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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 07/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the statements in the office action have not adequately demonstrated and of the indications of distinctness, particularly a distinct overlap in scope, lack of capability of use together or substantially different design. This is not found persuasive.
Regarding the intermediate-final product relationship for Groups I and II; I and III, I and IV; and I and V, the Applicant argues that the indications of distinctness have not been adequately demonstrated. This is not persuasive. As stated in the Restriction Requirement, distinctness is proven for claims in this relationship if the intermediate product is useful to make other than the final product and the species are patentably distinct. As stated in the restriction, the intermediate product of Group I is deemed to be useful as a window in an appliance and the inventions in the aforementioned relationships are deemed patentably distinct because there is nothing of record to show that the intermediate product of Group I is an obvious variant of the products of Groups II, III, IV and V.
Regarding the process of making and product made relationship for Groups I and VI, the Applicant argues that no evidence has been provided to support the assertion that the claimed product can be made by another method, such as the one described in the previous Restriction Requirement. This is not persuasive. Inventions in the process of making and product made relations can be proven to be distinct if the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product, and/or the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process. The previous Restriction Requirement describes a materially different process that could be used to make the claimed product of Group I. While the Applicant disagrees, no arguments as to how or why the proposed method would not result in the claimed product have been provided, and therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the unrelated product and process relationships for Groups II and VI; III and VI; IV and VI; and V and VI, the Applicant argues that no reasons or examples have been provided to support the conclusion that the groups are unrelated, and thus the burden for the restriction requirement has not been met. This argument is not persuasive. Product and process inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that the product cannot be used in or made by the process. As previously stated in the restriction requirement, the individual display devices in Groups II, III, IV and V are not used in or made by the method for producing a glass laminate of Group VI.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/24/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 is considered by the examiner.
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 4 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation reciting “wherein the glass laminate is a cover glass of a display device, a display panel is provided on a second main surface side, and the area of the hole-formed region is larger than an area of the display panel” is indefinite. The claims are to glass laminate, therefore, the limitations reciting that the glass laminate is a cover glass of a display device and further reciting limitations to the display device, is indefinite as the limitations do not further limit the structure of the claimed glass laminate, but rather are directed to the intended use. It is unclear what additional structure for the glass laminate is required by the limitations.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reciting “wherein in at least one of the plurality of holes, a ratio of a diameter at one end portion to a diameter at the other end portion in a thickness direction of the colored layer is 1.2 times or less, provided that a smaller diameter is 1” is indefinite. It is unclear if the phrase “at one end portion” and “the other end portion” are in reference to at least one of the holes or the colored layer as a whole. The term “end portion” has not been previously defined by the claims, therefore, it is unclear what structural feature is being referenced. Furthermore, the phrasing “provided that a smaller diameter is 1” is indefinite as it is unclear if this is a requirement of the claim or an example.
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)(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, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2023/0339043; cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches a glass article comprising selectively patterned opaque layers for light sensors and display systems (Abstract). As shown in Figures 2A and 2B, Li et al. teaches a glass article (400; glass laminate) comprising a glass substrate (450) having a first main surface and a second main surface, wherein a functional surface layer (490) is provided in a first main surface, wherein the functional surface layer (490) is an anti-glare coating layer or an anti-reflection coating layer ([047-0048, 0051-0066, 0069-0071, 0073-0075]). The glass article further comprises an opaque layer (500; color layer) provided on the second main surface, wherein the opaque layer (55; colored layer) has an array of ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions), wherein the opaque layer (500; color layer) is removed within each of the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) (0061-0070]). The array of ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) taught by Li et al. has an average optical transmission greater than or equal to 5.0% ([0070]).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the glass article (400; glass laminate) is part of a display device, which as shown in Figure 2A, the display module is provided on the second major surface of the glass article (400; glass laminate).
As stated above, the limitation “wherein the glass laminate is a cover glass of a display device, a display panel is provided on a second main surface side, and the area of the hole-formed region is larger than an area of the display panel” is indefinite for the reasons provided above. The aforementioned limitation is considered functional language related to the intended use of the product and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The glass article (400; glass laminate) or Li et al. teaches all the structural features of claim 1 as described above, and therefore would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the diameter of the hole is less than or equal to 30mm ([0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the glass article (400; glass laminate) can be flat or curved depending on implementation ([0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and as shown in the figures, the diameters of the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) is the same (See Figure 2C, 4A, 4B). Li et al. further teaches an embodiment wherein the maximum horizontal dimension (565; diameter) is less than or equal to 40 mm or less ([0073]), which would result in a ratio of 1, falling within the claimed range of “1.2 times or less”.
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and as shown in the figures, the diameters and roundness of the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) are the same (See Figure 2C, 4A, 4B). Li et al. further teaches an embodiment wherein the maximum horizontal dimension (565; diameter) is less than or equal to 40 mm or less ([0073]), which would result in a difference between the roundness of any two given holes to be 0 (because they have the same diameter), falling within in the claimed range of “a difference between the roundness of the first hole and the roundness of the second hole is 20 mm or less”.
Regarding claim 11, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the thickness of the opaque layer (500; color layer) is greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm ([0062]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 5, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0339043; cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches an embodiment wherein the combined surface area of the ablated portions makes up less than 50% of the surface area of the sensor region ([0071]), which overlaps the claimed range of 25% or more.
Li et al. further an embodiment wherein the maximum horizontal dimension (565; diameter) is less than or equal to 40 mm or less than or equal to 30 mm and teaches that the edge to edge distance (572) is greater than or equal to the maximum horizontal dimension (([0073]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than 40 mm”.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 5, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches an embodiment wherein the combined surface area of the ablated portions makes up less than 10% of the surface area of the sensor region ([0071]), which overlaps the claimed range of “5% or more and 15% or less”.
Li et al. further an embodiment wherein the maximum horizontal dimension (565; diameter) is less than or equal to 60 mm or less than or equal to 70 mm and teaches that the edge to edge distance (572) is greater than or equal to the maximum horizontal dimension (([0073]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “50 mm or more and 100 mm or less”.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches an embodiment wherein the combined surface area of the ablated portions makes up less than 10% of the surface area of the sensor region ([0071]), which overlaps the claimed range of “5% or more and 10% or less”.
Li et al. further an embodiment wherein the maximum horizontal dimension (565; diameter) is less than or equal to 60 mm or less than or equal to 70 mm and teaches that the edge to edge distance (572) is greater than or equal to the maximum horizontal dimension (([0073]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than 40 mm”.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Regarding claim 12, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the average optical transmission of the glass article (400; glass laminate) is greater than or equal to 1% and less than or equal to 20%, wherein such optical transmission is provided by constructing the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) with a size and spacing such that the majority of the area of the opaque layer (500; colored layer) in the sensor region does not contain an ablated portion ([0070-0071]). Li et al. teaches that the combined surface area of the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) makes up less than 50% of the surface area, wherein the greater the combined surface area percentage of the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions), the higher the optical transmission in the wavelength range of interest and/or visible spectrum ([0071]).
While the reference does not expressly teach the pattern reflectance determined by the equation provided in claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Li et al. to modify the size and spacing of the ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) to obtain the desired optical transmission and pattern reflectance to facilitate the operation of the sensor while concealing the sensor from view when the display is viewed (see [0070-0071] of Li et al.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2023/0339043; cited on IDS) in view of Yamanaka et al. (US 2021/0178733; cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and while the reference teaches that the opaque layer (500; colored layer) is comprised of a pattern of ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) (i.e. design layer), the reference does not expressly teach that the opaque layer (500; colored layer) further comprises a light shielding layer located on a side farther from the second main surface than the design layer.
Yamanaka et al. teaches a decorative sheet and display device, wherein the decorative sheet is comprised of a picture pattern portion (53) and a shielding portion (55), wherein the shielding portion functions to absorb light so that the image light from the display surface of the display device does not enter the picture portion, thus preventing the color reproducibility of an image from being degraded due to absorption of visible light in a specific wavelength range in the picture pattern portion ([0041-0045]).
Both Li et al. and Yamanaka et al. are in the field display devices, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the opaque layer (500; colored layer) taught by Li et al. to include the shielding portion taught by the decorative sheet of Yamanaka et al. to prevent degradation of the light transmission through the pattern of ablated areas (562, 564; hole-formed regions) in the opaque layer (500; colored layer) due to unwanted light entering through the ablated areas (562,564; hole-formed regions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
