DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 01/30/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth below. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 14 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niimura et al. (US 12,214,572 B2 cited IDS) in view of Taima (US 2014/0355107 A1).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10 and 14, Niimura et al. disclose a laminated glass comprising an interlayer made of a composition comprising 80% by mass or more of a modified vinyl acetal resin comprising 27 to 48 mol% of ethylene units and 36 to 57 mol% of vinyl alcohol units based on all monomer units constituting the modified vinyl acetal resin, and having a degree of acetalization of 5 to 40 mol% (see col. 19-20, claim 1). The modified vinyl acetal resin is prepared from butylaldehyde (see col. 19-20, claim 1, col.4, lines 57). The composition comprises 1% by mass or less of a plasticizer (see col. 21, claim 6). The interlayer is sheet-shaped article prepared by extrusion molding (see col. 11, lines 15-19). The laminated glass is used for roofs, sunroofs, i.e. overhead glazing (see col. 13, line 23).
Niimura et al. do not disclose the composition comprising a heat-shielding material as presently claimed.
Taima et al. disclose an interlayer comprising heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% in order to provide a heat shielding effect such as heat shielding and heat absorbing, wherein the interlayer comprises a resin material such as polyvinyl acetal resin (see paragraphs 0080, 0083 and 0086).
In light of motivation for using heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% disclosed by Taima et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% in the interlayer of Niimura et al. in order to provide heat shielding and heat absorbing effect, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Niimura et al. in view of Taima et al. disclose the glass laminate as set forth above. Given that the glass laminate of Niimura et al. in view of Taima et al. is identical to that presently claimed, the glass laminate of Niimura et al. in view of Taima et al. exhibits a creep as presently claimed.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niimura et al. (US 12,214,572 B2) view of Taima (US 2014/0355107 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Steuer et al. (US 2010/0028642 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Niimura et al. in view of Taima disclose the glass laminate as set forth above. Niimura et al. in view of Taima do not disclose a structure is provided on at least one surface, or on both surfaces of the interlayer.
Steuer et al. discloses an interlayer film comprising polyvinyl acetal (see Abstract). The interlayer can have an embossed structure in order to improve deaeration characteristics during laminated glass production (see paragraph 0049).
In light of motivation for using interlayer having an embossed structure disclosed by Steuer et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use embossed structure on at least one surface, or on both surfaces of the interlayer of Niimura et al. in view of Taima in order to improve deaeration characteristics during laminated glass production, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (JP 2011057737 A cited in IDS) in view of Taima (US 2014/0355107 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Hashimoto et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-9 and 14, Hashimoto et al. disclose a sheet (interlayer) that is easily adhered to glass and has high light-ray transmittance, flexibility and water-barrier property and low water absorption (see Abstract). The sheet comprises a modified polyvinyl acetal resin comprising ethylene content of 0.5 to 40 mol% and degree of acetalization of 30 mol% or more (Abstract). The aldehyde used to prepare modified polyvinyl acetal resin include butylaldehyde (see paragraph 0015).
The sheet may contain additives such as plasticizers (see paragraph 0026). That is, amount of plasticizer can be 0 wt%. Further, given that the additives are optional, the amount of modified polyvinyl acetal resin is 100 wt%. When the additives are present, the amount of modified polyvinyl acetal resin is 40 to 90 wt%.
The sheet is prepared by extrusion molding (see paragraph 0024). The surfaces of the sheet can be embossed, i.e. embossed structure on both surfaces (see paragraph 0025). Further, Hashimoto et al. disclose the sheet can be made into a laminated glass (see paragraph 0058). Accordingly, Hashimoto et al. disclose a glass laminate comprising an interlayer made of modified polyvinyl acetal resin (ethylene vinyl acetal resin).
As set forth above, Hashimoto et al. disclose the modified polyvinyl acetal resin comprising ethylene content of 0.5 to 40 mol% which overlaps with that presently claimed and degree of acetalization of 30 mol% or more which overlaps with that presently claimed. Accordingly, Hashimoto et al. meets amount of ethylene units as well as degree of acetalization as presently claimed. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that the amount of vinyl alcohol units in Hashimoto will overlap with that presently claimed.
Hashimoto et al. do not disclose the sheet (interlayer) comprises a heat-shielding material as presently claimed.
Taima disclose an interlayer comprising heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% in order to provide a heat shielding effect such as heat shielding and heat absorbing, wherein the interlayer comprises a resin material such as polyvinyl acetal resin (see paragraphs 0080, 0083 and 0086).
In light of motivation for using heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% disclosed by Taima as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% in the sheet (interlayer) of Hashimoto et al. in order to provide heat shielding and heat absorbing effect, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hashimoto et al. in view of Taima disclose the glass laminate as set forth above. Given that the glass laminate of Hashimoto et al. in view of Taima is identical to that presently claimed, the glass laminate of Hashimoto et al. in view of Taima exhibits a creep as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto et al. in view of Taima disclose the glass laminate as set forth above. Hashimoto et al. in view of Taima do not disclose glass laminate is an overhead glazing.
While there is no disclosure that the glass laminate is an overhead glazing as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. overhead glazing, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art glass laminate and further that the prior art structure which is a glass laminate identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. (JP 2011057737 A cited in IDS) in view of Shimazumi et al. (JP 2008297345 A cited in IDS) and Taima (US 2014/0355107 A1). It is noted that the disclosures of Hashimoto et al. and Shimazumi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-9 and 14, Hashimoto et al. disclose a sheet (interlayer) that is easily adhered to glass and has high light-ray transmittance, flexibility and water-barrier property and low water absorption (see Abstract). The sheet comprises a modified polyvinyl acetal resin comprising ethylene content of 0.5 to 40 mol% and degree of acetalization of 30 mol% or more (Abstract). The aldehyde used to prepare modified polyvinyl acetal resin include butylaldehyde (see paragraph 0015).
The sheet may contain additives such as plasticizers (see paragraph 0026). That is, amount of plasticizer can be 0 wt%. Further, given that the additives are optional, the amount of modified polyvinyl acetal resin is 100 wt%. When the additives are present, the amount of modified polyvinyl acetal resin is 40 to 90 wt%.
The sheet is prepared by extrusion molding (see paragraph 0024). The surfaces of the sheet can be embossed, i.e. embossed structure on both surfaces (see paragraph 0025). Further, Hashimoto et al. disclose the sheet can be made into a laminated glass (see paragraph 0058). Accordingly, Hashimoto et al. disclose a glass laminate comprising an interlayer made of modified polyvinyl acetal resin (ethylene vinyl acetal resin).
Hashimoto et al. do not explicitly disclose amount of vinyl alcohol units. Hashimoto et al. do not disclose the sheet (interlayer) comprises a heat-shielding material as presently claimed.
Shimazumi et al. disclose a polyvinyl acetal resin that can be modified using a-olefin such as ethylene, i.e. modified polyvinyl acetal resin (see Abstract and paragraphs 0021-0023). The amount of vinyl alcohol unit in 10 to 50 mol% in order to provide uniform film thickness and excellent adhesion to substrate (see paragraph 0026) as well as excellent solvent resistance, smoothness, and excellent flowability (see paragraph 0005).
In light of motivation for using modified polyvinyl acetal resin comprising 10 to 50 mol% of vinyl alcohol units disclosed by Shimazumi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use modified polyvinyl acetal resin comprising 10 to 50 mol% of vinyl alcohol units in Hashimoto et al. in order to provide uniform film thickness and excellent adhesion to substrate as well as excellent solvent resistance, smoothness, and excellent flowability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. do not disclose the sheet (interlayer) comprises a heat-shielding material as presently claimed.
Taima disclose an interlayer comprising heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% in order to provide a heat shielding effect such as heat shielding and heat absorbing, wherein the interlayer comprises a resin material such as polyvinyl acetal resin (see paragraphs 0080, 0083 and 0086).
In light of motivation for using heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% disclosed by Taima as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use heat shielding particles in amount of 0.5 to 10 mass% in the sheet (interlayer) of Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. in order to provide heat shielding and heat absorbing effect, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. and Taima disclose the glass laminate as set forth above. Given that the glass laminate of Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. and Taima is identical to that presently claimed, the glass laminate of Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. and Taima exhibits a creep as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. and Taima disclose the glass laminate as set forth above. Hashimoto et al. in view of Shimazumi et al. and Taima do not disclose glass laminate is an overhead glazing.
While there is no disclosure that the glass laminate is an overhead glazing as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. overhead glazing, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art glass laminate and further that the prior art structure which is a glass laminate identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights