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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The terms "low iron" and "ultra-clear" in claims 8 and 16 are relative term which renders the claims (as well as claim 9 due to its dependency from claim 8) indefinite. The terms "low iron" and "ultra-clear" are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term "low iron" renders the iron content of the glass indefinite; use of the term "ultra-clear" renders the clarity of the glass indefinite.
Claim 17 is rendered indefinite because it depends from a canceled claim.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of examination: (i) any glass that is not explicitly described as high in iron content is considered to be "low iron" glass, (ii) glass that is described as transparent is considered to be "ultra-clear" glass, and (iii) claim 17 is understood to depend from claim 14.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (WO 2020/025360).
Li is directed to a laminated glazing comprising inner and outer glass sheets on either side of a thermoplastic interlayer and at least one optical device provided on the inner face of the inner glass sheet (page 3, line 24-page 4, line 5). The interlayer has at least a first and second zone, wherein the value of infrared transmission in the second zone is higher than that of the first zone (page 4, lines 6-10). The first zone may be formed of polyvinyl butyral while the second zone is made of a ethylene vinyl acetate, cyclic olefin polymer, and polyurethane (page 5, lines 11-16). The second zone represents an area around the optical sensor to allowing the sensor to work properly while the first zone represents the main vision area of the windshield (page 5, line 28-page 6, line 5).
The recitation that the glazing comprises "at least optical device" is an implicit teaching that the glazing may contain 2 or more optical devices. Additionally, Li teaches three materials - ethylene vinyl acetate, cyclic olefin polymer, and polyurethane - that may be used for the zone of the interlayer having infrared transmission properties that allow the optical sensor to work optimally. That is, Li shows that ethylene vinyl acetate, cyclic olefin polymer, and polyurethane are: (a) suitable materials for the second zone of the interlayer and (b) functionally equivalent materials for the purposes of Li. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different materials for the second zones of the interlayer of a glazing laminate comprising more than one optical device, particularly since the courts have held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Claims 2-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8, 9, 16, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The inventions of claims 2-14, 16, and 17 are directed to multiple layer panels comprising a first rigid substrate, a second rigid substrate, and a polymer interlayer. The panel has sensor areas for a first sensor and a second sensor. The first sensor area has a light transmission of greater than 90% at about 905 nm. The second sensor area has a light transmission of great than about 16% to less than about 85% at about 850 nm. The light transmission of the rest of the interlayer is less than 90% at about 905 nm.
Li represents the closest prior art. However, Li does not teach or fairly suggest one second zone having a light transmission of greater than 90% at about 905 nm and another second zone having a light transmission of great than about 16% to less than about 85% at about 850 nm.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fisher (US 2010/0068532) is directed to a glazing panel comprising an interlayer containing an infrared absorbing agent dispersed in a nonuniform distribution (paragraph 0007). In one embodiment, the interlayer comprises a first region having little to no infrared absorbing agent surrounded by a second region containing sufficient infrared absorbing agent to reduce heat load (Figure 3 and paragraphs 0021 and 0029).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights