DETAILED ACTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 May 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
Claims 1, 6-8, 15, and 17 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 Thompson (US 2015/0158276).
Thompson is directed to a polymer interlayer comprising a polyvinyl acetal resin, a plasticizer, and an ultraviolet absorber (paragraph 0015). The ultraviolet absorber is present at a concentration of about 0.01 to 10 wt% and may have the structure (paragraphs 0016-0020):
PNG
media_image1.png
124
200
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
with the embodiment of Example 4 employing this absorber at a concentration of 0.4 wt% (paragraph 0096 and Table 1). The interlayer may comprise multiple layers (paragraph 0031), including interlayers having three or more layers (paragraph 0033). Metal salts, such as magnesium bis(2-ethyl butyrate) or potassium acetate, may be added to the interlayer as an adhesion control agent at a concentration of about 0.003 to 0.45 parts per 100 parts resin (paragraph 0041).
While Thompson does not illustrate an embodiment wherein a metal salt is included in the interlayer composition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the incorporation of the metal salt in the skin layers of a three or more layered interlayer since the metal salt is employed as an adhesion control agent to control the adhesion with glass (paragraph 0041) and it is the skin layers that would necessarily be adhering to the glass. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to employ the material of Thompson as the skin layers of a three or more layered interlayer since the metal salt is employed as an adhesion control agent to control the adhesion with glass and it is the skin layers that would be adhering to glass.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged the addition of the ultraviolet absorber in all the layers of a three or more layered interlayer since the Thompson teaches that the addition of a small amount of the UV absorber dramatically improves properties of the final composition (paragraph 0029).
Thompson is silent regarding the maximum value of transmission at 300 to 350 nm, the ultraviolet transmittance, the transmittance at 400 nm, or the absolute value of difference between the yellow index compared to a film not containing a metal salt. However, since Thompson teaches employing the same ultraviolet absorber in an amount (0.4 wt%) within the range most preferred range recited in the specification (0.3 to 2 wt% - see paragraph 0084 on pages 33-34), one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the polyvinyl butyral sheet of Thompson employing an absorber used by Thompson at a concentration used by Thompson (i.e., Tinuvin™ 928 at 0.4 wt%) to inherently have a maximum value of transmission at 300 to 350 nm, ultraviolet transmittance, transmittance at 400 nm, and absolute value of difference between the yellow index compared to a film not containing a metal salt that satisfy the limitations of claims 1, 15, and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2015/0158276).
Thompson teaches or suggests all the limitations of claim 13, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the weight ratio of metal contained in the metal salt to ultraviolet absorber is 4 to 50.
However, the concentrations taught by Thompson for the adhesion control agent (i.e., about 0.003 to 0.45 parts per 100 resin) and ultraviolet absorber (i.e., 0.01 to 10 wt%) would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to presume that an interlayer containing a metal salt closer to 0.45 parts per 100 and a concentration of ultraviolet absorber closer to 0.01 wt% would satisfy the limitations of claim 13. In the absence of a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal salt and ultraviolet absorber at any concentration disclosed by Thompson, including those that would satisfy the limitations of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The invention of claim 19 is directed towards an interlayer film for laminated glass having first, second, and third layers, wherein the second and third layers are surface layers of the interlayer film. The first, second, and third layers each comprise a thermoplastic resin, a metal salt, and the ultraviolet absorber of formula (X12) as recited in claim 1. The interlayer film has a maximum value of transmittance from 300 nm to 350 nm of 0.08% or less and a transmittance at 400 nm of 5% or more.
D'Errico (US 5,618,863) and Thompson represent the closest prior art.
Regarding D'Errico, the examiner agrees with the applicant that this reference does not teach or fairly suggest the use of an ultraviolet absorber having a structure represented by formula (X12) as recited in claim 1.
Regarding Thompson, while this reference teaches an interlayer containing a metal salt, the metal salt is added to control adhesion of the interlayer to glass (paragraph 0041). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add the metal salt to the inner layer of a three layer interlayer while also maintaining the required maximum value of transmittance from 300 nm to 350 nm and transmittance at 400 nm.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Thompson does not anticipate, or render obvious, the claims because it provides only general information with none of the details of the claims disclosed down to the specific design.
This is not persuasive since Thompson teaches an interlayer having three or more layers, illustrates a composition containing 0.4 wt% of ultraviolet absorber according to formula (X12) of claim 1, and teaches the addition of a metal salt for improving adhesion of the interlayer to glass. Rather than being a generic disclosure, these are explicit teachings leading one of ordinary skill in the art to envisaged, or at least suggest, the invention as claimed. The teachings include a call for a three-layer construction, the employment of 0.4 wt% of the ultraviolet absorber of formula (X12) in a thermoplastic resin, and the incorporation of a metal salt within layers that are to be in contact with glass. Additionally, since the amount of ultraviolet absorber is within the preferred range cited in the specification, one of ordinary skill would expect the interlayer to inherently provide a transmittance satisfying the limitations of claim 1.
The applicant alleges to have discovered a connection between yellowing of an interlayer film and the inclusion of both a benzotriazole ultraviolet absorber and metal salt as noted in paragraph 0039. The applicant argues that Thompson does not disclose the problem of yellowing caused by the interaction between the ultraviolet absorber and metal salt while the specification experimentally confirms the applicant's position.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. First, it is noted that paragraph 0039 of the specification merely states that yellowing sometimes occurs. Likewise, the results illustrated in the specification, including Example 7, are limited to potassium acetate or a 50:50 mix of magnesium 2-ethylbutyrate and magnesium acetate as metal salts and polyvinyl butyral as the thermoplastic resin while claim 1 is not restricted to these materials. Additionally, whether or not Thompson is aware of the effect of UV absorber and metal salt on yellowing is immaterial since the courts have held that there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art recognize the inherent disclosure at the relevant time (see MPEP 2112 II).
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.
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
Prosecution Insights