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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 9-11 recite “third and fourth resin layers.” It is unclear how third and fourth resin layers may exist without first and second resin layers (introduced in claim 7). For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as dependent on claim 7.
Claim 13 recites “shape at the other end side.” It is unclear how a shape at the other end side can be a triangle or trapezoid. The other end side is a side perpendicular to the image in Lu (figure 4, for example). This side would have a uniform shape such that it can only be rectangular. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that the entire cross section may have a triangular or trapezoidal shape.
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, 2 and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/208514 Matsuo et al in view of US 2017/0106633 Lu et al.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo teaches a resin film (paragraph 0001) comprising
a transparent resin layer (one adhesive layer) comprising a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0070), and
a light diffusion layer (paragraph 0007) comprising a thermoplastic resin (paragraph 0042) and a light diffusion particle (paragraph 0007), the light diffusion layer being placed in the transparent resin layer (paragraph 0053).
Matsuo does not explicitly teach the light diffusion layer having a gradient. Lu teaches a multiple layer interlayer and laminated glazing, where a thickness of the interlayer decreases from one end of the interlayer toward other end opposite to the one end in one direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the resin film (figure 4), and
a gradient of the thickness of the light diffusion layer being 0.10 to 1.2 mrad in a region located within 10% from the other end provided that a distance from the one end to the other end is 100% (paragraph 0064, and figure 4 showing the entire interlayer being tapered).
“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 0.10 to 1.2 mrad reads on the claimed range of 0.9 mrad or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the gradient of Lu in the product of Masaki because these are useful in head-up display panels (paragraph 0061), increasing the potential uses for the product.
Regarding claim 2, 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 the thermoplastic resins comprised in the transparent resin layer (paragraph 0070) and the light diffusion layer are each a polyvinyl acetal resin (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuo teaches that the transparent resin layer comprises a first resin layer 24 and a second resin layer 24, and the light diffusion layer is placed between the first and second resin layers (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Lu further 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 9, Matsuo teaches third and fourth resin layers 25 provided in the listed order, on one surface of the transparent resin layer (figure 2, paragraph 0070 teaching base material layer adjacent to adhesive layers 24, and paragraph 0063 teaching a resin substrate).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuo teaches that thermoplastic resins comprised in the third and fourth resin layers are each a polyvinyl acetal resin (paragraph 0063 teaching base material layer resin the same as light diffusing layer resin, and paragraph 0042 teaching light diffusing layer as PVB).
Regarding claim 11, Lu further 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).
Lu further teaches a laminated glazing wherein a content of the plasticizer based on 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin in the third resin layer (skin layer A in Lu, Table 1, Interlayer DI-1) is higher (75 phr) than each content of the plasticizer based on 100 parts by mass of the thermoplastic resin in each of the transparent resin layer, light diffusion layer and the fourth resin layer (core layers B and/or C in Lu, Table 1, Interlayer DI-1, at 38 phr). Please note that while the table shows unknown layers in the center of the multilayer, Lu also teaches alternating layers (paragraph 0052) and 32 or more polymer layers (paragraph 0091), such that because the claimed layers are not required to be in direct contact, each of the transparent resin layer, light diffusion layer and fourth resin layer may be formed of resin B and/or C.
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 12, Matsuo teaches that a thickness of a tip of the light diffusion layer at the other end side is 0.1 to 20 microns thick (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 13, Lu teaches that a shape of the light diffusion layer at the other end side is a cross-sectional trapezoid (figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, 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 15, Matsuo teaches paired glass members (paragraph 0063), wherein the resin film is placed between the paired glass members (paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 16, 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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2016/208514 Matsuo et al in view of US 2017/0106633 Lu et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0164409 Masaki.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, neither Matsuo nor Lu teach the clear glass of 2.5 mm thickness or the claimed ratio of maximum intensity. 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.
Furthermore, the instant specification does teach that the light intensity is determined by the diffusion particle (as-filed spec paragraph 0016). Matsuo in view of Lu and 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 Lu and 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).
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