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 1, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive. A search of these inventions may overlap, but the search of one invention does not include all the areas required for the others. A serious burden does exist, as different searches are required for each invention. Therefore, in order to ensure the quality of the search and examination, these inventions should be searched separately to account for their differences.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/20/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 4-7 and 11 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 Claims 4, there is an issue of having both broad and narrow ranges within the claim that render the claim indefinite. (MPEP §2173.05(c)). For purposes of examination, the claim is limited to is broadest range.
Regarding Claim 5, there are issues of antecedent basis with regard to “a surface of the first side of said second polymer layer includes a surface roughness”. Claim 1 already recites “a surface” and “a surface roughness”, which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 6, this claim is indefinite, as there is no identification of what surface has the claimed Rsm value range. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted to the first side of the second polymer layer. There is an issue of having both broad and narrow ranges within the claim that render the claim indefinite. (MPEP §2173.05(c)). For purposes of examination, the claim is limited to is broadest range.
Regarding Claim 7, there is an issue of having both broad and narrow ranges within the claim that render the claim indefinite. (MPEP §2173.05(c)). For purposes of examination, the claim is limited to is broadest range.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim recites “such that”. The term such that has been found to be indefinite, as it raises the question of what follows the such that is required and renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, “such that” is interpreted to “wherein” which requires the first layer to be a wedge 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 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourcier et al. (US 2008/0254302 A1) in view of Spangler et al. (US 2012/0135191 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Bourcier teaches a polymer interlayer that resists optical defects (Abstract) comprising a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer (Claim 1 of Bourcier), where the first polymer layer is disposed on a first side of the second polymer layer. (Paragraph 0023). Bourcier teaches the surfaces of the polymer layers are not embossed. (Paragraph 0013). Bourcier teaches the first side of the second polymer layer includes surface roughness Rz of 20 to 60 microns. (Paragraph 0016). This overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Bourcier does not specifically teach the mottle value of the polymer interlayer. Bourcier teaches a lower mottle is desired, as the polymer interlayer is to be used in windshields (Paragraph 0081)
Spangler teaches a polymer interlayer for automotive comprising multiple polymer layers. (Abstract; Paragraph 0006, 0040). Spangler teaches the mottle value of the polymer interlayer should be less than 2.5 or less than 1.5 (Paragraph 0019). This overlaps the claimed range. 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). Spangler teaches these mottle value range is acceptable to a customer and be considered to have good optical properties (Paragraph 0049, 0071). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the mottle value of the interlayer of Bourcier to have the claimed mottle value to ensure acceptability to customers and good optical properties.
Regarding Claim 2, Bourcier teaches a polymer interlayer that resists optical defects (Abstract) comprising a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer (Claim 1 of Bourcier), where the first polymer layer is disposed on a first side of the second polymer layer. (Paragraph 0023). Borucier teaches a surface of the first side of the second polymer has a surface roughness Rsm value of less than 800 microns. (Paragraph 0017). This overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Bourcier does not specifically teach the mottle value of the polymer interlayer. Bourcier teaches a lower mottle is desired, as the polymer interlayer is to be used in windshields (Paragraph 0081)
Spangler teaches a polymer interlayer for automotive comprising multiple polymer layers. (Abstract; Paragraph 0006, 0040). Spangler teaches the mottle value of the polymer interlayer should be less than 2.5 or less than 1.5 (Paragraph 0019). This overlaps the claimed range. 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). Spangler teaches these mottle value range is acceptable to a customer and be considered to have good optical properties (Paragraph 0049, 0071). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the mottle value of the interlayer of Bourcier to have the claimed mottle value to ensure acceptability to customers and good optical properties.
Regarding Claim 4, Bourcier teaches the Rz value is 20 to 60 microns. (Paragraph 0016) This overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Regarding Claim 5, Bourcier teaches the first side of the second polymer layer has a Rsm value of less than 800 microns. (Paragraph 0017). This overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Regarding Claim 6, Bourcier teaches the first side of the second polymer layer has a Rsm value of less than 800 microns. (Paragraph 0017). This overlaps the claimed range. 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).
Regarding Claim 7, Spangler teaches a polymer interlayer for automotive comprising multiple polymer layers. (Abstract; Paragraph 0006, 0040). Spangler teaches the mottle value of the polymer interlayer should be less than 2.5 or less than 1.5 (Paragraph 0019). This overlaps the claimed range. 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). Spangler teaches these mottle value range is acceptable to a customer and be considered to have good optical properties (Paragraph 0049, 0071). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to ensure the mottle value of the interlayer of Bourcier to have the claimed mottle value to ensure acceptability to customers and good optical properties.
Regarding Claim 8, Bourcier teaches the first and second polymer layer can be the same polymer composition, same thickness, and same processing method (Paragraph 0023, 0031, 0077) Therefore, the first storage modulus of the first polymer layer and the second storage modulus layer of the second polymer layer would be the same and have a difference of 0.
Regarding Claim 9, Bourcier teaches a third polymer layer, where the said first polymer is positioned between the second and third polymer layer. (Claim 1 of Bourcier; Paragraph 0023)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourcier and Spangler, in view of Kawate et al. (US 2018/0162105 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Bourcier teaches the surface roughness is formed by melt fracture. (Abstract). Bourcier does not teach the surface roughness is a regular pattern roughness.
Kawate teaches having regular pattern roughness formed on the surface improves deaeration properties of the polymer interlayer for glass (Paragraph 0017, 0034). Thus, it would have been obvious with of ordinary skill in the art to also have regular pattern roughness in Bourcier to ensure improved deaeration properties of the interlayer.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourcier and Spangler, in view of Nishino et al (US 2018/0319130 A1).
Regarding Claim 10 and 11, Bourcier does not specifically teach the thickness of the first polymer layer has a constant thickness or varies along a length of the interlayer, where the first polymer layer has a wedge shape.
Nishino teaches an interlayer for glass, where the first layer can have a wedge shape (Fig. 1 and 3). Nishino teaches the first layer can have a generally constant thickness (Paragraph 0070; Fig. 1) or a thickness that varies along the length of the interlayer to form a wedge shape (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0071). Nishino teaches either thickness variation allows the overall interlayer to be made into a wedge-shape, which suppresses double images when the interlayer is used as part of a heads-up display windshield. (Paragraph 0002-0005, 0078). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to make the first polymer layer of Bourcier to have either constant thickness or varying thickness into a wedge shape to allow the interlayer to be used in HUD windshield to avoid double images.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781