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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of the claims would not be a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the Requirement for Restriction mailed on 11/21/2025, the technical feature of the groups of inventions is not a special technical feature and do not make a contribution over the prior art of Iwamoto et al. (US 2019/036691, cited on IDS and ISR) (see PCT Rule 13.1 and 13.2).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025, 08/07/2024, 07/01/2024 is considered by the examiner.
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 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 2, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “wherein the distance X is between 0.2 and 30cm”, and the claim also recites “between 0.2 and 20cm, between 0.2 and 15 cm, between 0.2 and 10 cm, and/or between 0.2 and 5.0 cm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation reciting “wherein a resin of the first, second and/or third polymer layers comprises PVB” is indefinite. It is not clear in the instance where the first, second and third polymers all comprise PVB, how the requirements regarding the first layer having a glass transition temperature less than 20˚C and the second and third layers having glass transition temperatures greater than 25˚C can be met, since all three layers are comprised of PVB. Furthermore, it is not clear how the conditions of claim 1 can be met when the first layer and either the second or third layer are comprised of PVB, since the first layer is required to have a different glass transition temperature than both the second and third layers.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “generally constant” with respect to the claimed thickness of the interlayer is indefinite as “generally” is a relative term. The phrase “generally constant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the scope of the phrase “generally constant” is with respect to the thickness and how much thickness variation is allowed for it to fall within the scope of “generally constant”.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation reciting “wherein said polymer interlayer is configured to be laminated between a pair of glass sheets to form a windshield, and wherein upon lamination of the windshield, the edge of said polymer interlayer is positioned adjacent to a top of the windshield” is indefinite. The claims are directed to the intended use related to the process of using the claimed interlayer. The claims of the instant application are directed to a polymer interlayer, therefore, it is not clear what further structure is recited or required as the claimed glass sheets are not structural features of the claimed polymer interlayer, but rather, a recitation of intended use directed to the process of using the polymer interlayer.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein upon lamination of the windshield…and/or between 0.2 and 5.0cm” is indefinite for the reasons expressed above regarding claim 6. The claim further limits the intended use recitation, and therefore, is indefinite as it is unclear what further structure is being required for the claimed polymer interlayer.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “wherein the distance Y is between 0.2 and 40cm”, and the claim also recites “between 0.2 and 30cm, between 0.2 and 20 cm, between 0.2 and 15 cm, between 0.2 and 10 cm, and/or between 0.2 and 5.0 cm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reciting “wherein said polymer interlayer is laminated between a pair of glass sheets…using the edge bubble test” is indefinite. The claims are directed to the intended use related to the process of using the claimed interlayer. The claims of the instant application are directed to a polymer interlayer, therefore, it is not clear what further structure is recited or required as the claimed glass sheets are not structural features of the claimed polymer interlayer, but rather, a recitation of intended use directed to the process of using the polymer interlayer.
Regarding claim 9, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “include no more than two edge bubbles”, and the claim also recites “no more than one edge bubble, and/or no edge bubbles” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein said polymer interlayer is laminated between a pair of 2.3mm thickness glass sheets…2 to 4 KHz frequency range” is indefinite. The claims are directed to the intended use related to the process of using the claimed interlayer. The claims of the instant application are directed to a polymer interlayer, therefore, it is not clear what further structure is recited or required as the claimed glass sheets are not structural features of the claimed polymer interlayer, but rather, a recitation of intended use directed to the process of using the polymer interlayer.
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.
Claims 1 through 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto et al. (US 2019/0366691, cited on IDS and ISR).
Regarding claim 1, Iwamoto et al. teaches an interlayer film for laminated glass, the interlayer, as shown below, is comprised of a first polymer layer (1) positioned between a second polymer layer (2) and a third polymer layer (3) ([0053-0071, 0104]).
PNG
media_image1.png
102
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iwamoto et al. teaches that the polymer interlayer has an edge, wherein the first polymer layer (1) is covered on all four lateral surfaces, such that the second polymer layer (2) and the third polymer layer (3) cover side lateral surfaces of the first polymer layer (1) (i.e. no present within a portion of polymer interlayer) ([0053-0071, 0104]).
Iwamoto et al. teaches that the lateral covering part (4) covering the lateral side edges of the first polymer layer (1) makes it possible for foaming to be less likely to occur and enhances the sound insulating properties ([0053, 0104]).
Iwamoto et al. teaches various embodiments for the lateral covering part in Figures 2 through 6, however, the reference does not expressly teach that the distance of the lateral covering part (4) from the edge of the first polymer layer (1) to the outer edge of the lateral covering part (4) is between 0.2 and 40 cm, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Iwamoto et al. teaches that the lateral covering part (4) configuration allows for enhancing the sound insulation and making foaming less likely to occur in an end part of interlayer film ([0036]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the width of the lateral edge part to fall within the claimed range to ensure that the edge of the first polymer layer was covered to achieve the desired results with respect to sound insulation and decrease chances of foaming at the edges.
Iwamoto et al. teaches that the first polymer layer (1), second polymer layer (2) and third polymer layer (3) are all comprised of thermoplastic resins and a plasticizer ([0117-0183]). Iwamoto et al. teaches that the content of plasticizer in the first polymer layer (1) is 50-130 parts by weight of the resin, wherein plasticizer within this range results in enhanced flexibility and handling of the interlayer ([0180]). The content of plasticizer in the second polymer layer (2) and the third polymer layer (3) is 10-40 parts by weight of the resins of the respective layers, which again, results in enhancements in flexibility and handling of the interlayer ([0181]). Iwamoto et al. additionally teaches that it is preferred that the content of plasticizer in the first polymer layer (1) be larger than the content of plasticizer in both of the second polymer layer (2) and the third polymer layer (3), for the purposes of enhancing the sound insulating properties the interlayer when used in laminated glass ([0182]).
While Iwamoto et al. does not expressly teach the claimed differences in glass transition temperatures, based on the differences in plasticizer content taught by the reference as described above, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In the Applicants own disclosure in pg-pub [0032], it is taught that plasticizers are added to polymers to increase flexibility and lowering the glass transition temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize similar principals in the teachings of Iwamoto et al., and conclude that the glass transition temperature of the first polymer layer (1) would be lower than that of the second polymer layer (2) and the third polymer layer (3).
Regarding claim 2, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
While Iwamoto et al. teaches various embodiments for the lateral covering part in Figures 2 through 6, the reference does not expressly teach that the distance of the lateral covering part (4) from the edge of the first polymer layer (1) to the outer edge of the lateral covering part (4) is between “0.2 and 30cm, between 0.2 and 20cm, between 0.2 and 15 cm, between 0.2 and 10 cm, and/or between 0.2 and 5.0 cm”, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Iwamoto et al. teaches that the lateral covering part (4) configuration allows for enhancing the sound insulation and making foaming less likely to occur in an end part of interlayer film ([0036]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the width of the lateral edge part to fall within the claimed range to ensure that the edge of the first polymer layer was covered to achieve the desired results with respect to sound insulation and decrease chances of foaming at the edges.
Regarding claim 3, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the second polymer layer and third polymer layer are comprised of PVB ([0117-0171, 0285, 0301], Table 2).
Regarding claim 4, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the interlayer film may have uniform thickness ([0238]).
Regarding claim 5, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches that the interlayer film may have varying thickness in a wedge-like shape ([0238]).
Regarding claim 6, the limitation reciting “wherein said polymer interlayer is configured to be laminated between a pair of glass sheets to form a windshield, and wherein upon lamination of the windshield, the edge of said polymer interlayer is positioned adjacent to a top of the windshield” is considered functional language related to the intended use of the product and process of using the product, and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Iwamoto et al. discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 7, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Claim 7 is further limiting the intended use recitation of claim 6, and therefore is also considered to be functional language related to the intended use of the product and process of using the product, and is accorded limited weight as the language does not further limit the structure or the process. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Iwamoto et al. discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 8, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches as shown by the various embodiments in Figures 2 through 6, that the coverage of the lateral edge portion (4) from the edge of the first polymer layer to the edge of the overall interlayer film extends around at least two edges of the first polymer layer.
Regarding claim 9, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. The limitation reciting “wherein when said polymer is laminated between a pair of glass sheets to form a laminated glass panel, such glass panel includes no more than two edge bubble, no more than one edge bubble, and/or no edge bubbles, as determined using the edge bubble test” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Iwamoto et al. discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation reciting “wherein when said polymer interlayer is laminated between a pair of 2.3mm thickness glass sheets to form a laminated glass panel, such glass panel has an average sound transmission loss of at least 39.0 dB in a 2 to 4 KHz frequency range” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Iwamoto et al. discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 11, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
The limitation reciting “wherein said polymer interlayer is formed by co-extrusion” is a method limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of using the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Iwamoto et al. discloses the structure of claim 1 as described above.
Furthermore, Iwamoto et al. teaches that the interlayer film is prepared by coextrusion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA POWERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
LAURA POWERS
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785