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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, “the first thermoplastic intermediate layer” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1).
Regarding claim 1, Droste et al. disclose a laminated (refer to para 0025 and 0061) pane (1, fig. 1C), comprising
an outer pane (2, para 0085) having an outer-side surface (I) and an interior-side surface (II),
a thermoplastic intermediate layer (3; refer to para 0086),
an inner pane (1) having an outer-side surface (III) and an interior-side surface (IV;),
at least one masking layer (32; refer to para 0098),
an adhesive layer (21; refer to para 0090),
a metal foil (5; refer to para 0044 and 0091) having an outer-side surface (surface in contact with 9) and an interior-side surface (opposite surface of 5) on which a reflective surface (as broadly claimed, the surface layer of 5 can be considered “a reflective surface. This interpretation is consisted with applicant’s fig. 2) for reflecting light is arranged (the surface of the metallic foil will reflect light. Examiner notes that no vehicle structure is currently claimed),
wherein the thermoplastic intermediate layer (3) is arranged between the outer pane (2) and the inner pane (1), the at least one masking layer (32) is arranged between the outer pane (2) and the inner pane (1) in a region of the laminated pane (as shown in fig. 1C), the adhesive layer (21) is arranged between the inner pane (1) and the metal foil (5), and wherein the metal foil (5) is arranged in a region of the laminated pane (as shown in fig. 1C) which, when viewed perpendicularly through the laminated pane, lies completely within the region in which the at least one masking layer (32) is arranged (as shown in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 2, Droste et al. disclose that the metal foil (base plate 5) having a thickness of less than 200 micrometer (para 0043: 3 to 20 micrometer is less than 200 micrometer; also refer to para 0091)
Regarding claim 7, Droste et al. disclose wherein at least the reflective surface is provided with a protective layer (as broadly claimed, the surface pf 16 covering a portion of 5 provides some degree of protection).
Regarding claim 10, Droste et al. disclose wherein the at least one masking layer (32) is formed as an opaque masking print (para 0098: “the blockout print 32 is impermeable to visible light”) arranged on the interior-side surface (II) of the outer pane (2) and/or the outer-side surface (III) of the inner pane (2; as shown in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 11, Droste et al. disclose wherein the masking layer (32) is designed as an opaquely colored region (para 0098: “the blockout print 32 is impermeable to visible light”) of the first thermoplastic intermediate layer (3, as shown in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 12, Droste et al. disclose wherein the adhesive layer (21) is a thermoplastic polymer layer (refer to para 0086).
Regarding claim 14, Droste et al. disclose a method for producing a laminated pane according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above), comprising
a) producing a laminate from an outer pane (2, para 0085) having an outer-side surface (I) and an interior-side surface (II), a thermoplastic intermediate layer (3; refer to para 0086) and an inner pane (1) having an outer surface (III) and an interior-side surface (IV), wherein the thermoplastic intermediate layer (3) is arranged between the outer pane (1) and the inner pane (2) and at least one masking layer (32; refer to para 0098) is arranged in a region between the outer pane (2, para 0085) and the inner pane (1);
b) providing a metal foil (5; refer to para 0044 and 0091) having an outer-side surface (surface in contact with 9) and an interior-side surface(opposite surface of 5) on which a reflective surface (as broadly claimed, the surface layer of 5 can be considered “a reflective surface. This interpretation is consisted with applicant’s fig. 2) for reflecting light is arranged (the surface of the metallic foil will reflect light. Examiner notes that no vehicle structure is currently claimed);
c) joining the metal foil (5) to the inner pane (1) via an adhesive layer (21; refer to para 0090) in such a way that the metal foil (5) is arranged in a region of the laminated pane (as shown in fig. 1C) which, when viewed perpendicularly through the laminated pane, lies completely within the region in which the at least one masking layer (32) is arranged (as shown in fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 15, Droste et al. disclose a use of method comprising providing the laminated pane according to claim 1 as a vehicle pane in a vehicle of transport for traffic on land, in the air or on water (refer to para 0021: “in a vehicle, for example, as a windshield or rear window”),
Regarding claim 16, Droste et al. disclose wherein the metal foil (base plate 5) has a thickness of less than 100 micrometer (para 0043: 3 to 20 micrometer is less than 100 micrometer).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1), in view of Ogino et al. (U.S. 4,455,334).
Regarding claim 3, Droste et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Droste et al. further teach the metal foil is copper foil (refer to para 0091);
However, Droste et al. is silent to the metal foil consists of stainless steel.
Ogino et al. generally teach that metallic foils can consist of stainless stee, aluminum foil, aluminum foil, or a copper foil (refer to col. 3, lines 54-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one type of material for another to achieve the predictable result of providing electrical signals. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1), in view of Arai et al. (U.S. 2016/0303829A1).
Regarding claim 4, Droste et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Droste et al. is silent to wherein the reflective surface of the metal foil is polished and the interior-side surface of the metal foil is roughened.
Arai et al. generally teach treating the surface of a metal foil so as to get a polished surface and rough surface (refer to para 0023, 0028, 0180, 0185, 0218, and 0379). The treatment of the surface of the metal foil results in excellent transparency (refer to abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have surface treated the reflective surface of the metal foil to have a polished surface and the interior-side surface of the metal foil is roughened, as taught by Arai et al., for resulting in excellent transparency (refer to abstract).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1), in view of Irifune (U.S. 2023/0094806A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Droste et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Droste et al. is silent to wherein the reflective surface of the metal foil is provided with a smoothing layer, wherein the smoothing layer contains or consists of nickel.
Irifune et al. teach that laminated metal foil in which a nickel element is mounted on the surface (refer to abstract). This provides high insulation reliability and high signal transmission speed (refer to para 0008).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reflective surface of the metal foil to provide a smoothing layer, wherein the smoothing layer contains or consists of nickel, as taught by Irifune et al., for providing high insulation reliability and high signal transmission speed (refer to para 0008).
Claims 8-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1) alone.
Regarding claim 8, Droste et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Droste et al. is silent to wherein the metal foil is arranged on the interior-side surface or on the outer-side surface of the inner pane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal foil arranged on the interior-side surface or on the outer-side surface of the inner pane since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 9 and 17-19, Droste et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Droste et al. is silent to wherein the reflecting surface of the metal foil reflects at least 10% of visible light, at least 50% of visible light, at least 80% of visible light, and at least 90% of visible light.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the reflecting surface of the metal foil reflect at least 10% of visible light, at least 50% of visible light, at least 80% of visible light, and at least 90% of visible light, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1), in view of Arndt et al. (U.S. 2017/0313032A1).
Regarding claim 13, Droste et al. disclose wherein an assembly (101, fig. 1A) comprising a laminated pane (100) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Droste et al. is silent to a projection comprising an imaging unit directed onto the reflective surface of the metal foil.
Arndt et al. generally teach a glass (10, fig. 2) comprising an outer pane (1), an inner pane (2) bonded to a thermoplastic layer (3), the glass in provided as a windshield of a motor vehicle that is equipped with a head-up display (refer to para 0052). Images can be produced by a projector (4) that are perceived by an observer (5; fig. 3 and refer to para 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the pane of Droste et al. in a projection comprising an imaging unit directed onto the reflective surface of the metal foil, as taught by Arndt et al., for use in head-up display application to improve driver’s field of vision (refer to para 0002).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droste et al. (U.S. 20180037007A1), in view of Labrot et al. (U.S. 2013/0050983A1).
Regarding claim 20, Droste et al. wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle and/or the laminated pane is a windshield (refer to para 0021).
However, Droste et al. is silent to a head-up display application.
Labrot et al. generally teach the use of a laminated pane comprising an outer pane and an inner pane in a head-up display (refer to para 0045 and para 0002-0003).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the laminated pane of Droste et al. in a windshield head-up display application, as taught by Labrot et al., for improving traffic safety of the vehicle and reduce accident risk (refer to para 0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights