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 .
Summary
The Applicants arguments and claim amendments received in the response filed 08/24/2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are amended, claim 3 is cancelled; claims 12-20 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 2, 4-11 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2026 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.
Claim 2 is 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, the amendments made to claim 2 render the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “PVB” at the beginning of the newly added phrase “PVBwherein each of the first polymer layer, the second polymer layer and the third polymer layer comprises a poly(vinyl butyral) resin” means with respect to the requirements of the claim. See below:
PNG
media_image1.png
144
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim already requires that the first polymer layer, the second polymer layer and the third polymer layer comprises a poly(vinyl butyral) resin, so it appears that “PVB” is a typo, and will be considered as such for examination purposes.
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, 2 and 4-11 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_image2.png
102
285
media_image2.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. not 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]). As shown by Figure 1b reproduced above, the later covering part (4) is a portion of the polymer interlayer wherein the first polymer layer (1) is not present, and the second polymer layer (2) and third polymer layer (3) are the only layers present in the lateral covering part (4), thus meeting the limitation “monolithic layer containing essentially only the resin of the second polymer layer and third polymer layer” recited in lines 10-12 of claim 1.
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 lower 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the glass transition temperatures such that the difference in glass transition temperatures between the first polymer layer and the glass transition temperatures of each of the second polymer layer and third polymer layer was at least about 20˚C based upon the differences in amounts of plasticizer within each layer, which affect the glass transitions temperatures.
Regarding claim 2, 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).
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”, 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 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, 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]), wherein the generally accepted definition of a wedge is a material that is thick at one end and tapering to a thin edge at the other (see wedge, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary).
While the reference does not expressly teach that the reference does not expressly teach that the edge from which the distance X extends (referred to as “non-core portion” in instant specification) is the second edge and has a greater thickness than the first edge, such a modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As shown by the Figures of Iwamoto et al., both sides of the interlayer film comprise a lateral edge covering part (4) wherein no first polymer layer is present (referred to as “non-core portion” in instant specification), therefore, either lateral edge covering part (4) could be designated as the edge from which distance X extends, including the edge with the side of the wedge with the greater thickness (see Figure 1b, 2, 12).
Regarding claim 7, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above. As previously stated, Iwamoto et al. teaches, as shown in the Figures, that both sides of the interlayer film comprise a lateral edge covering part (4; portion from claim 1, second portion from claim 7) wherein no first polymer layer is present (referred to as “non-core portion” in instant specification) (see Figure 1b, 2, 12).
Iwamoto et al. 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.
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, and as shown in Figure 12, reproduced below, further teaches a laminated glass (31) comprising a first lamination glass member (22; glass sheet), a second lamination glass member (11; glass sheet) and the interlayer film (11) therebetween ([0242-0253]).
PNG
media_image3.png
262
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Iwamoto et al. teaches that the lateral covering part (4) configuration allows for enhancing the sound insulation and making foaming (bubbles) less likely to occur in an end part of interlayer film ([0036]). As shown by the Examples in Table 1 of Iwamoto et al., Examples 1-7 do not have any foaming observed in the end part ([0314]), wherein the end part refers to the lateral edge portion (4) wherein the first polymer layer is not present.
Regarding claim 10, Iwamoto et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, and as shown in Figure 12, reproduced below, further teaches a laminated glass (31) comprising a first lamination glass member (22; glass sheet), a second lamination glass member (11; glass sheet) and the interlayer film (11) therebetween ([0242-0253]).
PNG
media_image3.png
262
422
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Iwamoto et al. teaches that the thickness of each of the lamination glass members (22, 11) is preferably 1mm to 3mm ([0253], which overlaps the claimed value of 2.3mm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exits.
Iwamoto et al. further teaches that sound insulating properties were evaluated, wherein beep sounds having a frequency of 500Hz to 8000Hz (0.5-8kHz) ([0276, 0311-0313] Table 1). When the evaluator could hear the beep signal sounds uniformly regardless of the frequency, the evaluation was good, and when the evaluator heat at a specific frequency a beep signal that was larger than those at other frequencies, the evaluation was not good ([0276, 0311-0313]). As shown by Example 1-7 in Table 1, the sound insulating properties were good for the invention by Iwamoto et al.
While the reference does not expressly teach that the laminated glass panel has an average sound transmission loss of at least 39.0dB in a 2 to 4 kHz frequency range as measures in accordance with ASTM E90 at 20˚C, such a feature would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be inherently present in the invention of Iwamoto et al. based upon the sound insulating property evaluation taught by the reference, the results of which are summarized by Table 2. Furthermore, Iwamoto et al. teaches the structural features required by the claims, and thus would inherently comprise the same properties.
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.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 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 are overcome by Applicants amendments to claim 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10, as well as the cancellation of claim 3 in the response filed 08/24/2026.
In light of the amendments to claim 2, however, new issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are raised in the office action above.
Furthermore, on page 6 of the Applicants arguments, arguments with respect to claim 3 are presented that address the previous indefiniteness rejection of the claim. The Applicant argues that the specification explains that the layers each comprise PVB and may also exhibit different glass transition temperatures due to the amount of plasticizer present. The Applicant further argues that PVB resins of different residual hydroxyl content govern plasticizer compatibility, so PVB resins of differing residual hydroxyl content incorporate different amounts of plasticizer and thus exhibit different glass transition temperatures. The Applicants arguments suggest that claim 3 is still pending, however, in the most recent response submitted 08/24/2026, claim 3 is cancelled. Therefore, the Applicants arguments with respect to claim 3 are moot.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 that Iwamoto et al. does not teach a monolithic non-core portion, but rather, the reference teaches a lateral covering part (4) that covers the lateral surfaces of the first (core) layer at the end portion of the interlayer, however, the first (core) layer remains present. This is in contrast to claim 1 which requires that a portion at the edge in which the first layer is not present at all, and the interlayer instead comprises a monolithic layer containing essentially only the resin of the second and third layers. This argument is not persuasive.
Figure 1b is annotated below for clarification.
PNG
media_image4.png
366
815
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Iwamoto et al. teaches the structure of claim 1, and teaches that in the lateral covering part (4) as shown in the annotated figure above, is a portion of the interlayer film wherein the first polymer layer (1) is not present, and the lateral covering part contains only the resin of the second polymer layer (2) and the third polymer layer (3), meeting the limitation “monolithic layer”. Iwamoto et al. expressly teaches that the lateral covering part (4) covers the entire lateral part of the first layer, wherein the second layer (2) reaches the center of the lateral part of the first layer (1) and the third layer (3) reaches the center of the lateral part of the first layer (1) ([0064-0068]). Iwamoto et al. teaches that the second layer (2) and the third layer (3) constitute the entire lateral covering part (4), thus meeting the limitation “monolithic layer”.
The Applicant argues on page 8 that the glass transition temperature difference is not taught by Iwamoto et al. This argument is not persuasive.
As stated above, 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 and 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 ([0180-0181]). 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 lower 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). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the glass transition temperatures such that the difference in glass transition temperatures between the first polymer layer and the glass transition temperatures of each of the second polymer layer and third polymer layer was at least about 20˚C based upon the differences in amounts of plasticizer within each layer, which affect the glass transitions temperatures.
The Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that the Examples provide support for patentability, wherein Example 1 to a laminated glass panel with a wedge shaped polymer interlayer show that by removing 14 cm of the soft acoustic core from the thicker top edge eliminated edge and trim bubbles, which otherwise identical panels retained (see [0080] of pg-pub). The Applicant points to Example 2 wherein multiple laminated glass panels were formed, each having varying percentages of interlayer areas with non-core portions, and each comprising a wedge-shaped polymer interlayer (see [0084] of pg-pub). The Applicant argues that these examples are significant to demonstrate the finding that removing the core layer from an edge region reduces defects without sacrificing acoustic performance. These arguments are not persuasive as the examples used in the aforementioned arguments are not commensurate in scope with the invention of independent claim 1. The examples all comprise a polymer interlayer that is wedge shaped, however, instant claim 1 does not recite or require such a feature. The examples do not demonstrate that the same features, i.e. reduction in defect without sacrificing acoustic performance, would be present in a laminated glass panel comprising an interlayer having a constant thickness (non-wedge shaped).
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 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
Prosecution Insights