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 1-10, 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/208514 Matsuo et al in view of US 2012/0164409 Masaki.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo teaches a resin film comprising a light diffusion layer (paragraph 0001) comprising
a light diffusion particle (paragraph 0007) and a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0007 teaching resin and paragraph 0042 teaching that the resin may be thermoplastic), and
a laminated glass obtained by adhesion of two sheets of glass (base layer, paragraph 0063) with the resin film being interposed (sandwiched, paragraph 0070).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach clear glass that is 2.5 mm thick. One reading Matsuo as a whole would appreciate that Matsuo is not particularly concerned with the type of thickness of the glass, and that these parameters would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Masaki teaches a laminated glass where an interlayer is sandwiched between two layers of clear glass that is 1.8 to 2.5 mm thick (paragraph 0099).
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the glass being clear glass and with a thickness in the range of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results (MPEP 2141, Part III. KSR A: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results). As such to change the thickness and type of glass to the claimed thickness and type would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
“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 1.8 to 2.5 mm reads on the claimed range of 2.5 mm.
Neither Matsuo nor Masaki teaches the chromaticity when irradiated by simulated light. However, the instant specification does teach that the light intensity is determined by the diffusion particle (as-filed spec paragraph 0016). Matsuo in view of Masaki satisfies all of the previous limitations, and Matsuo’s diffusion particle is indistinguishable from the claimed particle.
As-filed spec paragraph 0020 discussing particle composition of silver, titanium or nanodiamond. Matsuo teaches silver or titanium particles (paragraph 0056) or nanodiamond (paragraph 0061 teaching diamond and paragraph 0057 teaching nano-scale).
As-filed spec paragraph 0021 discussing core-shell structure. Matsuo teaches mica or glass coated with metal (paragraph 0056).
As-filed spec paragraph 0022 discussing particle size of 1 nm to 100 microns. Matsuo teaches particles of 0.01 to 100 microns (10 nm to 100 microns, paragraph 0057).
As-filed spec paragraph 0024 discussing use of two or more types of particles. Matsuo teaches two mixed particle types (paragraphs 0097-0098).
As-filed spec paragraph 0027 discussing particle content of 0.00001 wt% to 1 wt%. Matsuo teaches 0.00001 wt% to 5 wt% (paragraph 0059).
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Matsuo in view of Masaki would also exhibit an x value and a y value of chromaticity coordinates (CIE1931) of transmitted light being respectively 0.25 or more and 0.4 or less and 0.25 or more and 0.4 or less, when irradiated with simulated solar light by a solar simulator. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, neither Matsuo nor Masaki teach the claimed ratio of maximum intensity. However, the instant specification does teach that the light intensity is determined by the diffusion particle (as-filed spec paragraph 0016). Matsuo in view of Masaki satisfies all of the previous limitations, and Matsuo’s diffusion particle is indistinguishable from the claimed particle (see discussion with respect to claim 1 above).
Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Matsuo in view of Masaki would also exhibit the claimed ratio of maximum intensity A/maximum intensity B and maximum intensity A/maximum intensity C. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuo teaches that a content of the light diffusion particle in 100% by mass of the resin film is 0.00001% by mass or more and 5% by mass or less (paragraph 0059). “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 0.00001 to 5 wt% reads on the claimed range of 0.00001 to 1 wt%.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuo teaches that the light diffusion particle is at least one selected from the group consisting of a nanoparticle (paragraph 0057) comprising at least any of a silver element and a titanium element (paragraph 0056), or nanodiamond (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuo teaches that when a thickness of the light diffusion layer is measured at an interval of 5 cm in one direction along a surface direction, a difference between a maximum thickness and a minimum thickness of the light diffusion layer is 40 microns or less (paragraph 0034 discussing thickness, where because of Matsuo’s silence regarding variation, Examiner is taking the position that the thickness is constant and uniform across the entire sheet). Applicant may provide evidence rebutting this position.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuo teaches an ultraviolet absorber additive (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuo teaches that the ultraviolet absorber is a benzotriazole-based compound (paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuo meets the claim by teaching the ultraviolet absorber (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuo teaches that the thermoplastic resin comprised in the light diffusion layer is a polyvinyl acetal resin (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Matsuo teaches three or more resin layers (adhesive layers plus light diffusion layer, paragraph 0070) each comprising a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0070, teaching PVB), wherein the three or more resin layers comprise the light diffusion layer and second and third resin layers, and the light diffusion layer is placed between the second and third resin layers (paragraph 0070 teaching a “sandwich”).
Regarding claim 14, Matsuo teaches that the thermoplastic resin comprised in each of the second and third resin layers is a polyvinyl acetal resin (paragraph 0070, PVB).
Regarding claim 15, Matsuo teaches that the resin film is an interlayer film for laminated glass (paragraph 0070 teaching sandwiched base layers, and paragraph 0092 teaching use in a vehicle).
Regarding claim 16, Matsuo teaches paired glass members (paragraph 0063), wherein the resin film is placed between the paired glass members (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 17, Matsuo in view of Masaki teaches most of the limitations with respect to claim 1 above. Matsuo further teaches use as a screen (paragraph 0001).
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/208514 Matsuo et al in view of US 2012/0164409 Masaki as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2017/0106633 Lu et al.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuo in view of Masaki teaches the resin film, but does not teach the use of a plasticizer. Lu teaches a laminated glazing where each layer of a multiple-layer interlayer includes a plasticizer (paragraph 0010). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the plasticizer of Lu in the product of Matsuo because this allows one to change the properties of the interlayer such as stiffness and glass transition temperature (paragraph 0043).
Regarding claim 13, Matsuo in view of Masaki teaches the resin film, but does not teach plasticizer presence or content. Lu teaches a laminated glazing wherein a content of the plasticizer based on 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin in the light diffusion layer (central layer A in Lu, Table 1, Interlayer CI-2) is higher (75 phr) than each content of the plasticizer based on 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin in each of the second and third resin layers (skin layers B in Lu, Table 1, Interlayer CI-2, at 38 phr). Please note that while a comparative interlayer has been used as the illustrative example here, Lu as a whole discusses any combination of multiple layer interlayers with both core and skin layers of different plasticizer amounts (paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the plasticizer of Lu in the product of Matsuo because this allows one to change the properties of the interlayer such as stiffness and glass transition temperature (paragraph 0043).
Conclusion
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