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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Claims 1-12, 14 and 16-20 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2026 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 7, Wade et al. disclose a polymer sheet (interlayer sheet) comprising poly(vinyl butyral) resin, sodium acetate and magnesium salt such as magnesium salicylate (see Abstract, page 6, claim 10 and paragraph 0024). Given that magnesium salicylate is identical to the magnesium salt utilized in the present invention, magnesium salicylate comprises a divalent magnesium ion and at least two carboxylate groups wherein the corresponding carboxylic acids of the carboxylate groups each have pKa of less than about 4.80. Further, the magnesium salt has titer, total alkalinity titer (alkalinity attributable to combination of potassium and sodium acetate) and ratio of titer to alkalinity titer as presently claimed (see page 6, claim 10). The polymer sheet can comprise plasticizers and IR absorbers (solar additives) (see paragraph 0037). The materials making the polymer sheet read on a polymer composition.
Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. Given that the polymer composition of Wade et al. is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the polymer composition of Wade et al. has binding as presently claimed.
In light of the overlap between the claimed polymer composition and that disclosed by Wade et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composition that is both disclosed by Wade et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Snelgrove et al. (4,144,217), taken in view of evidence by PubChem (butyl benzyl phthalate, 2025).
Regarding claim 2, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition comprising a plasticizer. Further, Wade et al. disclose that the plasticizers can include adipates disclosed in Snelgrove et al. (see paragraph 0040).
Snelgrove et al. disclose a polyvinyl butyral composition useful as an interlayer comprising a plasticizer comprising a blend of di(C5 to C8 alkyl)adipate plasticizer and a C3 to C6 alkyl benzyl phthalate plasticizer such as n-butyl benzyl phthalate (see Abstract and col. 2, lines 54-59). The blend provides a laminate with excellent long-term edge stability and an adequate impact strength (see col. 2, lines 1-6). As evidenced by the present specification, phthalate plasticizer is a high refractive index plasticizer (see paragraph 0043 of published application). Further, as evidenced by PubChem, n-butyl benzyl phthalate has a refractive index of 1.535-1.540 at 25 °C (see pages 15-16, bridging paragraph). While PubChem do not disclose refractive index measured by ASTM D542 at a wavelength of 589 nm, given that n-butyl benzyl phthalate is phthalate plasticizer, it is inherent or obvious that refractive index of n-butyl benzyl phthalate measured by ASTM D542 at a wavelength of 589 nm will overlap with that presently claimed. Accordingly, n-butyl benzyl phthalate reads on a high refractive index plasticizer as presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using a blend of di(C5 to C8 alkyl)adipate plasticizer and a C3 to C6 alkyl benzyl phthalate plasticizer such as n-butyl benzyl phthalate disclosed by Snelgrove et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of di(C5 to C8 alkyl)adipate plasticizer and a C3 to C6 alkyl benzyl phthalate plasticizer such as n-butyl benzyl phthalate in the polymer composition of Wade et al. in order to provide a laminate with excellent long-term edge stability and an adequate impact strength, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0174868 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. While Wade et al. disclose IR absorbers, i.e. solar additive, Wade et al. do not disclose solar additive as presently claimed.
Thompson et al. disclose an interlayer comprising a polyvinyl butyral resin and a magnesium salt (see Abstract and page 12, claim 1). The interlayer can comprise IR absorbers such as indium tin oxide or antimony tin oxide in order to enhance performance in a final product (see paragraph 0057).
In light of motivation for using IR absorbers such as indium tin oxide or antimony tin oxide disclosed by Thompson et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use IR absorbers such as indium tin oxide or antimony tin oxide in the polymer composition of Wade et al. in order to provide IR absorbance and to enhance IR absorbance performance in a final product, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. Given that metal-doped tungsten oxide is optional in claim 3, Wade et al. meets claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Arai et al. (US 2017/0133530 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. Further, Wade et al. disclose the polymer sheet can comprises UV absorber (see paragraph 0037). Wade et al. do not disclose the polymer composition comprises rutile titanium dioxide as UV absorber.
Arai et al. disclose rutile titanium dioxide is UV absorber that provides UV absorptivity, durability, high refractive index, excellent blocking properties and good weather resistance (see paragraph 0095).
In light of motivation for using rutile titanium dioxide disclosed by Arai et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use rutile titanium dioxide as UV absorber in the polymer composition of Wade et al. in order to provide UV absorptivity, durability, high refractive index, excellent blocking properties and good weather resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Toyosawa et al. (JPH11147736A). It is noted that the disclosures of Toyosawa et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 8-10, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. Wade et al. do not disclose the polymer composition comprising one or more epoxy compounds as presently claimed.
Toyosawa et al. disclose a composition comprising a polyvinyl acetal resin, a plasticizer, a silane coupling agent and an epoxy-group containing compound such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether (see Abstract, paragraph 0024). The epoxy-group containing compound provides improvement in mechanical strength (see paragraph 0020). The composition is useful as an intermediate film for a safety glass (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using an epoxy-group containing compound such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether disclosed by Toyosawa et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use an epoxy-group containing compound such as 2-ethylhexyl glycidyl ether in the polymer composition of Wade et al. in order to provide improvement in mechanical strength and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. Wade et al. do not disclose the polymer composition comprising one or more silane additive or silane-containing compounds as presently claimed.
Toyosawa et al. disclose a composition comprising a polyvinyl acetal resin, a plasticizer, a silane coupling agent such as g-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane and an epoxy-group containing compound (see Abstract, paragraph 0026). The silane coupling agent improves adhesion (see paragraph 0026). The composition is useful as an intermediate film for a safety glass (see Abstract).
In light of motivation for using a silane coupling agent such as g-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane disclosed by Toyosawa et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a silane coupling agent such as g-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane in the polymer composition of Wade et al. in order to improve adhesion, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kanno et al. (3,855,055).
Regarding claim 14, Wade et al. disclose the polymer composition as set forth above. Wade et al. do not disclose poly(vinyl acetal) resin has a moisture level as presently claimed.
Kanno et al. disclose a polyvinyl acetal resin having a moisture content less than 1% in order to provide resistance to penetration and prevent bubble formation in the interlayer or between the glass and the interlayer (see col. 1, lines 29-31). Although there is no explicit disclosure that the moisture content is in wt.%, given that Kanno et al. disclose an amount of 1% “or less” which includes zero, it would necessarily meet the moisture level presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using polyvinyl acetal resin having a moisture content less than 1% disclosed by Kanno et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polyvinyl acetal resin having a moisture content less than 1% in Wade et al. in order to provide resistance to penetration and prevent bubble formation in the interlayer or between the glass and the interlayer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) in view of Kanno et al. (3,855,055).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Wade et al. disclose a polymer sheet (interlayer sheet) comprising poly(vinyl butyral) resin, sodium acetate and magnesium salt such as magnesium salicylate (see Abstract, page 6, claim 10 and paragraph 0024). Given that magnesium salicylate is identical to the magnesium salt utilized in the present invention, magnesium salicylate comprises a divalent magnesium ion and at least two carboxylate groups wherein the corresponding carboxylic acids of the carboxylate groups each have pKa of less than about 4.80. Further, the magnesium salt has titer, total alkalinity titer (alkalinity attributable to combination of potassium and sodium acetate) and ratio of titer to alkalinity titer as presently claimed (see page 6, claim 10). The polymer sheet can comprise plasticizers and IR absorbers (solar additives) (see paragraph 0037). The materials making the polymer sheet read on a polymer composition.
Wade et al. do not disclose poly(vinyl acetal) resin has a moisture level as presently claimed.
Kanno et al. disclose a polyvinyl acetal resin having a moisture content less than 1% in order to provide resistance to penetration and prevent bubble formation in the interlayer or between the glass and the interlayer (see col. 1, lines 29-31). Although there is no explicit disclosure that the moisture content is in wt.%, given that Kanno et al. disclose an amount of 1% “or less” which includes zero, it would necessarily meet the moisture level presently claimed.
In light of motivation for using polyvinyl acetal resin having a moisture content less than 1% disclosed by Kanno et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polyvinyl acetal resin having a moisture content less than 1% in Wade et al. in order to provide resistance to penetration and prevent bubble formation in the interlayer or between the glass and the interlayer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. disclose the polymer composition as presently claimed. Given that the polymer composition of Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. is identical to that presently claimed, it is inherent or obvious that the polymer composition of Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. has binding as presently claimed.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wade et al. (US 2005/0208315 A1) in view of Kanno et al. (3,855,055) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0174868 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 18-20, Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. disclose the interlayer sheet as set forth above. Further, Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. disclose a laminated safety glass comprising two sheets of glass and the interlayer sheet disposed between the two glass sheets (see paragraph 0044).
Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. do not disclose the interlayer sheet is a multilayer sheet comprising three layers.
Thompson et al. disclose that interlayer sheet can comprise multiple layers such as three layers having different stiffness and/or softness (see paragraph 0048).
Therefore, as taught by Thompson, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to prepare the interlayer sheet as a multilayer sheet comprising three layers of different stiffness and/or softness in Wade et al. in view of Kanno et al. depending on desired stiffness and/or softness of the interlayer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of following reasons.
Applicants argue that based on the above, the technical problem actually to be solved by independent claims 1 and 16 is how to accurately adjust and control the adhesiveness of polymer compositions containing solar additives. The objective of Wade is to replace a greater amount of potassium acetate with sodium acetate, and thus relatively high titers of sodium acetate are used to produce products having improved yellowness indices and improved resistance to edge delamination under certain conditions.
However, the fact remains that Wade meets all the limitations of the present claims 1, 6, and 7. Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicants argue that it is evident that Wade preferably uses magnesium bis(2-ethylbutyrate) for the ppm, titer, and ratio specified for magnesium salts. However, the present application has disclosed that when magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate is used in conjunction with solar additives, a phenomenon called "binding" typically occurs. Moreover, the polymer sheet is exposed to high temperature and water content during extrusion, unacceptably altering the adhesion qualities of the polymer sheet due to significant degradation of the magnesium ACA salt (i.e., magnesium 2-ethyl butyrate or 2-ethyl hexanoate) during extrusion. Based on the object and the embodiments of Wade, those skilled in the art would not have recognized that the combined use of certain adhesion control agents (e.g., magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate) and solar additives results in the sheet adhering too strongly to the glass in the finished laminate. Starting from Wade, those skilled in the art would have no motivation to accurately adjust and control the adhesiveness of polymer compositions containing solar additives through the specific combination of the solar energy additive, sodium and/or potassium acetate, and the magnesium salt (wherein the magnesium salt is magnesium salicylate, magnesium formate, magnesium salicylate tetrahydrate or magnesium formate dihydrate).
While Wade prefers to use magnesium bis(2-ethylbutyrate), other magnesium salts such as magnesium salicylate can be used (see paragraph 0024). It is noted that “nonpreferred disclosures can be used. A nonpreferred portion of a reference disclosure is just as significant as the preferred portion in assessing the patentability of claims.” In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960).
Further, Wade already disclose polymer sheet can contain additive such as IR absorbers which reads on solar additives (see paragraph 0037). That is, the polymer sheet comprises a combination of magnesium salt such as magnesium salicylate and solar additives. While Wade do not disclose motivation to accurately adjust and control the adhesiveness of polymer compositions containing solar additives, the fact remains that Wade disclose a combination of magnesium salt such as magnesium salicylate and solar additives.
While applicants argue that the present application has disclosed that when magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate is used in conjunction with solar additives, a phenomenon called "binding" typically occurs, there is no data (i.e. evidence) to show that magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate does not provide binding as presently claimed.
Regarding applicants argument that magnesium 2-ethyl butyrate or 2-ethyl hexanoate unacceptably alters the adhesion qualities of the polymer sheet, while applicants have evidence (i.e. data) to show magnesium 2-ethyl hexanoate affect binding (% binding) and adhesion (Peel N/cm) (see Table 1 and Table 2), applicants have provided no evidence (i.e. data) to show how magnesium 2-ethyl butyrate used by Wade affects binding and adhesion. Applicants have not provided no evidence (i.e. data) to show the results obtained for magnesium 2-ethyl hexanoate and magnesium 2-ethyl butyrate are equivalent. Further, as noted above, while Wade prefers magnesium 2-ethyl butyrate other magnesium salt such as magnesium salicylate can be used.
Further, even if applicants establish that results obtained by magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate is equivalent to magnesium 2-ethylhexanonate (i.e. magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate is equivalent to magnesium 2-ethylhexanonate), the data in the present application demonstrating criticality of magnesium salicylate or magnesium formate over magnesium 2-ethylhexanonate is not persuasive (see Table 2). Specifically, the data is not persuasive given that the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the present claims given that (i) the examples recite a specific polyvinyl acetal resin in specific amounts (see paragraph 0078 of present specification), while the present claim recite any polyvinyl acetal resin in any amounts, (ii) the examples recite a specific solar additive in specific amounts (see Table 2), while the present claim recite any solar additive in any amounts, (iii) the examples recite a specific level/titer of potassium acetate (see Table 2), while the examples has broad recitation of any level/titer of sodium acetate and/or potassium acetate, (iv) the examples recite specific plasticizer in specific amounts (see paragraph 0078 of present specification), while the present claim recite any plasticizer in any amounts, (v) the examples recite a specific magnesium salt in specific amounts (see paragraph 0078 of present specification), while the examples has broad recitation of magnesium salts in any amounts, and (vi) the examples recite specific titer of magnesium salt or hydrate thereof (see Table 2), while the present claim has broad recitation of titer of magnesium salt or hydrate thereof. Further, the Examples 19 and 20 in Table 2 that that use magnesium 2-ethylhexanonate in combination with CWO (solar additive) also has binding % of less than 15% as recited in present claim.
Applicants argue that in addition, because of the deficiency of Wade, Kanno alone doesn't teach the limitation of 16.
However, note that while Kanno do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Kanno is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely moisture level of polyvinyl acetal resin, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights