DETAILED ACTION
In response to RCE filed 10/20/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 5 were amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 6797396) in view of Takeda et al. (US 20050238885).
Liu discloses an IR reflecting film that can have a visible light absorbing coating disposed on the IR film. Concerning claims 1 and 5, Liu discloses a multilayer film comprising alternating layers of a first and second polymer, having the claimed bandedges, wherein the optical film further comprises a film or coating comprising a dye or pigment absorbing in the visible light wavelengths (cols. 5-14). With respect to claims 2 and 3, the optical film is disposed with PVB adhesives on either side of the film (Examples). However, Liu is silent to the claimed properties.
Takeda discloses a visible light absorbing film that contains a thermosetting or thermoplastic binder and pigment or dyes such as Cu-Fe-Mn-based materials, carbon black, and the like (para. 0018-0030). Given that the visible light absorbing pigments/dyes are the same as that claimed or disclosed, the properties as claimed would be taught by the combination. Examiner notes that while Takeda is silent to the coextrusion, Liu discloses such a film containing visible light absorbing materials can be coextruded (cols. 13-14, starting at line 46 in col. 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the visible light absorbing materials set forth by Takeda in a film that is coextruded and disclosed by Liu. As shown in the Examples, the films containing the above pigments or dyes have a visible light transmissivity on the film side of less than 50%, specifically from 2.1% to 19.2% visible light transmittance (Table 1; Examples 1-11). The visible light absorbing film allows for preventing glaringness in the visible region while maintaining the heat insulating properties (para. 0018 and 0021-0022). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the specific visible light absorbing materials set forth by Takeda as a coating or coextruded film, in order to prevent glaringness in the visible region while maintaining heat insulating properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 regarding the art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art is silent to the claimed visible transmittance for the light absorbing layer as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that films containing the light absorbing pigments and/or dyes as disclosed in the instant invention produce a visible light absorbing layer that has a visible light transmittance of 2.1% to 19.2%, which is within the claimed range and allows for reducing glaringness as set forth above. While it is noted that that Takeda discloses further layers, the visible absorbing layer is what reduces the “glaringness” and as such, provides the basis of obviousness of the combination. Examiner further notes that the rejection does not substitute the layer of Liu with the entire laminate of Takeda. Instead, Takeda is used to teach the specific pigment or dye that provides visible light absorbance. As such, the references are still maintained for the above reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783