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 § 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 1-6, 8-21 is 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 rejected because the last two lines regarding the “can be configured” renders the scope unclear. Specifically, the language makes it unclear whether the transparency has to have a configuration or does it only have to have the capability of being configured (i.e. “can be”).
Claims 2-21 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1 above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 and a2) as being anticipated by USPN 8,322,775.
Regarding claim 1 and 6: ‘775 teaches the following transparency
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1121
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation in the preamble regarding the transparency being “for applying to a vehicle transparency comprising a central viewing region of the vehicle transparency and a peripheral region at least partially around the central viewing region” is intended use and it has been held by the courts that as long as the article is capable of such use, the claim will be met.
In the instant case, given that the transparency above has the same structure claimed, one skilled in the art would conclude the same capability of use (MPEP 2112).
Additionally, although not required to be explicitly taught in view of being intended use to meet the claim but simply to note for the record, it is shown above that the transparency shell of ‘775 is capable of being applied to an aircraft windshield (vehicle transparency) and note that it is generally understood in the art that windshields implicitly include a central viewing region (i.e. a vehicle operator must be able see out of a windshield) surrounded by a periphery region (i.e. perimeter of windshield).
Regarding the limitation that the bonding layer can be configured to be adhered or laminated to the central viewing region of the vehicle transparency, note that this relates to the intended use in the preamble discussed above and, in such instances, the bonding layer only needs have a configuration capable of the claimed use of being adhered or laminated as claimed. In the instant case, as the bonding layer meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would conclude it to have a configuration with the same capabilities of use (MPEP 2112). Additionally, noting for the record that it is shown above that the bonding layer has a configuration where it can be adhered across an aircraft windshield (vehicle transparency).
Regarding claim 3: Given that ‘775’s transparency meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude it to have the same features of not inducing optical distortion (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the limitation that the lack of optical distortion is through the central viewing region of a vehicle transparency is related to the intended use in the preamble discussed above and, in such instances, the transparency shell only needs to be capable of not inducing optical distortion through a central viewing region of a vehicle transparency. In the instant case, as the transparency shell in ‘775 meets that claimed, again, one skilled in the art would conclude it to have the same capabilities of not inducing optical distortion through a central region when applied to a vehicle transparency as claimed (MPEP 2112).
Even further, given that ‘775 is clearly teaching that optical distortion degrades aircraft windscreens and suggests the desire to have no optical distortion (see for instance Col. 1, lines 26-30, Col. 4, line 27), one skilled in the art would reasonably expect ‘775’s transparency to not induce optical distortion.
Regarding claim 4: Regarding the limitation that the vehicle transparency is an aircraft windshield and/or canopy is related to the intended use in the preamble discussed above and, in such instances, the transparency only needs to be capable of use as claimed and more specifically, using it on a vehicle transparency that is an aircraft windshield and/or canopy.
In the instant case, given that ‘775’s transparency has the same structure claimed, one skilled in the art would conclude the same capability of use (MPEP 2112). However, as shown above, ‘775’s transparency is capable of being applied to an aircraft windshield.
Regarding claim 5, 12 and 14: ‘775’s transparency includes the following additional layer 14b corresponding to a basecoat as claimed and the following 14c layer corresponding to a protective layer as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
630
1121
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: The inorganic active ply 24 can comprise a patterned conductive grid (see Col. 7, lines 55-58).
Regarding claims 15 and 16: As shown above, there is a layer 16b over the transparency line and under the base coat corresponding to a first tie coat layer and a layer 16 c over the inorganic active ply and under the protective layer corresponding to a second tie coat layer.
Regarding claim 17: The transparency liner can have a thickness of 2-8mils (Col. 4, lines 52-64).
Regarding claim 18: Regarding the limitation that the vehicle transparency comprises a damaged portion in the central viewing region and the transparency shell can be configured to be adhered or laminated to the damaged portion of the central viewing region, note that this relates to the intended use in the preamble discussed above and, in such instances, the transparency shell only needs have a configuration capable of the claimed use of being adhered or laminated to a damaged portion of a central viewing region of a vehicle transparency as claimed. In the instant case, as the transparency shell in ‘755 meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would conclude it to have a configuration capable of the same use of being adhered or laminated to a damaged portion of a central viewing region of a vehicle transparency as claimed (MPEP 2112).
Regarding claim 19: Given that ‘775’s transparency shell meets that claimed, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude it to have the same features of not inducing and/or reducing optical distortion (MPEP 2112).
Regarding the limitation that the lack of or reduction of optical distortion is through a damaged portion of the central viewing region of a vehicle transparency is related to the intended use in the preamble discussed above and in such instances, the transparency shell only needs to be capable of not inducing and/or reducing optical distortion through a damaged portion of a central viewing region of a vehicle transparency as claimed. In the instant case, as the transparency shell in ‘755 meets that claimed, again, one skilled in the art would conclude it to have the same capabilities of not inducing and/or reducing optical distortion when adhered/laminated to a damaged portion of a central region of a vehicle transparency as claimed (MPEP 2112).
Even further, given that ‘775 is clearly teaching that optical distortion degrades aircraft windscreens and suggests the desire to have no optical distortion (see for instance Col. 1, lines 26-30, Col. 4, line 27), one skilled in the art would reasonably expect ‘775’s transparency to not be inducing optical distortion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1 or a2) as anticipated by USPN 8,322,775, anticipated by USPN 8,322,775 as evidenced by USPN 5,405,468 or, in the further alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 8,322,775 in view of USPN 5,405,468.
Regarding claim 20: As shown in the Figures above, the transparency shell of ‘775 is covering an aircraft windshield (vehicle transparency) and note that as previously mentioned, it is generally understood in the art that windshields implicitly include at least a central viewing region (i.e. a vehicle operator must be able see out of a windshield) surrounded by a periphery region (i.e. perimeter of windshield).
Alternatively, additionally note that as ‘468 who similarly teaches aircraft windshields suggests that a central viewing region being surrounded by a periphery is a typical configuration for aircraft windshields (see Fig.1 and Col. 2, lines 59-60), one skilled in the art would conclude such configuration to be in ‘755 as evidenced by ‘468, or at the very least, such a configuration would have been rendered obvious therein in view of ‘468.
Regarding claim 21: While ‘775 may not provide specifics regarding their aircraft windshield structure comprising first and second sheets joined together as claimed, given that ‘468 who similarly teaches aircraft windshields explicitly states that aircraft windshields typically comprise a laminated structure consisting of layers of glass, acrylic or polycarbonate plastics, or combinations thereof bonded together by interlayers (see Col. 1, lines 17-21), one skilled in the art would conclude such a laminated structure to be implicit within ‘755 as evidenced by ‘468, or at the very least, render such a structure obvious in view of ‘468.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 8,322,775 as applied to claim 1 or alternatively, USPN 8,322,775 in further view of USPub20210163116)
Regarding claim 2: While ‘775 may not explicitly mention their transparency having a curvature, note that the courts have held that changes in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV. B). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to choose any shape (i.e. any curvature) as desired depending on desired application (i.e. application to a curved surface, etc.).
Alternatively, note that ‘755 is teaching their transparency shell being on an aircraft windshield and note that ‘775’s Figure above is clearly suggestive that the transparency shell has a shape corresponding to the shape of the outer surface of a vehicle transparency. Given that ‘116 clearly suggests the outer surface of aircraft windshields being curved (see Figures and abstract), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to make the transparency shell having a curved shape corresponding to the curvature shape of the outer surface of curved aircraft windshields.
Regarding the limitation that the curvature corresponds to a curvature of an outer surface of the central viewing region of the vehicle transparency is related to the intended use in the preamble and in such instances, the transparency shell only needs to have a curvature capable of corresponding to a curvature of an outer surface of a central viewing region of a vehicle transparency as claimed. In the instant case, as the transparency shell in ‘755 meets that claimed and one skilled in the art would have found any shape obvious as desired or alternatively, specifically having a curved shape, again, one skilled in the art would conclude it to have the same capabilities when used as claimed (MPEP 2112).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 8,322,775 as applied to claim 1 in view of USPub20140093738.
Regarding claims 8-10: While ‘775 does not mention their inorganic active ply 24 comprising a transparent conductive layer (i.e. ITO, etc.) meeting the requirements of claims 8-9, note that ‘775 does not appear to exclude such limitations and instead, only generally teach a transparency stack for aircraft windshields wherein their inorganic active ply is a conductive layer for dissipating static charges.
As ‘738, who similarly teaches a transparency stack for aircraft windshields including a conductive layer for dissipating static charges (see 0026, 0066, 0071, 0093), not only suggests conductive stacks such as TiOx/Au/TiOx being functionally equivalent to that of ITO as a conductive layer for such purpose and application (see 0071) but that a stack of TiOx/Au/TiOx may be particularly desirable as it provides more flexibility while providing acceptable anti-reflection properties while also offering corrosion resistance and durability (see 0093-0100), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘775 to include their conductive layer being that of TiOx/Au/TiOx to not only dissipate static charges but to also provide flexibility while providing acceptable anti-reflection properties while also offering corrosion resistance and durability.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 8,322,775 as applied to claim 12 in view of USPN 6,737,105.
Regarding claim 13: ‘775 does not mention a rain repellant and/or hydrophobic layer over the polyurethane layer 14c (protective layer) as claimed, however, ‘775 does not exclude the addition of such a layer but instead, is only generally teaching a transparency stack for aircraft windshields.
As ‘105, who similarly teaches transparency stacks for aircraft windows (see abstract, Col. 2, lines 35-36), suggest a hydrophobic outermost layer being desirable in order to form an outer moisture-resistant surface (abstract, Col. 3), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to modify ‘775 to include a hydrophobic outermost layer according to ‘105 in order to form an outer moisture-resistant surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights