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 1-3, 7-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0232624 Lu.
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a laminated glazing (paragraph 0002) comprising:
a first rigid substrate (paragraph 0051);
a multilayer polymer interlayer (paragraph 0030); and
a second rigid substrate (paragraph 0051);
wherein the multilayer polymer interlayer comprises:
a first layer (skin) comprising a first poly(vinyl acetal) resin (Resin-C, paragraph 0086) having a first residual hydroxyl content (Table 2, 19%) and a first residual acetate content (paragraph 0080, 2%), and a first plasticizer (Table 2 teaching a phr), wherein the first layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 30°C (Table 1, examples DL-1 to DL-4),
a second layer (core) comprising a second poly(vinyl acetal) resin (Resin-A, Table 1, examples DL-1 to DL-4) having a second residual hydroxyl content (paragraph 0078, 10-11%), and a second plasticizer (Table 1 teaching phr), wherein the second layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of -3°C (Table 1, examples DL-1 to DL-4); and
a third layer (skin) comprising a third poly(vinyl acetal) resin (Resin-C, paragraph 0086) having a third residual hydroxyl content (Table 2, 19%) and a third plasticizer (Table 2 teaching a phr), wherein the third layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 30°C (Table 1, examples DL-1 to DL-4),
wherein the second layer is between the first layer and the third layer (paragraph 0086 teaching core and skin layers),
wherein the laminated glazing has a damping loss factor (η) of 0.37 (Table 3, example DI-1).
Lu teaches that the second layer (core layer) comprise only one polyvinyl acetal resin in the comparative layers CL-1 and CL-2 (Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the comparative layers of Lu in the product of Lu because these are conventionally known in the art. Please note that while Lu prefers a mixture of multiple resins, the feature of only a single resin in the core layer is shown as known.
Lu does not explicitly teach the loss factor per area. However, Lu does teach the loss factor (η) measured according to the MIM method (paragraph 0058). As shown by Applicant (see instant figure 4), the loss factor measured according to the MIM method corresponds to the loss factor per area. Therefore, while Lu only explicitly teaches the loss factor measured according to MIM, because this corresponds to the loss factor per area, the loss factor per area of Lu would also fall within the claimed range of “at least 0.0450.”
Regarding claim 11, Lu teaches most of the limitations with respect to claim 1 above. Lu further teaches that the laminated glazing is a windshield (paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 2, Lu teaches that the first poly(vinyl acetal) resin and the third poly(vinyl acetal) resin are the same (paragraph 0086, both skin layers using Resin-C).
Regarding claim 3, Lu teaches that the difference between the first residual hydroxyl content and the second residual hydroxyl content is 7-9 wt% (paragraph 0078 and paragraph 0080 teaching the hydroxyl contents for both resins).
Regarding claim 7, Lu teaches that the interlayer comprises an IR absorber in at least one layer (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 8, Lu teaches that the interlayer further comprises a non-poly(vinyl acetal) layer (paragraph 0049, PU for example).
Regarding claim 9, Lu teaches that the interlayer has a damping loss factor (η) of 0.37 (Table 3, example DI-1).
Lu does not explicitly teach the loss factor per area. However, Lu does teach the loss factor (η) measured according to the MIM method (paragraph 0058). As shown by Applicant (see instant figure 4), the loss factor measured according to the MIM method corresponds to the loss factor per area. Therefore, while Lu only explicitly teaches the loss factor measured according to MIM, because this corresponds to the loss factor per area, the loss factor per area of Lu would also fall within the claimed range of “at least 0.29.”
Regarding claim 10, Lu teaches that the laminated glazing is a window in a vehicle (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 12, Lu teaches that the first poly(vinyl acetal) resin and the third poly(vinyl acetal) resin are the same (paragraph 0086, both skin layers using Resin-C).
Regarding claim 13, Lu teaches that the difference between the first residual hydroxyl content and the second residual hydroxyl content is 7-9 wt% (paragraph 0078 and paragraph 0080 teaching the hydroxyl contents for both resins).
Regarding claim 17, Lu teaches that the interlayer comprises an IR absorber in at least one layer (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 18, Lu teaches that the interlayer further comprises a non-poly(vinyl acetal) layer (paragraph 0049, PU for example).
Regarding claim 19, Lu teaches that the interlayer has a damping loss factor (η) of 0.37 (Table 3, example DI-1).
Lu does not explicitly teach the loss factor per area. However, Lu does teach the loss factor (η) measured according to the MIM method (paragraph 0058). As shown by Applicant (see instant figure 4), the loss factor measured according to the MIM method corresponds to the loss factor per area. Therefore, while Lu only explicitly teaches the loss factor measured according to MIM, because this corresponds to the loss factor per area, the loss factor per area of Lu would also fall within the claimed range of “at least 0.29.”
Claims 4-6, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0232624 Lu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 2019/0143649 Oota et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lu teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach a tapered interlayer. Oota teaches a multilayered laminated glazing where the multilayer interlayer is a tapered interlayer (paragraph 0065), and one layer of the multilayered interlayer has a tapered profile (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the tapered shape of Oota in the product of Lu because this reduces the occurrence of double images (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 6, Lu teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach a shade band. Oota teaches a multilayered laminated glazing where the interlayer has a gradient color band (paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the shade band of Oota in the product of Lu because this reduces the glare for the driver (paragraph 0044). Please note that “gradient” is satisfied by the presence of color in the shade band, and the relative lack of color in the transparent portion of the glazing.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lu teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach a tapered interlayer. Oota teaches a multilayered laminated glazing where the multilayer interlayer is a tapered interlayer (paragraph 0065), and one layer of the multilayered interlayer has a tapered profile (figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the tapered shape of Oota in the product of Lu because this reduces the occurrence of double images (paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 16, Lu teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach a shade band. Oota teaches a multilayered laminated glazing where the interlayer has a gradient color band (paragraph 0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the shade band of Oota in the product of Lu because this reduces the glare for the driver (paragraph 0044). Please note that “gradient” is satisfied by the presence of color in the shade band, and the relative lack of color in the transparent portion of the glazing.
Regarding claim 20, Oota further teaches that the windshield is used for a head-up display in a vehicle (paragraph 0177).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Lu does not teach only one resin in the second layer. However, as discussed above, Lu teaches this feature in the comparative layers, showing that such a construction is known.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights