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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 11,20, and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
As a threshold matter, respective dependencies of claims 20 and 21 should be corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for using the term transverse in a non-uniform manner. Although Applicant can serve as its own lexicographer, terms must still be used in a consistent manner. In claim 1, Applicant has already defined longitudinal (generally the extension direction of the first longitudinal and second longitudinal edges). When it comes to the recited overhang(s) on the lateral edges, this overhang(s) does not extend transversely from the respective lateral edges. Rather these overhangs extend in a direction more or less parallel to the extension direction of the first longitudinal and second longitudinal edges; in other words, longitudinally. As “oriented centrifugally with respect to the interior glass sheet and the interlayer” already conveys the extension direction, it is recommended that the term “transverse” be deleted. Alternatively, the recitation can be rephrased as periphery of the exterior glass sheet having a surface greater than that of each of the interior glass sheet and the interlayer, such that a periphery of the exterior glass sheet defines an overhang extending beyond the respective edge faces of the interior glass sheet and the interlayer. For prior art rejection, either of the suggested recitation is used.
A similar issue is present with recitation that the interlayer is not “laterally constant”, as lateral is already used in the context of a direction orthogonal to the longitudinal directions. It is suggested that this limitation be rephrased to recite an interlayer having variable thickness or alternatively one having a wedged cross-section shape. This interpretation is used for prior art rejections below.
As claims 2-9 and 13-19 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 1, claims 2-9 and 13-19 are also held to be rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for failing to include proper separation and delineation of claimed elements. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps in the body of the claim, the body of the claim should be separated from the preamble of the claim. Furthermore each element or step of the body of the claim should be clearly delineated (e.g. under a new heading/subheading). See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the positional limitations such as interior and exterior are limiting only in terms of differentiation two opposed elements. The elements being actually interior and exterior when installed in a motor vehicle are not considered to be required, as these are features concerned with intended use.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0299765 A1 (“Yajima”) in view of U.S. 20100314900 A1 (“Labrot”).
Considering claims 1, 3, and 13, Yajima discloses a laminated pane used for a vehicular windshield, the laminated pane having an outside glass plate 11 laminated to an inside glass plate 12 via an intermediate film 13, wherein the inside glass plate 12 and the intermediate film 13 have respective peripheral edges that are coplanar, and the outside glass plate 11 has a peripheral flange that extend beyond the inside glass plate 12 and the intermediate film 13. (Yajima ¶¶ 0017-0028 and Figs. 1 and 2, the latter reproduced infra). Yajima discloses that adhered to a periphery adjacent inner side of the outside glass plate is a seal member 20, wherein the seal member may be disposed continuously on all edges of the laminated pane. (Id. ¶¶ 0018 and 0026; and Fig. 1). Yajima is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (laminated glass panes).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yajima discloses that the seal member has a main body part 21 that is bonded to the periphery adjacent inner side of the outside glass plate and a lip part 23 that is located outside of the periphery edge of the outside glass plate 11 (and by extension, the periphery edge of the laminated pane). (Id. ¶¶ 0025-0027 and Fig. 2). As the Instant Application deems the seal bead to be a lip, the lip part 23 of Yajima reads on the claimed lateral bead. The main body part 21 reads on the claimed base.
Yajima differs from the claimed invention, as it does not teach an intermediate film having a wedged cross-section. However, such an interlayer is taught in Labrot, which teaches that such a wedge shaped intermediate film having progressively increasing thickness is beneficial when the laminated windshield is used with an HUD device. (Labrot ¶¶ 0027-0031 and Table 1). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have used an intermediate film having progressively increasing thickness for the interlayer 13 of Yajima, so that the resulting laminated pane is suitably used with an HUD device.
Yajima in view of Labrot renders obvious claims 1, 3, and 13.
Considering claims 4 and 5, Yajima discloses usage of double-sided tape to bond the main body part 21 to the outside glass. (Yajima ¶ 0028). Acrylic-based adhesives are also disclosed. (Id.). As such, double-sided tape with acrylic adhesive is obvious.
Considering claim 6, this is implied by the figures.
Considering claims 14 and 15, the seal member 20 is attached only to a periphery adjacent inner side of the outside glass plate.
Considering claim 17, although not expressly stated, this is implied by Fig. 2 and ¶ 0028 of Yajima.
Considering claims 7, 9, 18, and 19, Yajima discloses neither the amount of the peripheral flange nor exact amount of separation between inner glass plate and the seal (as proportional to thickness of interlayer is not specified). However, Yajima discloses this separation between inside glass plate and the seal member is maintained to prevent transferring of stress; furthermore, the amount of overhang provided in Yajima determines bonding strength between the outside glass plate and the seal member. Relative positioning of how much bonding surface to provide (effectively length of claimed flange) and how much gap to provide relative to peripheral edge of inner glass plate are thus governed by design factors such as prevention of transferring of stress while maintaining sufficient bonding between the seal member and outside glass plate. Silence of a reference on a quantitative limitation when the reference discloses the general characteristic is not deemed to support patentability unless there is evidence indicating such quantitative limitation is critical. “[W]here 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”; MPEP 2144.05 II.A. Limitations of these claims are thus deemed obvious in view of routine experimentation based on general guidelines taught or suggested by Yajima.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima and Labrot, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2019/0031005 A1 (“Schlater”).
Considering claim 8, though Yajima does not teach a composite seal having different hardness values, usage of sealing material with one rigid material and one softer/pliant material is known in the art of peripheral sealing. (Schlater ¶¶ 0057 and 0058). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to use a seal having composite hardness for the advantages taught in Schlater, such as additional dampening. (Id. ¶ 0058).
Claims 1, 2, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/245192 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication, U.S. 2022/0242201 A1, “Wessberg”) and in view of WO 2021/241592 A1 (referenced below using its English-language counterpart publication, U.S. 2023/0211588 A1 “Minami”).
Considering claims 1, 2, and 16, Wessberg discloses a laminated side window pane, the laminated window pane having a glass sheet 5 (mapping onto the claimed exterior glass sheet) laminated to glass sheet 3 (mapping onto the claimed interior glass sheet) via an interlayer 4, wherein the glass sheet 3 and the interlayer 4 have respective peripheral edges that are coplanar. (Wessberg ¶¶ 0054-0083 and Figs. 1-3). Wessberg is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (laminated glass panes).
In particular, Wessberg discloses that the glass sheet 5 has flanges that extend beyond glass sheet 3 and the interlayer 4 only at respective lateral edges of the laminated side pane. (Id. ¶¶ 0080-0083 and Fig. 2). The respective flanges of glass sheet 5 at lateral edges 23 and 24 of the laminated side window pane maps onto the claimed overhangs. The upper border 25 and lower border 26 respectively map onto the claimed first and second longitudinal edges. Wessberg further discloses that glass sheet 5 is placed within a sealing element 71, the sealing element 71 having respective portions located under a main surface of the glass sheet 5 (mapping onto the claimed base) and exterior of a peripheral surface of the glass sheet 5 (mapping onto the lateral bead).
Wessberg discloses all limitations in claims 1, 2, and 16, except that concerning an interlayer having non-uniform thickness. However usage of a wedged interlayer for laminated side glass of a vehicle is taught in Minami. (Minami ¶ 0264). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an interlayer having a wedge cross-section, as Minami is considered to have demonstrated that this configuration is known in the art for laminated glass. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights