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 Objections
Claims 32, 37, 42 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “steal frame” instead of “steel frame.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14-17, 31-34, 45, 46 and 49-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0306848 Anderson et al.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a laminated vehicle windshield (paragraph 0006), comprising:
an outer windshield panel 10 (figure 26B) comprising heat-strengthened glass (paragraph 0006);
an inner windshield panel 10 (figure 26B) comprising heat-strengthened glass (paragraph 0006); and
a polymeric material layer 30 positioned between the outer windshield panel and the inner windshield panel (paragraph 0009),
wherein the heat-strengthened glass of the outer windshield panel and inner windshield panel has a surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI (paragraph 0056), and
wherein the outer windshield panel and inner windshield panel having the surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI has a thickness of 3 mm (paragraph 0153).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson teaches that the laminated vehicle windshield is bent (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches that the polymeric material layer comprises polyvinyl butyral (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claims 14-16, Anderson teaches that the windshield has a thickness of 6.4 mm (paragraph 0153, two 3 mm glass sheets and one 400 micron interlayer). Please note that as the specification does not define “substantially” as used in claims 15 and 16, the examiner is taking the position that “substantially” allows for variation of ± 10% such that 6.4 mm reads on claims 15 and 16.
Regarding claim 17, Anderson teaches that each of the outer windshield panel and the inner windshield panel has a thickness of 3 mm (paragraph 0153).
Regarding claim 31, Anderson teaches that the outer windshield panel and inner windshield panel each comprise heat-strengthened glass having a surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claims 32-34, Anderson does not explicitly teach the claimed property. However, as Anderson satisfies all of the previous limitations, Anderson’s materials and structure are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and structure. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Anderson’s laminate would also not permit a steel sphere to pass through at the claimed conditions (claim 32), all black lines were continuous and had the claimed distortions at the claimed conditions (claim 33), and no light or dark patches exist at the claimed conditions (claim 34). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Regarding claim 45, Anderson teaches all of the limitations with respect to claims 1, 7 and 32 above.
Regarding claim 46, Anderson teaches that the heat-strengthened glass of the outer windshield panel and inner windshield panel has a surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claims 49 and 50, Anderson teaches that each of the outer windshield panel and the inner windshield panel has a thickness of 3 mm (paragraph 0153).
Regarding claim 51, Anderson teaches a laminated vehicle windshield (paragraph 0006), comprising:
an outer windshield panel 10 (figure 26B) comprising heat-strengthened glass (paragraph 0006);
an inner windshield panel 10 (figure 26B); and
a polymeric material layer 30 positioned between the outer windshield panel and the inner windshield panel (paragraph 0009),
wherein the heat-strengthened glass of the outer windshield panel has a surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI (paragraph 0056), and
wherein the outer windshield panel having the surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI has a thickness of 3 mm (paragraph 0153).
Regarding claim 52, Anderson teaches that the inner windshield panel comprises annealed glass (paragraph 0054, edge annealing).
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 6, 30, 35-44, 47 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0306848 Anderson et al.
Regarding claims 6, 30, 35, 40, 47 and 48, Anderson teaches that the outer windshield panel and inner windshield panel each comprise heat-strengthened glass having a surface compression of 3500 PSI to 7500 PSI (paragraph 0056).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 3500 to 7500 PSI reads on the claimed range of greater than or equal to 3500 psi and less than or equal to 5500 psi (claims 6, 35 and 47) or 5000 psi (claims 30, 40 and 48).
Regarding claim, 36, and 41, Anderson teaches that each of the outer windshield panel and the inner windshield panel has a thickness of 3 mm (paragraph 0153).
Regarding claims 37-39, and 42-44, Anderson does not explicitly teach the claimed property. However, as Anderson satisfies all of the previous limitations, Anderson’s materials and structure are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and structure. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Anderson’s laminate would also not permit a steel sphere to pass through at the claimed conditions (claims 37 and 42), all black lines were continuous and had the claimed distortions at the claimed conditions (claims 38 and 43), and no light or dark patches exist at the claimed conditions (claims 39 and 44). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0306848 Anderson et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0244135 Luo.
Regarding claims 9-11, Anderson teaches the windshield but does not teach the presence of a hole. One reading Anderson as a whole would appreciate that Anderson is not concerned with additional laminate features or functions, only the construction of the laminate and interlayer. Luo teaches a laminated glazing for use as a windshield, where the laminated windshield has multiple holes 102,103 (figure 1) configured to receive a windshield wiper (paragraph 0028, hole 103), and configured to receive at least one fastener capable of mounting the windshield to a vehicle (figure 1, hole 103).
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the hole of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 12, Luo further teaches that the hole 102 is configured to enable ventilation of the windshield (paragraph 0030). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the ventilation holes of Luo in the product of Anderson because this allows for a general ventilation effect for the entire cabin (paragraph 0030), particularly in an application where air conditioning is not present (paragraph 0027, ATVs).
Regarding claim 13, Luo teaches that the windshield is configured for use in a utility terrain vehicle (paragraph 0027). The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the windshield of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Claims 24-26 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0306848 Anderson et al as applied to claims 1 and 51 above, and further in view of US 2004/0200821 Voeltzel.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Anderson teaches the laminate, but does not teach silk screening. Voeltzel teaches a heat-strengthened (paragraph 0048) glass laminate for use as a windshield (abstract), including a silk screen portion that is positioned on an interior facing side of the outer laminate panel (paragraph 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the silk-screened black band of Voeltzel in the product of Anderson because this provides UV protection for adhesive holding the windshield to the automotive body (paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 26, Voeltzel does not explicitly teach silk-screening on the interior facing side of the inner laminate panel. However, this location is an obvious variant of the interior face of the outer laminate panel (paragraph 0088) because glass-ceramic paste-interlayer-glass is only a rearrangement of glass-interlayer-ceramic paste-glass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the order of layers in the laminate because this is obvious to try when there are a finite number of layer combinations as identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2141, Part III (KSR E)).
Regarding claim 52, Anderson teaches the windshield but does not teach an annealed layer. Voeltzel teaches a heat-strengthened (paragraph 0048) glass laminate for use as a windshield (abstract), where the glass sheets may be annealed or heat strengthened (paragraph 0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the annealed sheet of Voeltzel in the product of Anderson because annealed sheets are typically used in the manufacture of windshields (paragraph 0048).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Amin have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached on 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781