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 .
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant's amendments and/or arguments. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
NEW REJECTIONS: NECESSITATED BY AMENDMENT
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, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekikawa et al. (JP 2017/198807) in view of Oldenburg (US 9675953).
Re claims 1-3, and 8, Sekikawa et al. disclose a transparent screen comprising light scattering layer, i.e. resin film, containing a transparent resin and 0.01-10 mass % light scattering material where the transparent resin is a thermoplastic resin that is polyvinyl acetal and the light scattering material includes inorganic fine particles including titanium oxide [11]. The light scattering material is identical to that used in the present invention (see paragraph 0033 of the present specification) and therefore would function as a light diffusing particle.
The exact ranges and core-shell particle is not taught in Sekikawa as claimed.
However, core-shell particles as claimed are used beneficially in decreasing at least humidity. See 7:60-8:55 and 10:30-45, Oldenburg.
In light of the overlap between the claimed resin film and that disclosed by Sekikawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a resin film that is both disclosed by Sekikawa et al., Oldenburg and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention for reasons set forth above.
Given that Sekikawa et al. disclose resin film identical to that presently claimed, when one surface of the laminated glass, that is obtained by adhesion of two sheets of standard glass having a thickness of 2.5 mm with the resin film being interposed, is irradiated with simulated solar light by a solar simulator in a perpendicular direction, the ratio between a maximum value and a minimum value with respect to brightness measured in directions at angles relative to a direction perpendicular to the other surface of a laminated glass of 30°, 45°, 60° and 75°, would inherently be 0.1 or more.
Re claims 5, 7, and 10, Sekikawa et al. disclose a laminate having a structure of transparent substrate/bonding layer/light-scattering layer (resin film)/bonding layer/transparent substrate [84] where the bonding layer comprises polyvinyl acetal [39-42]. The transparent substrate includes glass [32-33]. Therefore, the light-scattering layer (resin film) is an interlayer for laminated glass.
Re claim 9, Sekikawa et al. disclose the light-scattering layer (resin film) has a thickness of 1-200 microns with no disclosure of any variation of thickness and optional surface roughness [59]. Therefore, the difference in thickness would necessarily be zero.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekikawa et al. (JP 2017/198807) in view of Oldenburg (US 9675953) and further in view of Nakajima et al. (WO 2019011825 A1).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2019011825 A1 in the above paragraph, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2021/0170719 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to WO 2019011825 A1 are found in US 2021/0170719.
Re claim 4, Sekikawa et al. do not disclose the light-scattering layer (resin film) comprises a plasticizer.
Nakajima et al. disclose a screen comprising a light-scattering resin layer comprising thermoplastic resin that is polyvinyl acetal and a light scattering compound [7] as well as plasticizer [33]. The plasticizer imparts flexibility and adhesiveness to the light-scattering resin layer [33].
In light of the motivation for using plasticizer disclosed by Nakajima et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary kill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plasticizer in the light-scattering resin layer of Sekikawa et al. in order to produce light-scattering resin layer with imparts flexibility and adhesiveness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekikawa et al. (JP 2017/198807) in view of Oldenburg (US 9675953), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu (US 7,510,771).
Re claim 6, Sekikawa et al. do not disclose the light-scattering layer (resin film) comprises content of plasticizer as claimed.
Lu et al. disclose multiple layer interlayers that can be used in multiple layer glass panel type applications to reduce the amount of sound transmitted through the panel which effect is achieved by maintaining a difference in the plasticizer concentration in two or more polymer sheets that have been combined into a single multiple layer interlayer (col.1, lines 40-41, 49-55, and 58-63). The interlayers are made from polyvinyl butyral (col.1, lines 40-41). Lu et al. disclose that the plasticizer content of the two polymer sheets differ by at least 8 phr (col.2, lines 49-53) and specifically discloses a three layer construction where the middle layer (corresponding to claimed first resin layer) has higher plasticizer content than the two outer layers (corresponding to claimed second and third resin layers) (col.5, lines 12-21).
In light of the motivation for using interlayer comprising layers with different amounts of plasticizer disclosed by Lu et al. as described above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an interlayer in Sekikawa et al. where the first resin layer has a higher content of plasticizer than the second and third resin layers in order to produce an interlayer with enhanced sound dampening or sound suppression characteristics.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure including the Written Opinion of the International Search Report. The rejection is moot in view of the new referenced used in the new ground of rejection above.
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 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 on 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
Prosecution Insights