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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 15 & 17 – 20) in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 16 is withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 9, 11 – 12, & 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 & 18 refer to “first layer” while independent claim 1 (and other dependent claims) refer to “first damping layer.” To avoid confusion, a recited name for a component should remain consistent throughout the claim set.
Claim 7 should end with a period, not a comma.
Claim 9 should recite “…further comprising a second polymer…”
Claim 11 should recite “…further comprising a second damping layer…”
Claim 12 should recite “…further comprising an intermediate layer…”
Claim 12 should end with a period, not a comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, & 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (US 2021/0221102 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Ishikawa et al. teach a laminated glass, such as used for a windshield (i.e., “glazed assembly”) in automobiles (paragraph [0192]), wherein the laminated glass comprises a first glass sheet and a second glass sheet superimposed, a first layer having viscoelastic (damping) properties comprising an acrylic polymer (paragraphs [0069], [0075], [0081], [0099], [0304], [0315]), a tackifier (paragraphs [0102] – [0103]), and a plasticizer (paragraphs [0012]). The first layer is a layer of an interlayer film between the first and second glass sheets (paragraphs [0009] & [0019]). The interlayer film may contain one or more layers (paragraphs [0026] & [0031] – [0032]). In the embodiments of the interlayer film comprising one or two layers, the first layer is in direct contact with the first glass sheet.
With regard to claim 7, Ishikawa et al. teach the first layer containing a (meth)acryloyl polymer prepared from polymerizing at least one kind of cyclic skeleton-containing (meth)acryloyl monomer selected from the group consisting of (meth)aryloyl monomer having an aromatic skeleton, a (meth)acryloyl monomer having an alicyclic skeleton, and a (meth)acryloyl monomer having a cyclic ether skeleton (paragraphs [0044] – [0046]). An example of the alicyclic skeleton includes cyclohexyl acrylate (paragraph [0072]). Examples of the (meth)acryloyl monomer other than cyclic skeleton-containing (meth)acrylol monomer A include methyl (meth)acrylate, ethyl (meth)acrylate, propyl (meth)acrylate, butyl (meth)acrylate, hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate, acrylic acid (paragraph [0087]).
With regard to claim 10, Ishikawa et al. teach the first damping layer is in direct contact with the second glass sheet (paragraph [0026], Figs. 2 & 4).
With regard to claim 11, Ishikawa et al. a glass assembly comprising a second layer, wherein the second layer is arranged between the first damping layer and the second glass sheet (paragraph [0026] & [0032], Fig. 3).
Ishikawa et al. teach the second layer is a protective layer (paragraph [0037]) and may also enhance sound insulating property (paragraph [0032]). Therefore, based on the teachings of Ishikawa et al., it would be reasonable to refer to the second layer as a second damping layer.
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(s) 2 & 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (WO 2016/094221 A1).
With regard to claims 2 & 17, Ishikawa et al. fail to explicitly teach the material of the first layer has a glass transition temperature between -70°C and 10°C, more preferably between -45°C and 0°C.
Lu et al. teach a transparent laminate, such as safety glass (paragraph [0003]), comprising a resin interlayer composed of thermoplastic polymers, such as (meth)acrylate-based resin (paragraph [0012]) may have a glass transition temperature of not more than 10°C, preferably not more than about -10°C, which may facilitate acoustic performance of the interlayer (paragraph [0082]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Lu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the (meth)acrylate-based first layer of the interlayer taught by Ishikawa et al. to have a glass transition temperature of not more than 10°C, which includes Applicant’s claimed ranges, for facilitating desired acoustic performance. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 3 – 5, 8, 15, & 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al., as applied to claim 1 above.
With regard to claims 3 & 18, Ishikawa et al. teach, based on 100% by weight of the resin component in the first layer, the content of the (meth)acryloyl polymer is preferably 50% by weight or more, more preferably 70% by weight or more (P0097), which is a mass fraction of 0.5 – 0.8, and overlaps with Applicant’s claimed ranges of 0.21 – 0.62, and more preferably 0.21 – 0.51.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claims 4 & 19, Ishikawa et al. teach the first layer contains a tackifier resin, in 100% by weight of the total of the (meth)acryloyl polymer in the first layer, the content of the tackifier resin in the first layer is preferably 50% by weight or less (paragraph [0103]). In other words, 50/150 = 0.33 or less mass fraction, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of between 0.17 and 0.60, and more preferably the range of between 0.22 and 0.35.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claims 5 & 20, Ishikawa et al. teach the content of the plasticizer per 100 parts by weight of the (meth)acryloyl polymer may be 0 parts by weight more and 90 parts by weight or less (paragraph [0130]). In other words, 90/190 = 0.47 or less mass fraction, which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 0.07 – 0.43, and more preferably the range of between 0.12 and 0.31.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 8, Ishikawa et al. teach the interlayer film preferably has a thickness of 0.1 mm (100 µm) or more and preferably 3 mm (3000 µm) or less (paragraph [0177]), wherein each layer of a three-layer interlayer has a thickness in the range of 100 – 380 µm (paragraph [0212]), which is within Applicant’s claimed thickness e between 5 µm and 500 µm.
With regard to claim 15, Ishikawa et al. teach the laminated glass (i.e., “glazed assembly”) can be used for the side glass of a vehicle (paragraph [0192]).
Ishikawa et al. do not teach the laminated glass is open side glass (i.e., assemblies engineered to allow passenger-controlled opening and closing via drop-down or hinged mechanisms, distinguishing it from permanent, fixed-glass panels).
However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Ishikawa et al. teach the laminated glass can used for side glass of a vehicle and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the majority of laminated glass used as side glass for a vehicle are “open” glass assemblies for windows. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude the laminated glass taught by Ishikawa et al. is capable of performing the intended use of opening and closing.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kotani (US 2019/0002617 A1).
With regard to claim 6, Ishikawa et al. teach an exemplary tackifier includes a rosin resin (paragraph [0102]). Ishikawa et al. do not teach the rosin resin is hydrogenated rosin resin.
Kotani teaches a curable composition for adhesives used as a vibration damping material (paragraph [0002], [0005], [0020]) comprising a rosin ester tackifying resin, such as hydrogenated rosin ester resin, which is preferred as a tackifying resin because it is easily obtained, inexpensive, excellent transparency, and does not inhibit curability during photopolymerization process (paragraphs [0123] – [0124]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Kotani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use a hydrogenated rosin resin as the preferred tackifier taught by Ishikawa et al. because it is easily obtained, inexpensive, has excellent transparent, and does not inhibit the polymerization process.
Claim(s) 9 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of *Bouillet (WO 2020/0148502 A1).
*US 2022/0055353 A1 is cited herein as the English language equivalent.
*Acoustical Surfaces, Inc. (“Understanding the Difference Between High-, Middle-, and Low-Frequency Noise” (December 2023)).
With regard to claim 9, Ishikawa et al. teach the first layer of the interlayer may contain a thermoplastic resin (i.e., “a second polymer”) other than the (meth)acryloyl polymer (i.e., “a first acrylic polymer”) (paragraph [0099]).
Ishikawa et al. do not teach the material comprises a first acrylic polymer having a first glass transition temperature Tg1, and a second polymer having a second glass temperature Tg2, higher than Tg1, a difference between the second glass transition temperature, Tg2 and between the first glass transition temperature Tg1 is greater than 10°C.
Bouillet teaches an interlayer for laminated glass, wherein the interlayer comprises an adhesive nanocomposite layer comprising a first discontinuous phase consisting of polymeric nanodomains comprising first polymer and second polymer, and with Tg of -50°C – 30°C (paragraphs [0009]). The first phase is dispersed in a second phase (paragraph [0015]).
Furthermore, the first polymer has a Tg of greater than -30°C and the second polymer has a Tg of less than -50°C, or wherein the Tg difference is between 10°C and 60°C (paragraph [0026]), wherein the first and second polymers are acrylic copolymers comprising at least one acrylic monomer (paragraphs [0028] – [0029]). The local entanglement of the chains of the first polymer with the chains of the second polymer, whose Tg is lower than that of the first polymer, allows to confer to the (semi-) interpenetrating network IPN), thus formed, a Tg which is intermediate between that of the first polymer and that of the second polymer (paragraph [0025]). The Tg of the polymeric phase of said first phase is selected such that the vibration damping (sound damping) is at its maximum in the frequency between 1 kHz and 10 Hz at a temperature between 0°C and 40°C, more preferably close to 20°C (ambient temperature) (paragraphs [0010] & [0017].
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bouillet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combined a first acrylic polymer and a second polymer, each having a glass transition temperature, wherein the difference of glass transition temperatures of the first and second polymer are 10 – 60°C, in order to form an interpenetrating polymer network of desired glass transition temperature for achieving sound damping in the frequency range of 1 kHz – 10 kHz at ambient temperature.
With regard to claim 14, as discussed above, Bouillet teaches the Tg of the polymeric phase of said first phase and plasticizer are is selected such that the vibration damping is at its maximum in the frequency between 1kHz and 10 Hz at a temperature between 0°C and 40°C, more preferably close to 20°C (ambient temperature (paragraphs [0010], [0017], & [0045]). As evidenced by **Acoustical Surfaces, Inc., the high frequency range for human hearing is in the range of 2,000 – 10,000 Hz (2 – 10 kHz).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Bouillet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the glass transition temperature of the polymers of the first damping layer taught by Ishikawa et al. to achieve maximum vibration damping (sound damping) in the range of 1 kHz – 10 Hz (high frequency range of human hearing).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Boure et al. (US 2009/0159362 A1).
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 11, Ishikawa et al. a glass assembly comprising a second damping layer, wherein damping the second layer is arranged between the first damping layer and the second glass sheet (paragraph [0026] & [0032], Fig. 3). Ishikawa et al. the sound insulating property is measured based on loss factor (paragraph [0314]) and can be adjusted based on the type of (meth)acrylate monomer units, content of each (meth)acrylate monomer unit, and the molecular weight of (meth)acryloyl polymers formed from the (meth)acrylate monomer units (paragraphs [0062], [0067], [0070] – [0071], [0073], [0076] – [0077], [0079], & [0082] – [0083]).
Ishikawa et al. do not teach a three-layer embodiment of the interlayer in which a third layer is positioned between the first damping layer and the second damping layer, such that the first damping layer is in contact with the first glass member and the second damping layer is contact with the second glass member. Furthermore, Ishikawa et al. also do not explicitly teach the relative loss factor (i.e., sound insulating properties) of the layers (n1, n2, n3) within a multilayer interlayer.
Boure et al. teach an acoustic laminated glass comprising a damping insert (3) positioned between two glass sheets (20 and 21). Two or more damping films (30,31) constitute the insert (3) (paragraphs [0050] – [0051], Figs. 1 – 2). For example, the film 30 has a loss factor (tan δ) greater than that of the film 31 over the range t1 (paragraphs [0060] & [0071]). Two high damping films of two different kinds of material (A and B) are combined to achieve damping performance in a wide temperature range over t1, t2, and t3 (paragraphs [0051], [0054], & [0076]).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boure et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the number of damping layers and the relative loss factor (sound insulating properties) of each layer of a multilayer for achieving sound damping properties over a wide range of temperature values. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Payen et al. (WO 2015/079160 A1).
With regard to claim 13, Ishikawa et al. teach the thicknesses of the first lamination glass member (i.e., “first thickness e1”) and the second glass member (i.e., “second thickness e2”) are preferably 1 mm or more and preferably 5 mm or less (paragraph [0190]).
Ishikawa et al. do not explicitly teach the first thickness being strictly greater than the second thickness.
Payen et al. teach a laminated glass comprising two glass sheets and a viscoelastic plastic interlayer positioned between the glass sheets. Glass sheet 1 is preferably thicker than glass sheet 2 so that the glazing allows better protection against external attacks (e.g. inclement weather and projection of chippings). The thickness of glass sheet 1 is 0.5 – 2.6 mm The thickness of glass sheet 2 is between 0.5 mm and 1.6 mm (pg. 4). The laminated glazing may have vibroacoustic damping properties, in particular for a motor vehicle (pg. 2).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Payen et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the laminated glass used as a glazing for a motor vehicle taught by Ishikawa et al. comprising a first glass member with a first thickness greater than a second glass member with a second thickness, wherein each glass member has a thickness in the range of 0.5 – 1.6 mm in order to protect against external attacks. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights