated area (see e.g. the “flexible connecting part” 40 connects to the “electrical connection element” 4, which supplies power to the “AMOLED screen” 3 in Figure 9 and in paragraph 230).
PNG
media_image6.png
627
1103
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 9: Labeled Labrot et al (US20190022984-A1) Published 2019
Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al is analogous with Labrot et al as both are creating laminant glazings that allow for active inserts inside, with varying electrical requirements. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the conductive material in Verrat-Debailleul et al with the conductive coating taught in Labrot et al because it is taking the conductive material from Verrat-Debailleul et al and distributing a conductive coating evenly to distribute the conductivity. It would be ideal for different active inserts that rely on electricity more than the embodiments in Verrat-Debailleul. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement of the connection point of the outboard connection point from being somewhere else in the vehicle as taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the outboard connector taught in Labrot because it would ensure there would be less pull on the wire/connection part, allowing for the product to have a longer life. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Labrot embodiment by the optional electroconducting layer as it would increase efficiency of the any conductors or electric reliant active layers, allowing the signal to move faster.
Regarding claim 8, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the bridging means further comprising a solid polymer interlayer bonded to one of the panes interior surfaces (see e.g. lamination “interlayer”50 has an “interlayer part” 51 protruding between the edge face of the “first sheet” 1 and the “bracket” 3’, which bonds to the edge face by softening the PVB and embeds the “emitting chips” 2 in paragraph 281 and Figure 2C); and wherein the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the wire, and said active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the wire (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 and 75-77). Verrat-Debailleul et al does not disclose the proper placement of the bridging means on one of the panes’ interior surfaces and a definitive outboard connection point.
PNG
media_image7.png
585
784
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 2C: Labeled Verrat-Debailleul et al (US20110267833-A1) Published 2011
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Verrat-Debailleul et al glazing laminant to have the interlayer instead of additional adhesives. This embodiment would save costs, as less materials are being used and would be more secure.
Mannheim Astete et al teaches of two separate LOCAs being used between the interior surfaces (see e.g. where a “second optically clear adhesive” 12 can be used to keep the “liquid crystal layer” 16 in place, while both being surrounded by the “first optically clear adhesive” 12 in paragraph 24 and in Figure 4). Mannheim Astete et al further teaches the active insert being used completely inside the liquid optically clear adhesive on the interior of the two panes (see e.g. “first stack” 10 and the “second stack” 20 are separated by a “liquid optically clear adhesive” 12 which sandwiches the “liquid crystal layer” 16 in Figures 3 and 6 and in paragraphs 11-12)
PNG
media_image8.png
438
845
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Labeled Mannheim Astete et al (WO2020003252-A1) Published 2020
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al with additional LOCA joining the two laminant surfaces together as taught in Mannheim Astete et al because it would give more reinforcement to the laminant, making it stronger and more securely hold the components like wires. It would also limit or eliminate the requirement for the active insert to be a certain thickness less than the surrounding interior/exterior glass panes. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer securing the active insert taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the active insert placement taught in Mannheim because it would increase the amount of protection given to the active insert and the LOCA would limit or eliminate the requirement for the active insert to be a certain thickness less than the surrounding glass panes allowing them to be within the interlayer. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Figure 3 or 6 with a second LOCA layer as it is further securing the active insert to the first stack. It is another embodiment of the Mannheim glazing laminant with a slight change to make it more stable and add reinforcement.
Labrot et al teaches that the bridging means comprises at least one wire embedded within the solid polymer interlayer such that the at least one wire extends from the active insert connection point to the wiring connector connection point (see e.g. where the connection of the active insert, “the electrical connection” 4 which attaches to the “AMOLDED Screen” 3 and the “flexible connecting part” 40 goes through a portion of the “interlayer” 2 in Figure 9 and in paragraphs 229-230); Further, Labrot et al teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the wire (see e.g. “exterior part” 45 of the “flexible connecting part” 40, connects to an outside “connector” 8 in Figure 9 and paragraphs 12-14); and wherein the active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the wire (see e.g. the “flexible connecting part” 40 connects to the “electrical connection element” 4, which supplies power to the “AMOLED screen” 3 in Figure 9 and in paragraph 230).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the active insert/connector containing interlayer taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al by the use of a wire within the interlayer that connects to the active insert taught in Labrot et al, because it would further protect the active insert if it required wires. The combination of Verrat-Debailleul and Labrot ensures that the connector connection point is protected via the extended interlayer of Verrat-Debailleul.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement of the connection point of the outboard connection point from being somewhere else in the vehicle as taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the outboard connector taught in Labrot because it would ensure there would be less pull on the wire/connection part, allowing for the product to have a longer life.
Regarding claim 9, Verrat-Debailleul teaches that the bridging means further comprising a solid polymer interlayer bonded to one of the panes (see e.g. lamination “interlayer” 50 has an “interlayer part” 51 protruding between the edge face of the “first sheet” 1 and the “bracket” 3’, which bonds to the edge face by softening the PVB and embeds the “emitting chips” 2 in paragraph 281 and Figure 2C); Verrat-Debailleul et al further teaches of a semiconductor (see e.g. diodes may be simple semiconductor chips in paragraph 182) which as above, may be within the interlayer. and wherein the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the thin flat conductor, and said active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the thin flat conductor (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 and 75-77). Verrat-Debailleul et al does not disclose the proper placement of the conductor on one of the panes’ interior surfaces, the shape of the conductor being thin and flat, or a definitive outboard connection point.
Mannheim Astete et al teaches of two separate LOCAs being used between the interior surfaces (see e.g. where a “second optically clear adhesive” 12 can be used to keep the “liquid crystal layer” 16 in place, while both being surrounded by the “first optically clear adhesive” 12 in paragraph 24 and in Figure 4). Mannheim Astete et al further teaches the active insert being used completely inside the liquid optically clear adhesive on the interior of the two panes (see e.g. “first stack” 10 and the “second stack” 20 are separated by a “liquid optically clear adhesive” 12 which sandwiches the “liquid crystal layer” 16 in Figures 3 and 6 and in paragraphs 11-12)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al with additional LOCA joining the two laminant surfaces together as taught in Mannheim Astete et al because it would give more reinforcement to the laminant, making it stronger and more securely hold the components like wires. It would also limit or eliminate the requirement for the active insert to be a certain thickness less than the surrounding interior/exterior glass panes. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer securing the active insert taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the active insert placement taught in Mannheim because it would increase the amount of protection given to the active insert and the LOCA would limit or eliminate the requirement for the active insert to be a certain thickness less than the surrounding glass panes allowing them to be within the interlayer.
Labrot et al teaches the bridging means comprises at least one thin flat conductor bonded to the solid polymer interlayer (see e.g. “electroconducting wires” can optionally be used instead of the “electroconducting layer” going through the “second opposite main face” 12 and the “third main face” 13, which are preferably, transparent or invisible by means of being very thin and having a thickness of 0.024 mm-0.1 mm in paragraphs 165-166 and Figure 9); wherein said at least one thin flat conductor passes through an opening in the solid interlayer from the insert connection point side to the pane side of the solid interlayer such that the at least one thin flat conductor extends from the active insert connection point to the wiring connector connection point (see e.g. where the “electroconducting wires” are covering one or more technical edges of the “AMOLED screen” 3 and the “flexible connecting part” 40 in paragraph 163 and Figure 9). Further, Labrot et al teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the thin flat conductor (see e.g. “exterior part” 45 of the “flexible connecting part” 40, connects to an outside “connector” 8 in Figure 9 and paragraphs 12-14); and wherein the active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the thin flat conductor (see e.g. the “flexible connecting part” 40 connects to the “electrical connection element” 4, which supplies power to the “AMOLED screen” 3 in Figure 9 and in paragraph 230).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the conductor taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the thin, flat shape of the conductor taught in Labrot et al because it would allow the conductor to more easily fit between the interior surfaces of the laminant and would make it further invisible to the naked eye. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement of the connection point of the outboard connection point from being somewhere else in the vehicle as taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the outboard connector taught in Labrot because it would ensure there would be less pull on the wire/connection part, allowing for the product to have a longer life. Further it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the previous embodiment of electroconductive layer with the electroconductive wires as they may be able to thread through the layers more easily than the layer could have, and it would allow for more specialized active inserts.
Regarding claim 10, Verrat-Debailleul teaches that at least one pane can be a composite pane and the composite pane comprises an organic glass or polymer film with an additional polymer layer (see e.g. “the first sheet” 1 can be made from glass or plastic, specifically mineral or float glass or an organic sheet such as PC, PMMA, PU, ionomer resin and the “the second sheet” 1’ may be made from mineral or float glass or organic sheets such as PC in paragraphs 96-104 and glazing may have layer called “protective layer” over “first or second faces” made out of PU, PE, or silicone in paragraph 85). Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the wire, and said active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the wire (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 and 75-77). Additionally, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the protection means is a reinforcement element (see e.g. “polymer encapsulation” 7 and/or a “sealing means” 80 in Figures 1A and 8 and paragraphs 15, 35, and 256). That would ensure an interruption to the sacrificial layer, stayed protected from movement and outside contaminants.
Verrat-Debailleul et al does not teach both the glass layer or a sacrificial layer with this composite pane. Verrat-Debailleul et al does not disclose the proper placement of the bridging means on one of the panes’ interior surfaces and a definitive outboard connection point.
Mannheim Astete teaches the composite pane comprises a glass layer, a solid polymer interlayer and a sacrificial layer (see e.g. there is an “exterior glass layer” 201, “at least one plastic bonding layer” 4, and an “intermediate glass layer” 202 as seen in Figure 3 and paragraphs 11 and 21). Mannheim Astete et al teaches that the bridging means comprises at least one component within the interlayer between the glass layer and sacrificial layer (see e.g. where a “performance layer” 18 can go through the “interlayer” 4 and is surrounded by the “exterior glass layer” 201 and the “intermediate glass layer” 202 in paragraphs 28-29 and in Figure 6). Mannheim Astete et al further teaches the active insert being used completely between the interior of the two panes (see e.g. “performance layer” 18 is surrounded by the “exterior glass layer” 201 and the “intermediate glass layer” 202 in Figures 3, 4, and 6 and in paragraphs 11-12 and 28-29). Mannheim et al does not teach of the use of a wire or it going through a hole in sacrificial layer.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of the composite pane taught in Verrat-Debailleul with the composite structure taught in Mannheim, because it would allow for more protection and support as well as make the overall material more reinforced. The sacrificial layer, also serves to make manufacturing easier. Additionally, the additional interlayer could be made of functional materials that enhance capabilities beyond the bonding of glass, such as UV absorption as evidenced by Mannheim in paragraph 22. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer securing the active insert taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the active insert placement taught in Mannheim because it would increase the amount of protection given to the active insert from within the interlayer between the sacrificial layer and glass layer.
Labrot et al teaches that the bridging means comprises at least one wire embedded within the solid polymer interlayer such that the at least one wire extends from the active insert connection point to the wiring connector connection point (see e.g. where the connection of the active insert, “the electrical connection” 4 which attaches to the “AMOLDED Screen” 3 and the “flexible connecting part” 40 goes through the embodiment to connect to the “connector” 8 in Figure 9 and in paragraphs 229-230); Further, Labrot et al teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the wire (see e.g. “exterior part” 45 of the “flexible connecting part” 40, connects to an outside “connector” 8 in Figure 9 and paragraphs 12-14); and wherein the active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the wire (see e.g. the “flexible connecting part” 40 connects to the “electrical connection element” 4, which supplies power to the “AMOLED screen” 3 in Figure 9 and in paragraph 230).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite pane interlayer with an active insert with a reinforcement element taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al by the use of a wire within the interlayer that connects to the active insert and the outside connection point taught in Labrot et al, because it would further protect the active insert if it required wires and would allow for the wires to reach different layers. The combination of Verrat-Debailleul and Labrot ensures that the connector connection point is protected via the sacrificial interlayer and reinforcement of Verrat-Debailleul in view of Mannheim et al.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement of the connection point of the outboard connection point from being somewhere else in the vehicle as taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the outboard connector taught in Labrot because it would ensure there would be less pull on the wire/connection part, allowing for the product to have a longer life.
Regarding claim 11, Verrat-Debailleul teaches Verrat-Debailleul teaches that at least one pane can be a composite pane and the composite pane comprises an organic glass or polymer film with an additional polymer layer (see e.g. “the first sheet” 1 can be made from glass or plastic, specifically mineral or float glass or an organic sheet such as PC, PMMA, PU, ionomer resin and the “the second sheet” 1’ may be made from mineral or float glass or organic sheets such as PC in paragraphs 96-104 and glazing may have layer called “protective layer” over “first or second faces” made out of PU, PE, or silicone in paragraph 85). Verrat-Debailleul et al further teaches of a semiconductor (see e.g. diodes may be simple semiconductor chips in paragraph 182) which as above, may be within the interlayer. and wherein the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the thin flat conductor, and said active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the thin flat conductor (see e.g. “connecting medium” 9’ attaches to the “emitting chip” 2 as necessary then connects an outside portion such as the vehicle in Figures 1A-1B and in Paragraphs 14 and 75-77). Additionally, Verrat-Debailleul et al teaches that the protection means is a reinforcement element (see e.g. “polymer encapsulation” 7 and/or a “sealing means” 80 in Figures 1A and 8 and paragraphs 15, 35, and 256). That would ensure an interruption to the sacrificial layer, stayed protected from movement and outside contaminants.
Verrat-Debailleul et al does not teach both the glass layer or a sacrificial layer with this composite pane. Verrat-Debailleul et al does not disclose a definitive outboard connection point. Verrat-Debailleul et al does not disclose the proper placement of the conductor on one of the panes’ interior surfaces or the shape of the conductor being thin and flat.
Mannheim Astete teaches the composite pane comprises a glass layer, a solid polymer interlayer and a sacrificial layer (see e.g. there is an “exterior glass layer” 201, “at least one plastic bonding layer” 4, and an “intermediate glass layer” 202 as seen in Figure 3 and paragraphs 11 and 21). Mannheim Astete et al teaches that the bridging means comprises at least one component within the interlayer between the glass layer and sacrificial layer (see e.g. where a “performance layer” 18 can go through the “interlayer” 4 and is surrounded by the “exterior glass layer” 201 and the “intermediate glass layer” 202 in paragraphs 28-29 and in Figure 6). Mannheim Astete et al further teaches the active insert being used completely between the interior of the two panes (see e.g. “performance layer” 18 is surrounded by the “exterior glass layer” 201 and the “intermediate glass layer” 202 in Figures 3, 4, and 6 and in paragraphs 11-12 and 28-29). Mannheim et al does not teach of the use of a wire or it going through a hole in sacrificial layer.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of the composite pane taught in Verrat-Debailleul with the composite structure taught in Mannheim, because it would allow for more protection and support as well as make the overall material more reinforced. The sacrificial layer, also serves to make manufacturing easier. Additionally, the additional interlayer could be made of functional materials that enhance capabilities beyond the bonding of glass, such as UV absorption as evidenced by Mannheim in paragraph 22. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the interlayer securing the active insert taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the active insert placement taught in Mannheim because it would increase the amount of protection given to the active insert from within the interlayer between the sacrificial layer and glass layer.
Labrot et al teaches that the bridging means comprises the bridging means comprises at least one thin flat conductor bonded to the solid polymer interlayer (see e.g. “electroconducting wires” can optionally be used instead of the “electroconducting layer” going through the “second opposite main face” 12 and the “third main face” 13, which are preferably, transparent or invisible by means of being very thin and having a thickness of 0.024 mm-0.1 mm in paragraphs 165-166 and Figure 9); wherein said at least one thin flat conductor passes through an opening in the solid interlayer from the insert connection point side to the pane side of the solid interlayer such that the at least one thin flat conductor extends from the active insert connection point to the wiring connector connection point (see e.g. where the “electroconducting wires” are covering one or more technical edges of the “AMOLED screen” 3 and the “flexible connecting part” 40 in paragraph 163 and Figure 9). Further, Labrot et al teaches that the wiring connector is electrically bonded to an outboard portion of the thin flat conductor (see e.g. “exterior part” 45 of the “flexible connecting part” 40, connects to an outside “connector” 8 in Figure 9 and paragraphs 12-14); and wherein the active insert connection point is electrically bonded to an inboard portion of the thin flat conductor (see e.g. the “flexible connecting part” 40 connects to the “electrical connection element” 4, which supplies power to the “AMOLED screen” 3 in Figure 9 and in paragraph 230).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composite pane interlayer with an active insert with a reinforcement element taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al in view of Mannheim et al by the use of a wire within the interlayer that connects to the active insert and the outside connection point taught in Labrot et al, because it would further protect the active insert if it required thin flat conductors and would allow for the thin flat conductors to reach different layers. The combination of Verrat-Debailleul and Labrot ensures that the connector connection point is protected via the sacrificial interlayer and reinforcement of Verrat-Debailleul in view of Mannheim et al.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the conductor taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the thin, flat shape of the conductor taught in Labrot et al because it would allow the conductor to more easily fit between the interior surfaces of the laminant and would make it further invisible to the naked eye. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the placement of the connection point of the outboard connection point from being somewhere else in the vehicle as taught in Verrat-Debailleul et al by the outboard connector taught in Labrot because it would ensure there would be less pull on the wire/connection part, allowing for the product to have a longer life.
Additional References
Verrat et al (WO2010049638-A1) and Berard et al (US20180086028-A1) are both further disclose encapsulations and different protective elements, Valentin et al (US20090284821-A1) was shown relevant in PCT, Shumaker Jr et al (US5902,536-A) shows alternative embodiments for the wire going through the interlayer and staying away from the edge seals, and Mannheim Astete et al (US20220305760-A1) and Mannheim Astete (WO2021116984-A1) read on protection and reinforcement further and were applicants own work, but did not have the best date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARA N WHIPKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/T.N.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights