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 .
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 6/27/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the second opposite main face is referred to with a reference character as “face F2” in line 4 of the claim, however none of the other main faces have been identified using a reference character and the reference character F2 has not been enclosed in parentheses. Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The Examiner respectfully suggests either enclosing the reference character F2 in parentheses, or alternatively, amending it to be --a second opposite main face,
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the refractive indices of the any lower intermediate layer(s) below the third functional zone” in lines 43-44 of the claim is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the refractive indices of .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 recites the limitation “the upper intermediate layer” in line 15 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since Claim 1 defines “one or more transparent, dielectric upper intermediate layers” in line 13 of the claim and thus it is unclear which specific upper intermediate layer of the one or more upper intermediate layers is being referred to by the limitation “the upper intermediate layer”, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Further, the limitation “the first outer sheet being tinted and/or from the upper intermediate layer a first layer being tinted” in lines 15-16 of the claim which contains the indefinite language is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the first outer sheet being tinted and/or one or more upper intermediate layers including a first layer which is tinted-- or similar language to establish proper antecedent basis and correct the typographical errors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the optical function of said first hologram” in line 32 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --an
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the side of the fourth main face” in line 34 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests either amending it to be --a
Claims 2-12, 15-18, and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on indefinite Claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first so-called multi-band hologram” in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the term “so-called” is subjective in nature and it is therefore unclear if the claimed hologram is actually a multi-band hologram or not. For the purpose of examination, as best understood, the Examiner has assumed that this is intended to refer back to the same “first hologram” defined in Claim 1 and this limitation is intended to recite that the first hologram is a multi-band hologram which additionally diffracts at the second wavelength λ2, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending lines 2-3 of the claim to recite --wherein the first is a first multi-band hologram which also diffracts at the second wavelength λ2-- or similar language for better understanding and to ensure proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, the use of the word “optionally” in the limitation “and optionally the sunroof comprises a third hologram diffracting at λ3, between the second hologram and the third main face, with a third holographic layer with a third functional zone having a refractive index nH3 at λ3” in lines 7-10 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the features following the term “optionally” are required or merely optional features of the invention, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
According to MPEP 2111.04, "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed." The recitations of Claim 13 that follow the term "optionally" are therefore not required elements of these claims and are thus given no patentable weight. Since these elements have no patentable weight because they are merely optional, no prior art is required to teach these elements in order for these claims to be rejected.
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending Claim 13 by deleting the term “optionally” from line 8 of the claim in order to remove the indefinite language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the optical function of said second hologram” in line 28 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --an
Regarding claim 13, the use of the term “optionally” in the limitation “and optionally, n2b being the lowest refractive index at λ3 in the visible range: a’) in the case of a third functional zone, from the refractive indices at λ3 of the lower intermediate layer(s) above the third functional zone, the first functional zone, the upper intermediate layer(s) and up to and including the first tinted layer, b’) or in the case of a first multi-band hologram, from the refractive indices of the upper intermediate layer(s) between the first holographic layer excluded and up to and including the first tinted layer, c’) or in the absence of a tinted upper intermediate layer or upper intermediate layer, n2b being equal to nvb where nvb is the refractive index at λ3 in the visible range of the first sheet, and n1b being the lowest refractive index at λ3 from the refractive indices of any lower intermediate layer(s) below the third functional zone, the index nH3 of the third functional zone, and n0b which is the refractive index at λ3 in the visible range of the second sheet” in lines 33-45 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the features and alternative limitations a’), b’), and c’) following the term “optionally” are required or merely optional features of the invention, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
According to MPEP 2111.04, "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed." The recitations of Claim 13 that follow the term "optionally" are therefore not required elements of these claims and are thus given no patentable weight. Since these elements have no patentable weight because they are merely optional, no prior art is required to teach these elements in order for these claims to be rejected.
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending Claim 13 by deleting the term “optionally” from line 33 of the claim in order to remove the indefinite language.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the optical function of said third hologram” in line 46 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --an
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the side of face F4” and “face F4” in lines 49-50 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has assumed that “face F4” is referring back to the “fourth main face” previously defined in Claim 1, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending it to be --the side of the fourth main face the fourth main face
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the optical function of said third hologram or of said first multi-band hologram being selected such that a portion of light rays injected at λ3 into the second glass sheet, guided into the sunroof, reaches the third hologram or the first multi-band hologram and is diffracted and extracted from the sunroof on the side of face F4 in all or part of the range of angles of incidence θ2 on face F4, and comprised between -arcsin (1/n0b) and arcsin (1/n0b)” in lines 46-50 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because line 8 of Claim 13 has defined the claimed third hologram as an optional feature of the invention, and thus the claim language referring to the third hologram in lines 46-50 of the claim also appears to be optional, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
According to MPEP 2111.04, "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed." The recitations of Claim 13 that follow the term "optionally" are therefore not required elements of these claims and are thus given no patentable weight. Since these elements have no patentable weight because they are merely optional, no prior art is required to teach these elements in order for these claims to be rejected.
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending Claim 13 by deleting the term “optionally” from line 8 of the claim in order to remove the indefinite language, and clarify that the claim language in lines 46-50 of Claim 13 involving the third hologram is a required feature of Claim 13.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the optional third hologram or the first multi-band hologram, diffracting at λ3, having a maximum diffraction efficiency in a third sub-range of θ1c with a width of at least 1° with partial or disjoint overlap with first and second sub-ranges θ1a and θ2a” in lines 57-59 of the claim (i.e. the last lines of the claim) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the features following the term “optional” are required or merely optional features of the invention, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable.
According to MPEP 2111.04, "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed." The recitations of Claim 13 that follow the term "optionally" are therefore not required elements of these claims and are thus given no patentable weight. Since these elements have no patentable weight because they are merely optional, no prior art is required to teach these elements in order for these claims to be rejected.
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending Claim 13 by deleting the term “optional” from line 57 of the claim in order to remove the indefinite language.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the interlayer” in lines 3 and 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since the two interlayers recited in lines 3 and 5 appear to be distinct interlayers, which renders the scope of the claim unascertainable since “the interlayer” recited in line 3 appears to be the first upper intermediate layer and “the interlayer” in line 5 appears to be the first lower intermediate layer. Additionally, the limitations “a first upper intermediate layer, the interlayer, of crosslinked adhesive material, with a refractive index equal to n2” and “a first lower intermediate layer, the interlayer, with a refractive index of at least 1.48 at λ1” in lines 3-6 of the claim are grammatically incorrect.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has assumed that Claim 14 is defining a first upper intermediate layer which is an interlayer of crosslinked adhesive material with a refractive index equal to n2, and a first lower intermediate layer which is an interlayer with a refractive index of at least 1.48 at λ1”, and so the Examiner respectfully suggests amending lines 3-4 of the claim to recite --a first upper intermediate layer, wherein the first upper intermediate layer is an 2--, and amending lines 5-6 of the claim to recite --a first lower intermediate layer, wherein the first lower intermediate layer is an
Regarding clam 19, the limitation “wherein n2 is less than or equal to 1.45 and at least 1.3 at λ1” in lines 1-2 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it recites a broad range and a narrow range within the same claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 19 recites the broad recitation “wherein n2 is less than or equal to 1.45”, and the claim also recites “and at least 1.3” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has treated Claim 19 as requiring n2 to be less than or equal to 1.45 at λ1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the Prior Art taken as a whole fails to specifically disclose or suggest, in combination, “A laminated vehicle sunroof comprising a first outer sheet of transparent mineral glass, having a first main face and a second opposite main face, known as face F2, with a refractive index nv at a first wavelength λ1 in the visible range, a second, inner, glass sheet of transparent organic or mineral glass, with a refractive index n0 at λ1, having a third main face and an opposite fourth main face, between the second main face and the third main face, a dielectric lamination interlayer of polymer material, comprising at least one lamination interlayer, the sunroof comprising, between the second main face and the third main face, in this order moving away from the second main face: one or more transparent, dielectric upper intermediate layers with given refractive indices in the visible range, the first outer sheet being tinted and/or the one or more upper intermediate layers including a first layer being tinted, when several upper intermediate layers are tinted, the first tinted layer is the tinted layer closest to the third main face, a first transparent dielectric holographic layer comprising a first functional zone with a first thick hologram, diffracting at λ1, the first functional zone having a refractive index nH1 at λ1, n2 being the lowest refractive index at λ1 in the visible range: a) from the refractive indices of the upper intermediate layer(s) between the first holographic layer excluded and up to and including the first tinted layer, b) or in the absence of a tinted upper intermediate layer or in the absence of an upper intermediate layer n2 being equal to nv2, the sunroof being adapted to receive a light beam in the second glass sheet, light rays injected at λ1 into the second glass sheet, with a range θ1 of angles of incidence in the second glass sheet, being guided in the sunroof until reaching the first hologram and with θ1 such that arcsin (n2/n0)≤arcsin (n1/n0), the optical function of said first hologram being selected such that a portion of the rays guided in the sunroof reach the first hologram and are diffracted and extracted from the sunroof on a side of the fourth main face, the diffracted rays being defined by a range of angles of incidence θ2 on the fourth main face and lying between -arcsin (1/n0) and arcsin (1/n0)” (emphasis added).
The closest Prior Art, Varga et al. (US 2022/0136893, previously listed on the IDS filed 6/27/2025), teaches a laminated vehicle sunroof comprising the structural features of Claim 1, but lacks the teaching of the lowest refractive index n2 at λ1 being from the refractive indices of the upper intermediate layer(s) between the first holographic layer excluded and up to and including the first tinted layer or being equal to nv2 in the absence of a tinted upper intermediate layer or an upper intermediate layer in general, and additionally fails to specifically disclose the diffracted rays being defined by a particular range of angles of incidence θ2 on the fourth main face which occur between -arcsin (1/n0) and arcsin (1/n0), as required by Claim 1.
Accordingly, although laminated vehicle sunroofs are known, as evidenced by the Prior Art already of record, no Prior Art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all the features of the Applicant’s invention, in particular the above limitations in combination with the remaining features of the claim, and there would be no motivation, absent the Applicant’s own disclosure, to modify the references in the manner distinctly and specifically called for in the combination as claimed in Claim 1.
Claims 2-20 depend on Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pohlen (US 2022/0171116), Oota et al. (US 2022/0161523), Botu et al. (US 2021/0405278), Berard et al. (US 2020/0370727), Manz et al. (US 2019/0202177), Berard et al. (US 2018/0086028), Berard et al. (US 2018/0074251), and Gierens et al. (US 2017/0139109) all disclose laminated vehicle glazings or safety glasses which can be utilized in vehicle sunroofs and include first and second sheets of transparent glass having one or more dielectric intermediate layers therebetween.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM N HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00AM- 5:00PM EST, Alternate Fridays.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 571-272-7044. 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.
/WILLIAM N HARRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights