DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-9, 11-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AOKI (JP-2013/086987) in view of MASAKI (WO-2010-093023).
Claims 1-2: Aoki teaches an interlayer for laminated glass comprising a resin film having an average thermal shrinkage at 150°C for 30 minutes being between 1% and 2% (Aoki, abstract) which meets the claimed shrinkage rate at 140°C for 30 minutes being between 0.5% and 2.5%. The interlayer includes an infrared reflective film (Aoki,
translation copy, page 3, 14" paragraph and figure 3) and thus the interlayer has a wavelength selective reflectivity. However, Aoki does not teach cutout portions on the interlayer. In the same field of endeavor, i.e. laminated glass, Masaki teaches an interlayer film for a laminated glass having a plurality of cutouts in the peripheral edges of the film (Masaki, translation copy, page 4, 4th paragraph and page 5, 5th and 6th paragraphs) and thus the cutouts can be seen from the direction perpendicular to the surface of the laminate In light of Masaki’s teaching, the POSITA would be motivated to make cutouts on the interlayer of Aoki in order to prevent wrinkles from forming when laminate into the glass (Masaki, page 6, 6th paragraph).
Claims 3-7: Aoki teaches the interlayer having a curved portion (Aoki, translation copy, page 2, 7" paragraph). With regards to the curvature radius, Aoki teaches the curved portion to accommodate the curved portion of the glass substrates which have a radius from 10 mm to 200 mm (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 2" and 3 paragraphs) and thus the curvature radius of the interlayer is expected to have the same radius as the glass substrates which is 10-200 mm and thus it is within the claimed ranges running from 100 to 900 mm down to 100 to 300 mm.
Claim 8: Aoki teaches the interlayer having a curved portion (Aoki, translation copy, page 2, 7th paragraph). With regards to the depth cutout portion, Aoki teaches the curved portion to accommodate the curved portion of the glass substrates which have a bending depth of at least 10 mm (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 2nd paragraph), and thus the interlayer is expected to have the same bending depth as the glass substrates which is at least 10 mm and meets the claimed depth range of 10 m to 250 mm.
Claim 9: As discussed in claim 1 above, Aoki teaches the interlayer comprises a reflective film and the film is disposed between two glass substrates.
Claims 11-12: Aoki teaches an interlayer for laminated glass comprising a resin film and an infrared reflective film (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 14th paragraph and figure 3). The infrared reflective film necessarily provides a wavelength selective reflectivity in the infrared light range. The resin film is inherently light reflective in order to avoid inhibiting the transparency of the glass substrates; therefore, the resin film in the interlayer is expected to be reflective in the visible light range. Thus, the interlayer of Aoki necessarily has a selective reflection wavelength from visible light to infrared light.
Claims 14-15: Aoki teaches the method for producing a laminated glass comprising disposing an interlayer between the two glass substrates. The laminating is performed by a thermocompression bonding treatment (Aoki, translation copy, page 5, 8" to 11" paragraphs).
Claim 15: Aoki teaches the reflective film of the interlayer is disposed at a position within 15-35 mm from the edge sides of the glass substrates (Aoki, translation copy, page 6, first three paragraphs) and thus the disposed position is within the claimed range of less than 100 mm from each of edge sides of the glass substrates.
Claim 16. . Aoki teaches the glass substrates having a curvature which has a maximum bending depth of at least 20 mm (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 2nd paragraph), which is well within the claimed range of a maximum curvature depth of at least 15 mm.
Claim 17: Aoki teaches an interlayer for laminated glass comprising an infrared reflective film between two glass substrates (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 14th paragraph and figure 3) and thus the interlayer has a wavelength selective reflectivity. However, Aoki does not teach cutout portions on the interlayer. In the same field of endeavor, i.e. laminated glass, Masaki teaches an interlayer film for a laminated glass having a plurality of cutouts in the peripheral edges of the film (Masaki, translation copy, page 4, 4th paragraph and page 5, 5th and 6th paragraphs) and thus the cutouts can be seen from the direction perpendicular to the surface of the laminate In light of Masaki’s teaching, the POSITA would be motivated to make cutouts on the interlayer of Aoki in order to prevent wrinkles from forming when laminate into the glass (Masaki, page 6, 6th paragraph).
Claim 18. Aoki teaches the glass substrates having a curvature which has a maximum bending depth of at least 20 mm (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 2nd paragraph), which is well within the claimed range of a maximum curvature depth of at least 15 mm.
Claim 19: Aoki teaches the glass substrates having a radius from 10 mm to 200 mm (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 2nd paragraphs) and thus is overlapping the claimed range of 100 mm to 1700 mm.
Claim 20: Aoki teaches an interlayer for laminated glass comprising a resin film and an infrared reflective film (Aoki, translation copy, page 3, 14th paragraph and figure 3). The infrared reflective film necessarily provides a wavelength selective reflectivity in the infrared light range. The resin film is inherently light reflective in order to avoid inhibiting the transparency of the glass substrates; therefore, the resin film in the interlayer is expected to be reflective in the visible light range. Thus, the interlayer of Aoki necessarily has a selective reflection wavelength from visible light to infrared light.
Claims 10-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki and Masaki as applied to claims 1-9, 11-12 and 14-20 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US-20190091974).
Claims 10: Aoki and Masaki teaches the glass laminate of the claimed invention as discussed above. Aoki teaches the interlayer for the glass laminate comprising a resin film and an infrared reflective film as discussed above. In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi teaches an interlayer (intermediate film) for laminated glass comprising a resin film and a light reflective film, wherein the resin film comprises a light reflective film which comprises a cholesteric liquid crystal (para. 0013-0018). In light of Takahashi’s teaching, the POSITA would be motivated to incorporate an additional resin layer of cholesteric liquid crystal resin in order to add a light reflective property to the interlayer of the glass laminate of Aoki.
Claims 11-13 and 20: Due to the presence of the additional resin film which comprises a cholesteric crystal liquid resin, the glass laminate of Aoki/Masaki inherently has a selective reflection center wavelength ranging from visible light (due to the cholesteric liquid crystal resin layer taught by Takahashi) to infrared light (due to the infrared reflective film taught by Aoki).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 18, 2025 are found persuasive based on the amended feature of the cutouts. The rejections in the last office action have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are presented above in light of the new reference, Masaki.
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 HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights