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 § 112
Claims 5-6 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 5, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “a surface roughness”, as there is already “a surface roughness” recited. This renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 6 is also rejected, due to its dependency on Claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim repeats the surface roughness is a regular pattern surface roughness formed by melt fracture.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourcier et al. (US 2008/0254302 A1) in view of Kawate et al. (US 2018/0162105 A1) and Spangler et al. (US 2012/0135191 A1)
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, 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 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.
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). Bourcier teaches the surfaces of the polymer layers are not embossed. (Paragraph 0013). 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 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.
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 non-embossed surface of 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 non-embossed surface of 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)
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bourcier, Kawate 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
The prior §112 rejections have been withdrawn, due to Applicant’s amendments. New §112 rejections have been made, in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant argues unexpected results from regular pattern melt fracture, stating regular pattern melt fracture leads to lower mottle after a certain period of time. This argument is found unpersuasive, as there is insufficient data to support the unexpected results, as the Rz and Rsm of the comparative embossed interlayer was not shown. Thus, it cannot be established from the data the method of forming the interlayer roughness is what causes this difference in mottle values.
Applicant argues there is motivation to combine Spangler and Bourcier do not teach the Claim 1 with regard to the regular pattern. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Kawate teaches a regular pattern for roughness on interlayers leads to improved de-airing.
Applicant argues Bourcier’s mottle range that overlaps the claimed range does not render the claims obvious. This argument is found unpersuasive. 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).
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach regular non-embossed melt fracture pattern would not teach de-airing. This argument is found unpersuasive, as Kawate teaches as regular pattern is what causes the de-airing. Thus, as Bourcier teaches melt fracture to form roughness patterns and Kawate teaches regular roughness patterns provide de-airing, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect a regular pattern melt fracture would lead to de-airing. This general knowledge is also shown in the prior art of Choi (US-2009 0277573-A1).
Conclusion
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.
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
Prosecution Insights