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 1-2, 4-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160311199 A1 (Iwamoto et al.) in view of US 20160159050 (Lu et al.).
Re claims 1-2, 4-8, Iwamoto teaches an interlayer comprising a first polymer layer (core 2), second polymer layer (layer 3), and third polymer (layer 1) [55]. Iwamoto teaches the first polymer layer comprises thermoplastic polymer including ethylene-vinyl acetate [62-63] and greater than 50 phr plasticizer [100] that includes an ethylene glycol diester [94].
Iwamoto is silent to the glass transition temperature Tg of the first layer.
Lu discloses a polymer interlayer comprising a core layer that has Tg less than 20 C [36] and that includes ethylene vinyl acetate made from 10-90 wt.% acetate, i.e. hybrid polyvinyl acetate [69, 70]. Lu discloses having layer with such Tg contributes to the sound dampening effect or acoustic characteristics [64].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use first polymer layer in Iwamoto with Tg of less than 20 C in order to produce an interlayer with desired sound dampening effect or acoustic characteristics.
Iwamoto in view of Lu are silent with respect to the claimed peak tan delta of the first layer and the interlayer, however, given that Iwamoto in view of Lu disclose first polymer layer and interlayer as presently claimed, it is clear that the first polymer layer and interlayer would each inherently have the same peak tan delta as claimed.
Re claim 9, Iwamoto teaches that the first polymer layer (core 2) has Tg less than second polymer layer (layer 3) and third polymer layer (layer 1) [99]. Alternatively, Lu discloses outer skin layers having Tg greater than core layer in order to provide stiffness which results in mechanical strength and torsional rigidity [64]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use second polymer layer (layer 3) and third polymer layer (layer 1) in Iwamoto that have Tg higher than first polymer layer (core 2) as disclosed by Lu in order to produce interlayer with mechanical strength and torsional rigidity.
Re claim 11, while it is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that the additional ingredients in the prior art would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention. See MPEP 2111.03.
Re claim 12, Iwamoto does not disclose that the second polymer layer (layer 3) and third polymer layer (layer 1) comprises a hybrid polyvinyl acetate.
Lu discloses using interlayer where the polymer layers include ethylene vinyl acetate made from 10-90 wt. acetate, i.e. hybrid polyvinyl acetate, where the amount of vinyl acetate affects the sound insulation [69, 70].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ethylene-vinyl acetate in the second polymer layer (layer 3) and third polymer layer (layer 1) of Iwamoto, including hybrid ethylene-vinyl acetate in order to produce an interlayer with desired sound insulation.
Re claims 13-14, Iwamoto does not disclose fourth and fifth PVB layers.
Lu discloses using two stiff skin layers on each side of the core layer [15, 33] (corresponding to claimed second layer/fourth layer on one side of the core and claimed third layer/fifth layer on the other side of the core). The skin layers are made from PVB [71]. Lu also discloses that the stiffness results in mechanical strength and torsional rigidity [64].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fourth PVB layer and fifth PVB layer in Iwamoto as disclosed by Lu in order to produce an interlayer with increased stiffness and therefore increased mechanical strength and torsional rigidity.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20160311199 A1 (Iwamoto et al.) in view of US 20160159050 (Lu et al.) and further in view of US20180272662A1 (Lu ‘662).
The combination is relied upon above.
Iwamoto fails to teach the composition of claims 10-11.
Lu 662 teaches [41] acetate content, of at least about 30 weight percent (overlaps 40-80 wt%) to control strength, impact resistance, penetration resistance, processability, or acoustic performance [42], [36] hydroxyl content of at least 5 (overlaps 5 to 20 wt %) to control strength, impact resistance, penetration resistance, processability, or acoustic performance [42] and [55-57] residual aldehyde content of at least about 20%.
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 have modified the Iwamoto to overlapping ranges to of the composition disclosed by Lu of claimed polymer layers for improving flexibility, sound or insulation properties taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the tan delta property is not taught and argues graphs.
Applicant argued the properties are different than the applied prior art, however, no declaration has bee presented. The Examiner has shown the materials are the same and submits the following to compare the same material with: See MPEP 716.02(e) Comparison With Closest Prior Art [R-08.2012]. A prima facie case has been established, and therefore the burden shifts to the Applicant to submit additional objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as comparative test data showing that the claimed invention possesses improved properties not expected by the prior art. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135,139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Until the Applicant has convincingly argued or has provided evidence to the contrary, the rejections are maintained.
A prima facie case has been established, and therefore the burden shifts to the Applicant to submit additional objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as comparative test data showing that the claimed invention possesses improved properties not expected by the prior art. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135,139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699,705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Until the Applicant has convincingly argued or has provided evidence to the contrary, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bennison ( US-20170320297-A1) teaches a polymer tri interlayer with PVB.
Bourcier et al. (US 7883761 B2) (“Bourcier”) Bourcier teaches a polymer interlayer comprising a first polymer layer comprising poly(ethylene vinyl acetate) and combinations (col. 12, lines 1-2), poly(vinyl butyral) (“PVB”), a second polymer layer comprising PVB, and a third polymer layer comprising PVB, wherein the third polymer layer is in contact with the second polymer layer, and the second polymer layer is disposed between the first polymer layer and the third polymer layer, thereby resulting in a polymer interlayer comprising two skin layers and a core layer (col. 2, lines 30-39, col. 11, lines 45-63) where the skin is consists essentially of PVB (col. 11, lines 55-61). Bourcier teaches the polymer layers including polymers having a molecular weight of less than 140,000 Daltons, or more than 140 Daltons (col. 12, lines 22-26), but Bourcier is silent with respect to the first and third polymer layers including polymers having a molecular weight less than 140,000 Daltons and the second polymer layer having a molecular weight greater than 140,000 Daltons.
Koran et al. (US 2009/0293952 A1) (“Koran”). Koran teaches a PVB interlayer having a flow of 0.22 mm measured by DF 135 (0077).
Purvis et al. (US 6180246 B1) (“Purvis”) Purvis teaches a polymer interlayer having three layers, wherein the molecular weight of the polymer forming the outer layers is lower than the molecular weight of the polymer forming the intermediate layer (col. 7, lines 60-67, col. 8, lines 1-13). The lower molecular weight of the polymer of the outer layers optimizes the flow properties and processability of the interlayer, while the high number molecular weight of the polymer of the intermediate layer optimizes the overall impact properties of the interlayer (col. 8, lines 13-19).
(US 2006/0216501 A1) (“Lin”) Lin teaches a PVB polymer layer used in an interlayer, having a glass transition temperature of 40°C or less (0001, 0057). Lin teaches a PVB polymer layer used in an interlayer, having a glass transition temperature of 15°C or less (0001, 0057). The range of glass temperature overlaps the range recited in claim 19; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
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