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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 04 May 2026 is acknowledged. Upon reconsideration, the examiner is withdrawing the restriction requirement set forth in the Office action mailed 11 March 2026.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: q in Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bungo (JP 2012-121768).
Bungo is directed to an interlayer film for laminated glass (paragraph 0001). The film comprises at least three layers, an inner layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol and a polyhydric alcohol and outer layers comprising polyvinyl acetal and a plasticizer (paragraph 0007).
In the embodiment of Example 3, the film is formed of outer layers comprising 100 parts by weight polyvinyl butyral layer and 40 parts by weight triethylene glycol di-2-ethylhexanoate and a core layer comprising 100 parts by weight polyvinyl alcohol and 70 parts by weight triethylene glycol (paragraphs 0032 and 0034, as well as Table 1). Triethylene glycol di-2-ethylhexanoate has a solubility parameter of 16.9 (J/cm3)0.5 (see Table 1 in the applicant's specification) while triethylene glycol has a solubility parameter of over 18.0 (J/cm3)0.5 since it is cited in claim 3 as a suitable compound for the second plasticizer of the claims. Laminated glass is made by sandwiching the interlayer between glass sheets (paragraph 0033).
Claims 1-5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keller (US 2006/0058439) as evidenced by Saneto et al. (US 2019/0391297).
Keller is directed to a film based on polyvinyl butyral suitable for use as an intermediate layer in composite safety glass (paragraph 0001). The film contains at least one plasticizer with a low polarity and at least one polyether containing co-plasticizer (paragraphs 0017-0024). The plasticizer with low polarity exhibit a solubility parameter of less than 17.59 (J/cm3)0.5 (paragraph 0038). The composite safety glass is formed by laminating the film with several glass panes in a manner known in the art (paragraph 0040).
In the embodiment of Example 5, the film contains 73 parts by weight polyvinyl butyral, 22 parts triethylene glycol di-2-ethylhexanoate, and 5 parts di(2-butoxyethyl) adipate (paragraphs 0047-0048). Triethylene glycol di-2-ethylhexanoate has a solubility parameter of 16.9 (J/cm3)0.5 (see Table 1 in the applicant's specification) while di(2-butoxyethyl) adipate has a solubility parameter of 19.01 (J/cm3)0.5 (see paragraph 0106 in Saneto). Polyvinyl butyral corresponds to the thermoplastic resin of the claims; triethylene glycol di-2-ethylhexanoate corresponds to the first plasticizer of the claims; di(2-butoxyethyl) adipate corresponds to the second plasticizer of the claims. Since polyvinyl butyral has a solubility parameter of 27.6 (J/cm3)0.5 (see Table 1 in the applicant's specification), the absolute value of the difference between the solubility parameters of the resin and the second plasticizer is 8.6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bungo (JP 2012-121768).
Bungo teaches all the limitations of claims 9 and 10, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the interlayer film comprises a dye.
However, Bungo does teach that the layers of the film may further contain a dye (paragraph 0021).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged an interlayer comprising a dye based on the limited number of additives recited by Bungo. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate any of the explicitly disclosed additives into the interlayer of Bungo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2006/0058439) as evidenced by Saneto et al. (US 2019/0391297).
Keller teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the amount of polyether containing co-plasticizer (i.e., the compound corresponding to the second plasticizer of the claims) is 20-80 wt% based on 100% of the plasticizer.
However, Keller teaches that the film contains 14-35 wt% of plasticizer with low polarity (i.e., the first plasticizer) and 1-20 wt% of polyether containing co-plasticizer (i.e., the second plasticizer) (paragraphs 0017-0024). In the absence of a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the plasticizer and co-plasticizer at any of the disclosed concentrations, concentrations that overlap the range recited in claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
1 while Saneto does not recite the units for solubility parameter, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the values to be expressed in SI units (i.e., MPa0.5 which is equivalent to (J/cm3)0.5) since viscosity is expressed in SI units.
Prosecution Insights