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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/04/2026 has been entered.
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:
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, 4, 6, 8-14, 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,425,977 (Hopfe) in view of US 2006/0141212 (Smith et al.).
Re claims 1, 4, 6, 8-14, 17-22, Hopfe, teaches a glasses (2:1-5, 27, 28, Fig. 5), an optical interlayer between glass, wherein the interlayer has 18 second surface, 12, first surface, embossed surface, 50, Fig. 1 and 4, and channels 56, Fig. 4 (see 4:20-60) embossments are less than about 50 microns, with ridges 54 (protrusions) overlapping ranges depth) neighboring ridges 54 are spaced (58 in FIG. 4) less than about 300 microns from each other and in height (60 in FIG. 4) are less than about 50 microns above the base of a channel 56. Surface roughness is defined by the frequency which is the number of embossments 14 or peaks 20 or ridges 54 per unit of distance in a given direction (usually the direction of extrusion (MD) and 90° thereto (CMD)) and the amplitude or height of embossments 14, peaks 20 and ridges 56 which is the distance from the lowest valley to the highest.
Hoffe doesn’t teach the exact ranges as claimed.
Smith teaches an interlayer safety glass with channels overlapping applicant’s ranges. See Smith: [0021] In one aspect the present invention is an unplasticized thermoplastic sheet useful for making safety glass laminates, wherein the sheet comprises at least one surface embossed with a regular pattern which provides relatively uninterrupted channels for de-airing in two directions, said channels having depth of less than about 20 microns, and width 30 microns to 300 microns and spaced between 0.1 mm and 1 mm apart. [0022] In another aspect, the present invention is a glass/adhesive sheet laminate comprising at least one layer of glass and a sheet of unplasticized thermoplastic interlayer, said interlayer having at least one surface embossed with a regular pattern which provides relatively uninterrupted channels for de-airing in two directions, said channels having depth of less than about 20 micrometers (microns), and width 30 microns to 300 microns and spaced between 0.1 mm and 1 mm apart. [0023] In still another aspect, the present invention is a process of manufacturing a laminated safety glass article comprising the steps of: (1) embossing at least one surface of an unplasticized thermoplastic interlayer with a regular pattern which provides relatively uninterrupted channels for de-airing in two directions, said channels having depth of less than about 20 microns, and width 30 microns to 300 microns and spaced between 0.1 mm and 1 mm apart; (2) laminating the embossed sheet to at least one glass surface, wherein the embossed surface of the unplasticized thermoplastic interlayer is laminated to glass. See further [28, 42]. The benefit of channels is airflow.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the “about” recitations, it is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of channels and respective size recitations and that taught by Smith are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough (i.e. “about”) for air passage so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. MPEP 2144.05.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount width disclosed by Smith and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the width and size recitations disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amount disclosed in Smith, for de-airing and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
What happens prior to lamination is not germane to patentability as the claim 14 contains process limitations in a product claim.
Re claims 8 and 20, see 3:20-38.
Re claims 10-11, film thickness, while not taught, are not non-critical thickness of the thermoplastic sheet can vary and is typically. Further thickness of the individual layers and overall laminate is within the skilled artisan to have modified it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use films with thickness, including that presently claimed, in order to produce aforesaid layers with effective functionality.
Re claims 17-18, given the same materials and structure, the properties not explicit are inherent.
In view of the forgoing, the above claims have failed to be patently distinguishable over prior art.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicant has amended the claims to argue width and depth are outside the claimed range and don’t have the properties of the instant specification.
Applicant points to Tables and Figures; however, the width recitations were not found. Further, Applicant’s attention is directed to the fact that the limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Further no objective test results have been submitted.
Applicant points to data to establish criticality of the range; however data comparison should be in the form of a declaration. But even if the data were in the form of a declaration it would not be persuasive. Specifically, there is not a proper side-by-side comparison between Table 2 and the combination with Smith. Further, the data is not persuasive given that it does not compare with the closest prior art and further, the data is not commensurate in scope with the present claims. The data compares values not claimed, however claim 1 recites a width of about 400 microns to about 600 microns while Smith explicitly discloses an width upper limit of about 300 microns (close to about 400 microns). Further, Smith is considered overlapping especially seeing the same de-airing affects despite argument to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMRA L. DICUS whose telephone number is (571)272-2022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am 4:00 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.
TAMRA L. DICUS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1787
/TAMRA L. DICUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787