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 § 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, 10-13, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,792,559 Heithoff et al in view of CA 2042732 Chang et al.
Regarding claim 1, Heithoff teaches a laminated glass (column 6, lines 12-15) comprising:
a first lamination glass member which is colored glass (column 6, lines 12-15);
a second lamination glass member (column 6, lines 12-15); and
a colored interlayer film (column 5, line 47 – column 6, line 2), arranged between the first lamination glass member and the second lamination glass member (column 13, lines 31-34, being called an interlayer, where by definition the interlayer is the interposing adhesive material),
wherein a color coordinate a* of the laminated glass in L*a*b* color system is -5 or more and 5 or less, and a color coordinate b* of the laminated glass in L*a*b* color system is -5 or more and 5 or less (Tables 1 and 2, Examples 14, 16, 18, 22, 26, 28, 30, 44, 46, 48, 52, 56 and 60, where each example has both a* and b* values between 5 and -5).
Heithoff teaches that the colored interlayer film contains a coloring agent (column 5, line 48 – column 6, line 2), but does not teach the claimed pigments. Chang teaches a PVB interlayer film (page 1, lines 10-17), where the interlayer film is colored and includes carbon black, indanthrene (also known as indanthrone), thio-indigo and nickel complex-azo (page 6, lines 21-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the pigments of Chang in the product of Heithoff because these pigments are good for coloring thermoplastic polymers and provide good transparency (page 6, lines 18-21). Furthermore, the pigment chosen will depend on the plasticizer, the light transmission and desired color in the finished laminated glazing product (page 9, lines 11-17).
Regarding claim 2, Heithoff teaches that a product of a color coordinate a* in the L*a*b* color system of a lamination glass member laminate which is a laminate of the first lamination glass member and the second lamination glass member, and a color coordinate a* in the L*a*b* color system of the colored interlayer film is a negative value (Tables 1 and 2, Examples 14, 16, 18, 44, 46 and 52).
Regarding claim 3, Heithoff teaches that a sum of a color coordinate a* in the L*a*b* color system of a lamination glass member laminate which is a laminate of the first lamination glass member and the second lamination glass member, and a color coordinate a* in the L*a*b* color system of the colored interlayer film is 4 or less (Tables 1 and 2, Examples 14, 16, 42 and 54).
Regarding claim 4, Heithoff teaches that a color coordinate L* of the laminated glass in a L*a*b* color system is 84 or more and 98 or less (Tables 1 and 2, Examples 14, 16, 18, 22, 26, 28, 30, 44, 46, 48, 52, 56 and 60).
Regarding claim 5, Heithoff teaches that the first lamination glass member is green glass (column 7, lines 31-33 and column 6, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 6, Heithoff teaches that the second lamination glass member is colored glass (column 7, lines 31-33 and column 6, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 7, Heithoff teaches that the colored interlayer film contains a thermoplastic resin (column 5, lines 40-48).
Regarding claim 8, Heithoff teaches that a color coordinate a* in the L*a*b* color system of the colored interlayer film is 2 or more and 10 or less (Tables 1 and 2, Examples 14, 16, 18, 22, 26, 28, 30, 44, 46, 48, 52, 56 and 60).
Regarding claims 10, 18 and 19, Chang further teaches that the coloring agents contained in the colored interlayer film are four pigments (page 14, lines 5-21).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches carbon black, indanthrene (also known as indanthrone), thio-indigo and nickel complex-azo (page 6, lines 21-36).
Regarding claim 12, Chang teaches a content of the pigments in 100% by weight of the colored interlayer film less than 9 wt% (page 9, lines 21-25 teaching 0.1 to 9 wt% based on pigment and plasticizer such that when the amount is based on pigment, plasticizer, resin and any other additives, the amount will be less than 9%).
“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 less than 9 wt% reads on the claimed range of 0.5 wt% or less.
Regarding claim 13, Chang teaches a content of the pigments in 100% by weight of the colored interlayer film is less than 9 wt% (page 9, lines 21-25). Chang further teaches that the desired amount of pigments is variable based upon the plasticizer, the nature of the pigments selected and the light transmission and desired color in the finished laminated glazing product. Furthermore, the dispersion should not be so viscous as to be difficult to handle so dilute as to prolong exposure time unnecessarily (page 9, lines 11-25).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific pigment concentration is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method, the precise pigment concentration would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed concentration cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the pigment concentration to obtain the desired optical characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claim 16, Heithoff teaches that the colored interlayer film has a gradation pattern in plan view (column 4, lines 56-59, shade band).
Regarding claim 20, Heithoff teaches that the color coordinate a* of the laminated glass in the L*a*b* color system is -5 or more and 2.5 or less, and the color coordinate b* of the laminated glass in the L*a*b* color system is -5 or more and 4.5 or less, and
the color coordinate a* of the first lamination glass member in the L*a*b* color system is -6 or more and 0 or less, and the color coordinate b* of the first lamination glass member in the color system is 0 or more and 3 or less (Tables 1 and 2, Examples 18 and 30).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,792,559 Heithoff et al in view of CA 2042732 Chang et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0164409 Masaki.
Regarding claim 14, Heithoff teaches the laminated glass, but does not teach a multilayered construction for the colored interlayer film. Masaki teaches a laminated glass for use in vehicles where the colored interlayer film (paragraph 0077) includes a first layer, and a second layer arranged on a first surface side of the first layer (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the multilayered construction of Masaki in the product of Heithoff because this allows one to incorporate different characteristics in the interlayer film (paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 15, Heithoff teaches the laminated glass, but does not teach a wedge shape for the laminated glass. Masaki teaches a laminated glass for use in vehicles where the laminated glass includes one end and the other end being at the opposite side of the one end, and the other end has a thickness larger than a thickness of the one end (paragraph 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the wedge angle of Masaki in the product of Heithoff because this is advantageous for head-up displays (paragraph 0085) in avoiding double images.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 20 is not taught by the cited prior art. However, Applicant has not pointed out how claim 20 is not taught. As discussed above, Examples 18 and 30 of Heithoff read on the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pigment have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (pigments taught by Chang) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 at 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