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 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 4-6, 14 and 15 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. Claims 4 and 14 require two non-gradation regions. Neither the specification nor the drawings include support for an embodiment in which both (a) a colored region across 95% of the interlayer film and (b) two non-gradation regions. The disclosure only includes support for two separate embodiments, each including only one of these features.
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 1-8 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/040114 Nakayama et al (cited by US 2021/0213711) hereinafter Nakayama1 in view of US 2016/0288460 Nakayama et al, hereinafter Nakayama2.
Regarding claim 1, Nakayama1 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 is 10% or less (paragraph 0126),
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).
“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%.
Nakayama1 does not teach the planar area of the colored region. Nakayama2 teaches an interlayer film for a laminated glass with a colored region that has a planar area that is 100% of a total planar area of the interlayer film (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the size of the colored region in Nakayama1 with the colored region in Nakayama2 because this allows for a continuous decrease in colored part and a continuous increase in lighter part across the entire product (paragraph 0051), as may be desired in some applications. In other words, allowing for a situation where the entire product width includes a colored region increases the variety of applications for the product.
Regarding claim 2, Nakayama2 teaches that the colored region has a plane area of 100% in 100% of a total plane area of the interlayer film (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayama1 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 4, Nakayama1 teaches that 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, and the first non-gradation region is located closer to the one end than the second non-gradation region (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Nakayama1 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, Nakayama1 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, the first non-gradation region is located closer to the one end than the gradation region, and the second non-gradation region is located closer to the opposite end than the gradation region (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayama2 teaches that the colored region has only a 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 3).
Regarding claim 8, Nakayama1 teaches that at least one of layers constituting the colored region of the interlayer film contains heat shielding particles (paragraph 0264).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 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, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 12, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches all of the limitations above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 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).
Nakayama1 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 Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0264785 Oota et al.
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama1 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 Nakayama1 because this increases the variety of potential applications for the product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nakayama does not teach the light transmittance at a position 5cm in from the edges. However, the rejection over Nakayama1 in view of Nakayama2 teaches a gradually decreasing amount of colored region from one end to the other. Based on the teachings of Nakayama1 with respect to the light transmittance, the position 5cm in from each end would have a higher transmittance at the one end and a lower transmittance at the opposite end. Therefore, the visible light transmittance at each of these positions would still be within the taught ranges for each side.
PNG
media_image1.png
212
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Applicant’s argument about incorrect citations, it is unclear where Applicant is looking. The cited paragraphs of EP 3 842 397 are:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the colored region in the planar area have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, where this feature is taught by Nakayama2.
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 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