DETAILED 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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 16 are 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.
The claims recite “the colored region has only a gradation region.” This is unclear because it is directly contrary to the limitations of claim 1 where two non-gradation regions are required. In other words, the colored region cannot only have a gradation region; it must also have at least one non-gradation region. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted such that the colored region has only one gradation region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/040114 Nakayama et al (cited by US 2021/0213711).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama teaches an interlayer film for a laminated glass (paragraph 0001) the interlayer film comprising:
a colored region 2 (paragraph 0150),
wherein when the interlayer film is arranged between two sheets of clear glass conforming to JIS R3202:1996 to obtain a laminated glass X (paragraph 0071), visible light transmittance in the colored region of the laminated glass X is 10% or less (paragraph 0126),
wherein the colored region has a planar area that is 100% of a total planar area of the interlayer film (paragraph 0284, where other layers may include some amount of coloring agent),
wherein, when the laminated glass X having a first visible light transmittance at a position of 5 cm from one end of the interlayer film toward an opposite end of the interlayer film, and a second visible light transmittance at a position of 5 cm from the opposite end of the interlayer film toward the one end of the interlayer film (figure 2), the first visible light transmittance being smaller than the second visible light transmittance (paragraphs 0126 and 0127),
wherein the first visible light transmittance is 10% or less (paragraph 0126),
wherein the second visible light transmittance is 20% or more (paragraph 0127), and
an absolute value of difference between the first visible light transmittance and the second visible light transmittance being 10% or more (paragraphs 0126 and 0127), and
wherein the colored region has a first non-gradation region where visible light transmittance of the laminated glass X is uniform from the one end toward the opposite end of the interlayer film, and a second non-gradation region where visible light transmittance of the laminated glass X is uniform from the one end toward the opposite end of the interlayer film (figure 2),
wherein the first non-gradation region is located closer to the one end than the second non-gradation region (figure 2), and
wherein the second non-gradation region consists of only one layer (figure 2).
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality:
taught range of the colored region visible light transmittance being 10% or less reads on the claimed range of 1-50%,
the taught range of first visible light transmittance being 10% or less reads on the claimed range of 1% or more and 20% or less,
the taught range of the second visible light transmittance being 20% or more reads on the claimed range of 5-30%, and
the taught range of an absolute value being 10% or more reads on the claimed range of 2-29%.
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama teaches that the interlayer film has a maximum value of absolute values of rate of change in visible light transmittance of the laminated glass X in the colored region of 0.027%/mm or more from the one end to the opposite end of the interlayer film (Tables teaching a gradation width of 80-360 mm, and paragraphs 0126 and 0127 teaching a transmittance change of 10% or more such that the rate of change is 0.125%/mm or more for a width of 80 mm to 0.027%/mm or more for a width of 360 mm). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 0.027%/mm or more reads on the claimed range of 4.5%/mm or less.
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama teaches that the interlayer film has a weight ratio of a total of contents of coloring agents contained in layers constituting the second non-gradation region of the interlayer film (wt% in A4), to a total of contents of coloring agents contained in layers constituting the first non-gradation region of the interlayer film (wt% in A4 + C1) of 0.17 (Table 1, where the first resin layer A4 includes 0.027wt% coloring agent and the second resin layer C1 includes 0.13 wt% coloring agent).
Regarding claim 6, Nakayama teaches that
the colored region has a gradation region where visible light transmittance of the laminated glass X increases from the one end toward the opposite end of the interlayer film (figure 2),
the first non-gradation region is located closer to the one end than the gradation region (figure 2), and
the second non-gradation region is located closer to the opposite end than the gradation region (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama teaches that the colored region has only one gradation region where visible light transmittance of the laminated glass X increases from the one end side toward the other end side of the interlayer film (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama teaches that at least one of layers constituting the colored region of the interlayer film contains heat shielding particles (paragraph 0297).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama teaches a laminated glass comprising:
a first lamination glass member 21;
a second lamination glass member 22; and
the interlayer film for a laminated glass according to claim 1 11P (paragraph 0044),
the interlayer film for a laminated glass being arranged between the first lamination glass member and the second lamination glass member (figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 13, Nakayama teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, Nakayama teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Nakayama teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Nakayama teaches that the absolute value of a difference between the first visible light transmittance and the second visible light transmittance is 10% or more (paragraphs 0126 and 0127).
Nakayama teaches a lower absolute value limit of 10%. Since the claimed upper limit for the absolute value of 8% is close to the prior art lower limit of 10%, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the interlayer’s performance in the prior art range of 10% or more would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. “[A] prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” MPEP 2144.05 Section I.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/040114 Nakayama et al (cited by US 2021/0213711) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0264785 Oota et al.
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama teaches the interlayer film used in automobiles (paragraph 0134) but does not explicitly teach use in a rear or roof glass. Oota teaches a laminated glass for use in automobiles, where the glass may be used as a rear glass or a roof glass (paragraph 0210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the use of Oota for the product of Nakayama because this increases the variety of potential applications for the product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 29, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
After further review, Examiner has determined that the claimed features are taught by the prior art.
Applicant argues that Nakayama does not teach the 100% colored portion. However, as discussed above, Nakayama teaches that the other non-colored layers may include coloring agent (paragraph 0284).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights