Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/760,488

POLYMER INTERLAYERS HAVING REDUCED YELLOW COLOR

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Aug 10, 2022
Examiner
KHATRI, PRASHANT J
Art Unit
1783
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Solutia Inc.
OA Round
6 (Non-Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
6-7
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
515 granted / 849 resolved
-4.3% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+28.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
888
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
§112
21.7%
-18.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 849 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION In response to RCE filed 1/22/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-17 are withdrawn. Claims 18-22 are examined thusly. Claim 18 was amended. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/22/2026 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 18 recites the newly added limitation “optionally” as it relates to the at least one colorant. There is no support of the colorant being optional. Indeed, when looking to the inventive examples, the examples all have a colorant. As such, there is no support for the colorant being optional with respect to the interlayer. Claims 19-22 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 18. 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. Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 9815976). Lu discloses a polyvinyl acetal composition and methods for forming interlayers from the said composition. With respect to claims 18-21, Lu discloses a process of providing at least one polyvinyl butyral resin and a high refractive index plasticizer of at least 1.500, melt blending, and extruding the composition into a sheet, resulting in a transmittance of at least 88.2 to 88.7% and a haze value of 0.2 to 0.4% (cols. 38-40; Tables 12 and 13, plasticizers P-3 and P-4; col. 25, lines 25-67). Given that the composition is the same and the plasticizer has the claimed refractive index, resulting the claimed transmittance, the L*, a*, and b* values would be the same as that claimed. 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 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (US 20130143049) in view of Lu et al. (US 9815976). Kitano discloses an interlayer sheet, laminates, and methods of making the above. Concerning claim 18, Kitano discloses the method in forming the interlayer sheet is providing a polyvinyl butyral, plasticizer, at least one phthalocyanine dye, and ITO particles, kneading the above components, melting, and subsequently extruding through a die to form the film (para. 0058; Examples). The yellow index (i.e. a* and b* values) and visible transmittance are controlled by the content of ITO particles and phthalocyanine dye (para. 0066 and 0072); as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the at least two above components in the resin to form the claimed interlayer having the color. The haze of the interlayer sheet is 0.5% or lower (para. 0031 and 0102). Kitano discloses that the visible transmittance of the interlayer is required to be greater than 70% and as such, would include and encompass the claimed range when undergoing the testing under the ASTM standard (para. 0066). The thickness of the interlayer is not limited and can be multiple layers laminated produced and laminated (para. 0083-0088). Examiner notes that the instant application is silent to the specific dye and content used to produce the claimed properties and as such, the disclosure of Kitano would meet the instant claims. However, Kitano is silent to the plasticizer has a refractive index of at least 1.460. Lu discloses a polyvinyl acetal resin composition and methods thereof, wherein the composition includes a polyvinyl acetal resin, a high RI balancing agent that can be a plasticizer having a refractive index of at least 1.460 and a colorant with said composition being melt blended and extruded to form an interlayer (cols. 16-25). The addition of the high RI balancing agent improves the refractive index of the interlayer to improve the optical properties such as clarity and reduce the haze of the resulting interlayer (cols. 11-12 and col. 2, lines 55-67). As such, in order to improve the optical properties of the resulting interlayer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a plasticizer having a refractive index of at least 1.460 as at least one of the plasticizers of Kitano. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-9, filed 1/22/2026, with respect to 35 USC 103 rejection under Kitano have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the instant amendments overcome the previous rejection. However, Kitano is still applicable as a primary reference in an obviousness rejection as shown above. With respect to Applicant’s assertions, Examiner notes that Kitano discloses that any known plasticizer can be used (para. 0051). To that end, Lu, which was filed prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, discloses using plasticizers having a refractive index greater than 1.460 are used as high RI balancing agents to improve the optical properties of the resulting interlayer, wherein such materials improve haze and clarity of the resulting interlayer. As such, the instant claims are not found to be unobvious over the prior art as set forth above. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 16, 2024
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 03, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 09, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 20, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jan 22, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604426
COVER PLATE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604654
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599971
COATED CUTTING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594743
ANTI-GLARE FILM, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SAME, AND USE OF SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595268
ACID ANHYDRIDE COMPOUND, AND POLYAMIDEIMIDE RESIN AND FILM USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

6-7
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+28.9%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 849 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month