DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 7/10/2026. Claims 1-22 are pending. Claims 1-17 are withdrawn. Claims 18-22 are examined thusly. Claim 18 was amended.
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 p. 7, filed 7/10/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(a) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. Examiner acknowledges the instant amendments as overcoming the previous rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 7/10/2026, with respect to 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection under Lu have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn. However, it is noted Lu is still applicable as a secondary reference in an obviousness rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection under Kitano in view of Lu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Lu is silent to achieving the claimed reduction in yellow color. While it is noted that Lu is silent to that specific assertion, Examiner notes that the instant specification does not directly link the addition of the high RI plasticizer as achieving the claimed reduction in yellow color. Examiner notes, however, that Lu discloses the high RI plasticizer affects the haze of the film and as such, the combination would teach at least the haze. Applicant is claiming a PVB film that is neutral in color with the addition of colorants and high RI plasticizers without disclosing the specific colorants or specific amounts used to achieve at least the claimed color and transmissivity. Examiner has set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with Kitano explicitly reciting that the yellow index, which is the combination of a* and b* values are controlled by the specific amounts of phthalocyanine dye and ITO particles. Applicant has repeatedly stated that Kitano cannot achieve the claimed properties without any showing or material differentiation from the instant claims and the disclosure of Kitano. As such, Applicant has not met the burden of showing non-obviousness.
Applicant further asserts that Kitano relying upon ITO teaches away from the present approach. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes ITO is recited in the instant specification as a functional IR blocker which is the same use as Kitano wherein it is noted that the use of phthalocyanine dye, which is a colorant, is used to adjust the yellow index. This is at least partially the same approach as used by Applicant and Applicant’s assertions are off the mark. Examiner notes that the use of colorants to affect the color of a film measured by CIELAB values is known within the art as set forth by at least Kitano. Therefore, Applicant’s approach is not novel or unobvious. As such, the claims are properly finally rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights