DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/1/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “the R43 boil and bake tests” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the DV471167 heat and moisture resistance test” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the DV471309 climatic aging test” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-4, 7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0031206) in view of Wery et al. ‘872 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0210872) or Wery et al. ‘639 (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0212639) or De Salins et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0052886).
Sweney discloses a method for manufacturing a printed laminated glazing (such as regarding claim 10 wherein the printed laminated glazing is an automotive glazing and regarding claim 12 wherein the automotive glazing is a windshield) comprising at least one transparent sheet bonded to an adhesive interlayer, the method comprising: obtaining the adhesive interlayer from at least a first (104) and a second (105) partial adhesive interlayers (and regarding claim 4 wherein the first and the second partial adhesive interlayers, as well as any other adhesive interlayer which forms part of the printed laminated glazing are, each independently of the other, made of polyvinyl butyral (PVB)); printing (and regarding claim 7 wherein one of the two main faces of the first or the second partial adhesive interlayer is printed by screen printing) one of two main faces of the first or second partial adhesive interlayer with an ink (106); joining the at least one transparent sheet (and regarding claim 2 wherein a first (101) and a second (102) transparent sheets are bonded via the adhesive interlayer and regarding claims 3 and 11 wherein the transparent sheets are, each independently of the other, made of annealed, i.e. thermally tempered, mineral glass of soda-lime, aluminosilicate, or borosilicate), the first and second partial adhesive interlayers so that the printed main face of the first or the second partial adhesive interlayer is in direct contact with the second or the first partial adhesive interlayer (Figure 1), and then laminating the at least one transparent sheet, the first and second partial adhesive interlayers (Figures 1 and 5C and Paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0015, 0018, 0022, 0025, and 0032).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “said ink comprising polyvinyl butyral and an amount of 5 to 12% by weight of a wetting agent” and claim 13, Sweney teaches any feasible dye or pigment based ink may be used (Paragraph 0025) wherein conventional dye or pigment based ink as used in the same art (e.g. of manufacturing a printed laminated glazing such as an automotive glazing of a windshield and including printing one of two main faces of the adhesive interlayer with an ink wherein the interlayer is made of PVB) to obtain high optical qualities (and including allowing a greater deformation of the printed ink without degradation of its optical qualities) comprises polyvinyl butyral and wetting agent as evidenced by Wery ‘872 (and wherein the amount of polyvinyl butyral is between from 10 to 15% by weight and an amount of 5 to 12% by weight of the wetting agent see Paragraphs 0002-0005, 0015-0017, 0019, 0021-0024, 0036, and 0044) or Wery ‘639 (and wherein the amount of polyvinyl butyral is between from 11 to 13% by weight and an amount of 5 to 10% by weight of the wetting agent see Paragraphs 0001, 0002, 0011, 0018-0021, 0028, and 0039) or De Salins (and wherein the amount of polyvinyl butyral is between from 2 to 35% by weight and an amount of 2 to 4% by weight of the wetting agent see Paragraphs 0001-0003, 0010-0012, 0022-0024, 0041, and 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the ink used in Sweney comprises polyvinyl butyral wherein an amount of polyvinyl butyral in the ink is between from 10 to 15% by weight and an amount of 5 to 12% by weight of a wetting agent not only as a simple substitution of the conventional any feasible dye or pigment based ink may be used to yield predictable results but to obtain high optical qualities as taught by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins, it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Sweney and Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins do not perform after lamination an/the R43 boil and bake tests, an/the DV471167 heat and moisture resistance test, and an/the DV471309 climatic aging test, and the Office is unequipped to perform such tests. However, a printed laminated glazing produced by the method of the instant invention successfully passes such tests (see paragraph 0059 of the instant specification) so that because Sweney as modified by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins manufacture the printed laminated glazing as claimed the evidence of record suggests that the laminated glazing passes a/the boil and bake tests according to automotive standard R43, a/the heat and moisture resistance test according to the automotive standard DV471167, and a/the climatic aging test according to automotive standard DV471309 after lamination.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney and Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 10-14 above, and further in view of Kennar (U.S. Patent 4,035,549).
Sweney is described above in full detail. Sweney does not expressly teach the roughness of the surface of the main faces of the adhesive interlayers. It is conventional in the art the interlayer surface (including that is printed) has a roughness of 3.1 to 4.6 microns to prevent blocking and facilitate deairing as evidenced by Kennar (Abstract and Column 1, lines 26-37 and 60-64 and Example 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the surface including at least the two main faces of the first and (one) second partial adhesive interlayers in direct contact with each other taught by Sweney as modified by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins have a roughness between 2.80 and 4.20 µm to prevent blocking and facilitate deairing as evidenced by Kennar, it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney and Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 10-14 above, and further in view of Jorgensen (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0086433) and/or Reschke et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0008028).
Sweney is described above in full detail. Sweney does not expressly teach wherein one of the two main faces of the first or the second partial adhesive interlayer (i.e. plastic) is subjected to oxidation by plasma flaming, or corona discharge, prior to being printed. It is conventional and well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to improve adhesion of ink to plastic by subjecting the plastic to oxidation by corona discharge prior to being printed as evidenced by Jorgensen (Paragraph 0002) and/or Reschke (Paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at least one of the two main faces of the first or the second partial adhesive interlayer taught by Sweney as modified by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins is subjected to oxidation by corona discharge prior to being printed to improve adhesion of the ink as is conventional and well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Jorgensen and/or Reschke.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweney and Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins as applied to claims 1-4, 7, and 10-14 above, and further in view of Sol et al. (U.S. Patent 5,914,178).
Regarding claim 8, Sweney as modified by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins teach the ink has short “touch-dry” times without expressly teaching drying the ink before joining wherein it is extremely well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to dry the ink directly after printing and before joining as evidenced by Sol (Column 4, lines 50-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Sweney as modified by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins further comprise wherein one of the two main faces of the printed first or second partial adhesive interlayer is dried before the first and second partial adhesive interlayers are joined to the at least one transparent sheet and in direct contact with each other as drying the ink directly after printing (and thereby removing the solvent used in printing the ink) before joining is extremely well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Sol.
Regarding claim 9, Sweney teaches in some embodiments decorative treatment is disposed between an interlayer and a transparent sheet (Paragraph 0022) without expressly describing how the decorative treatment is disposed. It is known in the same art of similarly manufacturing a printed laminated glazing as taught by Sol comprising at least one transparent sheet (9, 10) bonded to a printed (13) adhesive interlayer (11 and/or 12) at least one of two main faces of the at least one transparent sheet, is printed by screen-printing with the same ink as one of the two main faces of the first or the second partial adhesive interlayer, the at least one of the two main faces of the at least one transparent sheet being a main internal face of the printed laminated glazing that is not exposed to an outside environment (i.e. the internal face of an external sheet) as a decorative and/or functional motif (Column 1, lines 36-44 and Column 2, lines 43-56 and Column 3, line 59 and Column 5, lines 38-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Sweney as modified by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins further comprise wherein the at least one transparent sheet comprises two main faces, wherein at least one of the two main faces of the at least one transparent sheet is printed by screen printing with the same ink as one of the two main faces of the first or the second partial adhesive interlayer, the at least one of the two main faces of the at least one transparent sheet being a main internal face of the printed laminated glazing that is not exposed to an outside environment to provide the at least one transparent sheet with a decorative and/or functional motif as suggested by Sol and consistent with that taught by Sweney.
Response to Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 7/1/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-4, 7, and 10-13 based upon Sweney in view of Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins as set forth in the last Office action because:
Declarant states, “It is important to emphasize that the ink formulations disclosed in Wery ‘872, Wery ‘639, and De Salins were developed and optimized to solve a very specific problem: how to maintain adhesion and optical clarity when a printed PVB interlayer is laminated directly against a rigid glass sheet.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein Wery ‘872 (see Paragraphs 0013 and 0024), Wery ‘639 (see Paragraphs 0011 and 0021), and De Salins (see Paragraphs 0008 and 0046) teach the ink developed to print directly on the interlayer sheets of polyvinyl butyral sheets included in a laminated glazing with high optical qualities not expressly limited to any specific lamination context.
Declarant further states, “To address this problem, those references incorporate wetting agents that also function as plasticizers—allowing the ink to deform and flow under lamination conditions, conform to the surface of the glass, and avoid cracking or delamination. In that structural context, deformation of the ink is a desired property.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein Wery ‘872 (see Paragraph 0047), Wery ‘639 (see Paragraph 0039), and De Salins (see Paragraphs 0045-0046) incorporate wetting agents that also function as plasticizers (and dispersant) and including that allow a greater deformation of the printed ink film without degradation of its optical properties without any specific description of the wetting agents with respect to allowing the ink to deform and flow under lamination conditions, conforming to the surface of the glass, and avoiding cracking or delamination.
Declarant further states, “On the contrary, deformation of the ink is undesirable, as it can lead to smearing, blurring of the printed pattern, or migration of pigment into the adhesive material—problems that do not arise in the surface-laminated configurations addressed by Wery or De Salins.” and “Therefore, the functional goal of the ink formulation in Wery or De Salins—controlled deformation at the glass/polymer interface—is irrelevant to the laminated glazing configuration disclosed in Sweney and practiced in the present invention.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein allowing deformation of the ink is expressly and positively described in the instant application as a function of the wetting agent see paragraph 0041 and “The wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer, i.e. it allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without impairing its optical properties.”. The benefit of the wetting agent in the instant application (and thus similarly relevant in Sweney) is the same as that expressly and positively set forth by at least Wery ‘872 (see Paragraph 0047) and Wery ‘639 (see Paragraph 0039). There is no suggestion of smearing or migration of pigment into the adhesive material in any of Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins or in the instant application or Sweney. Further, the only discussion of blurring in Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 and De Salins and in the instant application and Sweney is in De Salins (Paragraph 0009) expressly teaching the printing does not blur.
Declarant further states, “The Examiner’s conclusion appears to rest on a superficial commonality: that Sweney, Wery, and De Salins all involve “printing on an interlayer.” However, that alone is not a sufficient reason to conclude that the same ink formulations are interchangeable across different lamination configurations. Ink performance is highly sensitive to the substrate, the materials it contacts, and the mechanical dynamics of the lamination process. A formulation designed to deform against glass is not inherently suitable—much less optimal—for an application where the ink is encapsulated between deformable interlayers. In this context, using an ink designed for the glass interface not only fails to solve a problem—it could in fact create new problems, including print distortion and optical defects.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein none of Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins design the ink for a glass interface rather as noted above the ink was developed to print directly on the interlayer sheets of polyvinyl butyral sheets included in a laminated glazing with high optical qualities not expressly limited to any specific lamination context. Further, the statement is unsupported by the instant specification wherein an ink allowing greater deformation is not less optimal and does not create new problems rather as expressly stated in the instant specification and similarly in Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 the wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer, i.e. it allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without impairing its optical properties.
Declarant further states, “In fact, based on my experience, such a result would not have been expected. As noted above, wetting-agent-rich inks typically raise concerns in encapsulated structures because of potential reflow, incompatibility, and pigment diffusion. Prior to our work, a person of ordinary skill would have reasonably assumed that these inks would smear, migrate, or visually degrade when enclosed within a PVB-PVB laminate during autoclave lamination.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein none of Sweney and Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins suggest potential reflow, incompatibility, and pigment diffusion nor do they suggest smearing, migration, or visual degradation. Sweney teaches any feasible dye or pigment based ink system may be used to print on the PVB interlayer wherein each of Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 and De Salins expressly teach ink for printing on PVB interlayers with high optical qualities. Further, the instant specification does not raise concerns because of potential reflow, incompatibility, and pigment diffusion or an assumption that inks would smear, migrate, or visually degrade when enclosed within a PVB-PVB laminate rather the specification expressly discloses (as in the prior art) the wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer, i.e. it allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without impairing its optical properties.
Declarant further states, “As part of our testing, we found that the claimed ink formulation, once printed and dried, remains dimensionally stable when subjected to lamination temperatures and pressures. It does not smear or flow, and the printed pattern remains optically sharp and consistent in color. This was not expected based on the teachings of Wery or De Salins. We also observed that the ink does not impair bonding between the interlayer sheets and the glass, nor does it contribute to peripheral bubbling—common concerns in PVB-based laminates.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein there is no teaching or suggestion in Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins of the ink possibly smearing, flowing, impairing bonding, or bubbling rather each of Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 and De Salins expressly teach ink for printing on PVB interlayers with high optical qualities.
Declarant further states “In some embodiments, we have used UV-curable or thermally polymerizable inks that, after drying, harden into a stable plastic film prior to lamination. This further improves long-term stability, reduces the risk of pigment migration, and ensures full encapsulation of the ink.”.
None of the claims are commensurate in scope with this statement as none of the claims require UV-curable or thermally polymerizable inks that, after drying, harden into a stable plastic film prior to lamination.
Declarant further states, “Moreover, the suggestion that it would be obvious to substitute “any feasible dye or pigment based ink” into Sweney’s structure ignores the technical constraints and application-specific design that apply to printed laminated glazings. There are millions of potential ink formulations available in the field, each with different behaviors under heat, pressure, humidity, and chemical exposure. A skilled artisan would not look to ink systems designed specifically for glass-contact printing—such as those in Wery or De Salins—as candidates for encapsulation inside adhesive laminates as in Sweney, especially when the required ink behavior is fundamentally different.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Each of Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 and De Salins teach dye or pigment based ink expressly for printing on PVB interlayers to obtain high optical qualities in a printed laminated glazing so that one of ordinary skill in the art selecting as the any feasible dye or pigment based ink system for printing on PVB interlayers as expressly taught by Sweney would look to the ink taught by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins to obtain high optical qualities in the printed laminated glazing.
Declarant further states, “In our case, it was only through targeted experimentation that we were able to identify a formulation that includes a wetting agent but still avoids the drawbacks typically associated with deformation or migration.”.
This statement is not persuasive wherein deformation of the ink is not a drawback but expressly and positively described in the instant application as a function of the wetting agent see paragraph 0041 and “The wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer, i.e. it allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without impairing its optical properties.”.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2025 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 7/1/2025 the objections set forth in the Office action mailed on 4/1/2025 are withdrawn. The claims as amended are fully addressed above.
Applicants argue, “Most critically, Sweney provides no teaching as to how the ink must behave during the lamination process. Unlike in traditional surface-printed glazing structures, the ink in Sweney is not in contact with glass. Instead, it is fully embedded between two soft, polymeric interlayer substrates—typically polyvinyl butyral. The optical and mechanical demands in this configuration are materially different. This fundamental structural difference undercuts the Office Action’s premise that an ink system designed for a completely different lamination context (i.e., against glass) would be applicable.” And “First, there is no indication that the results would be predictable in Sweney’s structure. The rejection fails to recognize that there are millions of potential ink compositions that might be used to print on PVB—many of which are highly specialized and tailored to specific lamination environments. See, e.g., the composition of the Sol reference. A POSITA would not, without a compelling reason, select from among those compositions developed exclusively for printing onto a PVB surface that is laminated directly against glass.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Sweney teaches any feasible dye or pigment based ink system may be used to print on the PVB interlayer (see Paragraph 0025). Wery ‘872 (see Paragraphs 0013 and 0024), Wery ‘639 (see Paragraphs 0011 and 0021), and De Salins (see Paragraphs 0008 and 0046) teach dye or pigment based ink developed to print directly on the interlayer sheets of polyvinyl butyral sheets included in a laminated glazing with high optical qualities not expressly limited to any specific lamination context. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Each of Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 and De Salins teach dye or pigment based ink expressly for printing on PVB interlayers to obtain high optical qualities in a printed laminated glazing so that one of ordinary skill in the art selecting as the any feasible dye or pigment based ink system for printing on PVB interlayers as expressly taught by Sweney would look to the ink taught by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins to obtain high optical qualities in the printed laminated glazing.
Applicants further argue, “By contrast Wery ’872, Wery ‘639 and De Salins both teach screen-printable inks designed specifically for printing on PVB sheets that will be laminated directly against glass. Their ink formulations include a wetting agent (typically dimethylcyclohexyl phthalate) and polyvinyl’ butyral resin. These wetting agents are included in the formulation not simply to improve print flow, but for a specific and essential purpose: to enable the printed ink layer to deform during the lamination process without introducing optical distortion or mechanical failure.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Wery ‘872, Wery ‘639 and De Salins teach the ink comprise wetting agent and including to allow greater deformation of the printed ink film without degradation of its optical properties. None of the references expressly teach deformation during the lamination process, and none of the reference expressly teach deformation from lamination against glass. Rather the wetting agent allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without degradation of its optical properties in the same manner as in the instant invention the wetting agent is included expressly for the same.
Applicants further argue, “However, as explained in the attached Rule 132 Declaration by co-inventor Laurent Cardinal (“the Rule 132 Declaration”), this is precisely what one skilled in the art would seek to avoid in a structure like Sweney’s. In Sweney, the ink is not in contact with glass but is sandwiched between two adhesive interlayer sheets. During lamination, both interlayer sheets will soften simultaneously. There is no need for the ink to deform or flow because it is not bridging two dissimilar materials (e.g., glass and polymer) or compensating for differing thermal expansion rates. To the contrary, deformation of the ink in this configuration is likely to lead to smearing, pattern distortion, or even migration of ink components within the adhesive stack.” and “In the absence of direct contact between the ink and a rigid material like glass, there is no structural need for plasticizing or wetting behavior that promotes deformation. In Sweney’s structure, the ink is not acting as a bonding layer or a stress-mitigating agent. Rather, its role is limited to visual aesthetics and must remain stable in position, shape, and optical density throughout the lamination process.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein none of Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins teach or suggest the ink to deform or flow because it is bridging two dissimilar materials (e.g., glass and polymer), compensating for differing thermal expansion rates, acting as a bonding layer or a stress-mitigating agent. Rather the express teaching is a wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer allowing a greater deformation of the printed ink film without degradation of its optical properties. There is no evidence of record deformation of the ink in this configuration is likely to lead to smearing, pattern distortion, or even migration of ink components within the adhesive stack as the instant specification expressly includes the wetting agent for the same reason, i.e. see paragraph 0041 and “The wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer, i.e. it allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without impairing its optical properties.”. The deformation referred to in Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 is in the same context as deformation is referred to in the instant application where in each reference the deformation is not described as a function of the material against which the printed ink film is laminated and in any such case the deformation does not degrade its optical properties as expressly set forth.
Applicants further argue, “Second, the rejection offers no articulated reason why a skilled artisan would modify Sweney's process to include a wetting-agent-based ink, particularly in the claimed concentration range, in the absence of a functional need for deformation. There is no suggestion in Sweney that the ink should flow or stretch. Indeed, deformation in this context would compromise print fidelity and could lead to failure of the final product.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein as noted above each of Wery ‘872 and Wery ‘639 and De Salins teach dye or pigment based ink expressly for printing on PVB interlayers to obtain high optical qualities in a printed laminated glazing so that one of ordinary skill in the art selecting as the any feasible dye or pigment based ink system for printing on PVB interlayers as taught by Sweney would look to the ink taught by Wery ‘872 or Wery ‘639 or De Salins to obtain high optical qualities in the printed laminated glazing which high optical qualities expressly include the wetting agent to allow a greater deformation of the printed ink film without degradation of its optical properties, i.e. express benefit of a greater deformation of the printed ink film is allowed should such printed ink film be deformed without degrading the optical properties.
Applicants further argue, “Unexpectedly, however, it was found that using the claimed PVB-based ink-comprising polyvinyl butyral and 5 to 12% by weight of a wetting agent-to print a pattern between two polymeric intermediate layers (such as PVB, EVA, or TPU) does not result in smearing of the pattern. Instead, the recited ink formulation was found to be fully compatible with the surrounding polymeric interlayers and, remarkably, helped stabilize the printed pattern during lamination.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein the beneficial result of including the wetting agent in the instant invention, see paragraph 0041, is “The wetting agent also acts as a plasticizer, i.e. it allows greater deformation of the printed ink film without impairing its optical properties.” which result is the same expected beneficial result expressly and positively set forth by at least Wery ‘872 (see Paragraph 0047) and Wery ‘639 (see Paragraph 0039) (see further MPEP 716.02(c) and “II. EXPECTED BENEFICIAL RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE OF OBVIOUSNESS” including thus there is no evidence of unexpected results to outweigh the evidence supporting prima facie obviousness set forth in the rejection in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746