DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Do (WO-2019166210-A1, see Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Do discloses on Fig. 8, a composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] for a projection assembly, at least comprising: a first pane (outer disk 1)[Par 139], a second pane (inner disk 2) [Par 139], a thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3a, 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181], wherein the first pane (outer disk 1)[Par 139] is joined to a second pane (inner disk 2) [Par 139] via the thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3a, 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181] to form a composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139], and wherein the first pane has a first surface (top of disk 1) facing away from the thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3a, 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181] and a second surface (bottom of disk 1) facing the thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3a, 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181], and the second pane (inner disk 2) [Par 139] has a first surface (top of disk 2) facing the thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3a, 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181] and a second surface (bottom of disk 2) facing away from the thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3a, 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181], and a mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] with electrically switchable optical properties (functional element 6 has electrically controllable properties or in other words is switchable)[Par 154], wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is arranged in front of an opaque masking strip (opaque cover print 7) [Par 73 and 140] in a through-vision direction through the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139].
Re Claim 2, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is arranged on the first pane (reflection element is on outer disk 1)[Par 139].
Re claim 3, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the mirror structure (infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is arranged between the first pane (outer disk 1)[Par 139] and the thermoplastic intermediate layer (thermoplastic intermediate layer 3e-3f)[Par 140 and 175-181].
Re Claim 6, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] and an opaque masking strip (opaque cover print 7) [Par 73 and 140] are separated by the thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 3: thermoplastic intermediate layer 3e-3f is between lower opaque print 7 and elements 4 and 6)[Par 140 and 175-181].
Re Claim 7, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 3, wherein a protective layer (functional element may include a protective layer) [Par 61] protecting the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is provided.
Re Claim 8, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is contiguously flat (Fig 3. Shows that both functional element 6 and element 4 are flat).
Re Claim 9, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses, wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] has alterable reflection (infrared radiation reflection element 4, can include conductive and dielectric layers to reduce reflection and functional element 6 can have be optically switched which would inherently changed its reflectivity ) [Par 29 and Par 57 and 66].
Re Claim 10, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is switchable from a transparent state (functional element 6 with aligned particles to increase transmission) [Par 66] to a semitransparent state or a reflecting state (functional element 6 with randomly aligned particles causing strong scattering) [Par 66].
Re claim 11, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the mirror structure (functional element 6 and infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154] is implemented as a mirror film (infrared reflection coating can be implanted on a carrier film) [Par 17-18] .
Re claim 12, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the opaque masking strip (opaque cover print 7) [Par 73 and 140] is implemented as a coating or as an inserted opaque element (opaque enamel cover is printed, thus it would serve as an inserted opaque enamel coating) [Par 108].
Re Claim 13, Do discloses, wherein, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1, and Do further discloses, wherein the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] is provided as a windshield, roof panel, rear window, and/or side window of a vehicle (“The composite glass according to the invention can, for example, be the roof glass, the side window or the windshield of a vehicle or other vehicle glazing”) [Par 94].
Re Claim 15, Do discloses, a vehicle comprising a composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1 (composite disk 100 I used in an automotive window) [Par 04-07].
Re Claim 18, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 12, and Do further discloses on Fig. 8, wherein the inserted opaque element is a film (opaque enamel 7 is printed on the composite pane, and thus it must also be a type of film) [Par 108].
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.
Claim(s) 4, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do in view of Schulz (WO-2022073894-A1, See Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 4, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1.
But Do does not explicitly disclose, wherein the mirror structure is arranged in an edge region of the composite pane.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Schulz teaches, on Fig. 3 that it is desirable in composite panes to include wherein, wherein the mirror structure (reflective layer 9) is arranged in an edge region of the composite pane (Fig. 3 shows: reflective layer 9 is at the edge of window 1) [Par 76].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Do with Schulz in order to generate a circumferential image, as taught by Schulz [Par 76].
Re Claim 14, Do discloses, a projection assembly, comprising: a composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1.
But Do does not explicitly disclose, an image display device associated with the composite pane and having an image display directed at the composite pane, wherein the image display device is directed at the composite pane and irradiates it with light and wherein at least a region of the composite pane that at least partially comprises the mirror structure is irradiated by the image display device.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Schulz teaches, on Fig. 3, that it is desirable in composite panes, to include, an image display device (see Fig. 3) associated with the composite pane (vehicle window 1) and having an image display (image display 8) [Par 80] directed at the composite pane (Reflected light 10), wherein the image display device is directed at the composite pane and irradiates it with light (reflected light 10 and 10’) [Par 80] and wherein at least a region of the composite pane (window 1) that at least partially comprises the mirror structure (reflective layer 9) is irradiated by the image display device (See Fig. 3 where light 10 irradiates reflective layer 9)[Par 76].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Do with Schulz in order to provide, a circumferential image, as taught by Schulz [Par 76-77].
Re Claim 19, Do in view of Schulz discloses, the projection assembly according to claim 14, and Schulz further teaches on Fig. 3, wherein the light is a p-polarized light (“The light here preferably includes s-polarized and p-polarized light in the visible wavelength range.”) [Par 24].
Claim(s) 5. 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Do.
Re Claim 5, Do discloses, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 1.
But Do does not explicitly disclose, wherein a distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane is from 0.1 cm to 30 cm.
However, Do does teach wherein the width of the mirror structure (infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154], would be optimize (infrared radiation element 4 fits into the recess in thermoplastic layer 3a which, is designed to match that of the recess in layer 3e, labelled “A”, and “…in Figure 8, the dimensions (length and width) of the functional element 6 correspond to the dimensions of the infrared radiation reflecting element 4. However, it is also possible that in a composite disc 100 according to the invention the dimensions of the functional element 6 differ from those of the infrared radiation reflecting element 4”)[Par 154]. Thus Do teaches that the orthogonal size of the mirror structure (width of reflection layer 4) is controlled, and optimized. The orthogonal size of reflection layer 4 would by extension also dictate the, distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane (outer disk 1). Thus Do teaches the distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane, as a known variable to be optimized and controlled so, “the wrinkling of the infrared radiation reflecting element is reduced, since the infrared radiation reflecting element does not extend into the edge area of the composite pane” [Par 22].Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Do such that, a distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane is from 0.1 cm to 30 cm, in order to reduce the wrinkling of the reflection element [Par 22].
Re Claim 16, Do obviates, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 5.
But Do does not explicitly disclose, wherein a distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane is from 1 cm to 15 cm.
However, Do does teach wherein the width of the mirror structure (infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154], would be optimize (infrared radiation element 4 fits into the recess in thermoplastic layer 3a which, is designed to match that of the recess in layer 3e, labelled “A”, and “…in Figure 8, the dimensions (length and width) of the functional element 6 correspond to the dimensions of the infrared radiation reflecting element 4. However, it is also possible that in a composite disc 100 according to the invention the dimensions of the functional element 6 differ from those of the infrared radiation reflecting element 4”)[Par 154]. Thus Do teaches that the orthogonal size of the mirror structure (width of reflection layer 4) is controlled, and optimized. The orthogonal size of reflection layer 4 would by extension also dictate the, distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane (outer disk 1). Thus Do teaches the distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane, as a known variable to be optimized and controlled so, “the wrinkling of the infrared radiation reflecting element is reduced, since the infrared radiation reflecting element does not extend into the edge area of the composite pane” [Par 22].Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Do such that, a distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane is from 1 cm to 15 cm, in order to reduce the wrinkling of the reflection element [Par 22].
Re Claim 17, Do obviates, the composite pane (composite disk 100) [Par 139] according to claim 16.
But Do does not explicitly disclose, wherein a distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane is from 5 cm to 10 cm.
However, Do does teach wherein the width of the mirror structure (infrared radiation reflection element 4) [Par 149 and 154], would be optimize (infrared radiation element 4 fits into the recess in thermoplastic layer 3a which, is designed to match that of the recess in layer 3e, labelled “A”, and “…in Figure 8, the dimensions (length and width) of the functional element 6 correspond to the dimensions of the infrared radiation reflecting element 4. However, it is also possible that in a composite disc 100 according to the invention the dimensions of the functional element 6 differ from those of the infrared radiation reflecting element 4”)[Par 154]. Thus Do teaches that the orthogonal size of the mirror structure (width of reflection layer 4) is controlled, and optimized. The orthogonal size of reflection layer 4 would by extension also dictate the, distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane (outer disk 1). Thus Do teaches the distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane, as a known variable to be optimized and controlled so, “the wrinkling of the infrared radiation reflecting element is reduced, since the infrared radiation reflecting element does not extend into the edge area of the composite pane” [Par 22].Note that the Court has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation; see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Do such that, a distance of the mirror structure from an edge of the first pane is from 5 cm to 10 cm, in order to reduce the wrinkling of the reflection element [Par 22].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tonar (US 20160252770 A1) also teaches a variable reflectance mirror for windows.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights