DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2024 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 4-5 recite “the first resin layer side”, which should be “a first resin layer side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 6 recite “the second resin layer side”, which should be “a second resin layer side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 7 recite “the first resin layer side”, which should be “a first resin layer side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12, line 9 recite “the second resin layer side”, which should be “a second resin layer side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara et al. (EP 3778514 A1) in view of Fukuchi et al. (JP 2004002073 A), taken in view of evidence by Andes et al. (US 6,280,520 B1). It is noted that the disclosures of Fukuchi et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1-12, Nohara et al. disclose an interlayer film for laminated glass comprising a first resin layer 2 (i.e. second resin layer) and a second resin layer 3 (i.e. first resin layer) (see Abstract, Figure 1 and paragraph 0034). The first resin layer (i.e. second resin layer) has a thickness of 380 microns (see paragraph 0178). The second resin layer (i.e. first resin layer) has a thickness of 380 microns (see paragraph 0181). Therefore, a thickness ratio between the second resin layer (i.e. first resin layer) and the first resin layer (i.e. second resin layer) is 1:1.
Further, Nohara et al. disclose a laminated glass comprising the interlayer film disposed between a first lamination glass member and a second lamination glass member, wherein each of the first lamination glass member and the second lamination glass member is a clear glass (see paragraphs 0144, 0151 and 0155). That is, the laminated glass is made by adhering two clear glass plates to each other via the interlayer film.
The first resin layer (i.e. second resin layer) comprises a thermoplastic resin (see paragraph 0052). The thermoplastic resin disclosed by Nohara et al. (see paragraph 0054) is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0033 of present specification). The first resin layer (i.e. second resin layer) contains a coloring agent in amount of 0.001 to 10 wt% (see Abstract and paragraphs 0028, 0093). The coloring agent disclosed by Nohara et al. (see paragraphs 0080, 0083-0086) is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0030 of the present specification). Given that the first resin layer (i.e. second resin layer) including the thermoplastic resin and coloring agent is identical to that utilized in the present invention with amount of coloring agent overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, a visible light reflectance (Rv2) measured on a surface of the first resin layer side (i.e. second resin layer side) would necessarily inherently be 7% or less.
The second resin layer (i.e. first resin layer) comprises a thermoplastic resin (see paragraph 0052). The thermoplastic resin disclosed by Nohara et al. (see paragraph 0054) is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0033 of present specification). The second resin layer (i.e. first resin layer) can contain an ultraviolet ray screening agent in amount of 0.1 to 2.5 wt% (see paragraphs 0117 and 0131). The ultraviolet ray screening agent can include a metal oxide, wherein a surface of the metal oxide can be coated with metal oxide, i.e. ultraviolet ray screening agent contains two metal oxides (see paragraph 0122). The metal oxides disclosed by Nohara et al. (see paragraphs 0122 and 0123) are identical that utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0012, 0013 of present specification). Accordingly, the ultraviolet ray screening agent reads on a brightener.
Nohara et al. do not disclose ultraviolet ray screening agent (brightener) as presently claimed.
Fukuchi et al. disclose an intermediate film for laminated glass, wherein the intermediate film comprises a scaly powder such as silica flake (silicon dioxide) coated with a metal oxide such as titanium dioxide (see Abstract, page 3, last two lines and page 7, lines 1-6). The silicon dioxide coated with titanium dioxide read on a brightener having multilayer structure, which is identical to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraphs 0022, 0024 of present specification). As evidenced by Andes et al., titanium dioxide has high refractive index and silicon dioxide as low refractive index (see col. 2, lines 51-58). Therefore, silicon dioxide and titanium dioxide have refractive indexes different from each other.
The coating containing metal oxide absorbs and reflects ultraviolet or infrared rays (see page 4, lines 15-16). By using the scaly powder that has a high visible transmittance and absorbs and reflects ultraviolet or infrared rays, it is possible to effectively suppress the solar transmittance while maintaining a high visible transmittance of the laminated glass (see page 3, paragraph [0008]). The scaly powder has aspect ratio of 5 or more (see page 5, paragraph [0014]). The interlayer film has high visible transmittance, low solar radiation transmittance and does not unnecessarily scatter transmitted visible light (see page 14, paragraph 1).
In light of motivation for using a scaly powder such as silicon dioxide coated with titanium dioxide, wherein the scaly powder has aspect ratio of 5 or more disclosed by Fukuchi et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a scaly powder such as silicon dioxide coated with titanium dioxide, wherein the scaly powder has aspect ratio of 5 or more of Fukuchi et al. as the ultraviolet screening agent in Nohara et al. in order to provide interlayer having high visible transmittance, low solar radiation transmittance and suppress scattering of transmitted visible light, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. Given that scaly powder is identical to that utilized in the present invention, the scaly powder reads on a brightener.
Accordingly, Nohara et al. in view of Fukuchi et al. disclose the second resin layer (i.e. first resin layer) comprising a thermoplastic resin and a brightener. Given that the second resin layer (i.e. first resin layer) including the thermoplastic resin and brightener is identical to that utilized in the present invention with aspect ratio and amount of brightener overlapping with that presently claimed, within the overlapping ranges, a visible light reflectance (Rv1) measured on a surface of the second resin layer side (i.e. first resin layer side) would necessarily inherently be 10% or more.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al. (US 6,596,070 B1) disclose an interference pigment comprising a platelet-shaped substrate such as SiO2 coated with a layer A comprising titanium dioxide, layer B comprising silicon dioxide and layer C comprising titanium dioxide, in that order (see col. 8, claims 1, 4-6 and col. 9, claim 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 PM.
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 at 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 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787