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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 1-5, 10-12, 21-26 in the reply filed on March 12, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 14-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
2. Applicant's election with traverse of method of making a polymer interlayer (Group II) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that ‘if the search and examination of an entire application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine it on the merits, even though it includes claims distinct or independent inventions.’ M.P.E.P. 803. Additionally, ‘not only must the art be searched within which the invention is claimed, but also all analogous arts’ M.P.E.P. 904.01(c). The search of the 2 classes and subclasses would entail the requisite serious burden as the search for method of making is not the same as the article search. Additionally, the steps used in the method claims would not be expected to appear in the class/subclass of the product claims. Every polymer interlayer is not made using the same method steps.
Applicant requests rejoinder of Group I invention and Group II invention under M.P.E.P 821.04. Where product and process claims drawn to independent and distinct inventions are presented in the same application, applicant may be called upon under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect claims to either the product or process. See MPEP § 806.05(f) and § 806.05(h). The claims to the non-elected invention will be withdrawn from further consideration under 37 CFR 1.142. See MPEP § 809.02(c) and § 821 through § 821.03. However, if applicant elects claims directed to the product, and a product claim is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims which depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be rejoined.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claims 1-4, 10-12 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazar et al. (WO 2020/173838).
Lazar discloses a polymer interlayer (claims 1 and 8) comprising polymer film B // polymer film A // polymer film B, wherein the polymer film A comprises a resin ("polyvinyl acetal PA" claim 1 and page 3, lines 1-4) including an adhesion control agent ("alkali metal ion and/or earth alkali metal ion" page 5, line 17 - page 6, line 13). Lazar discloses the alkaline titer of film A may be higher than 10 (page 6, line 26-32). In the case where the claimed ranges “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).
Lazar does not appear to explicitly teach the polymer interlayer resists formation of optical defects, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the polymer interlayer is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the polymer interlayer discussed above would be expected to meet the polymer interlayer resists formation of optical defects, as in claim 1.
Concerning claim 2, Lazar discloses the polymer interlayer can comprise polyvinyl butyral (page 1, lines 13-17).
Concerning claim 3, Lazar discloses at least one polymer film contains salts of magnesium ion (page 12, lines 10-15).
Concerning claim 4, Lazar discloses the alkaline titer of film A may be higher than 10 (page 6, line 26-32).
Concerning claim 10, Lazar discloses a polymer interlayer laminated between a pair of glass sheets to form a laminated glass panel (page 4, lines 21-26).
Lazar does not appear to explicitly teach the edge bubbles, however substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to have substantially identical properties. In the present case the polymer interlayer is carried out using material and process conditions which are substantially identical to those disclosed by applicants. Therefore the polymer interlayer discussed above would be expected to meet the edge bubbles of the glass panel interlayer.
Concerning claims 11-12, Lazar does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the polymer interlayer, as claimed; however, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claims 21-26, Lazar discloses the alkaline titer of film A may be higher than 10 (page 6, line 26-32). In the case where the claimed ranges “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 Objections
5. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited polymer interlayer further including where the first polymer layer is softer than the second and third polymers.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights