DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed July 23rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 18, and 21-22 have been amended. Claim 6 has been cancelled.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Galica (as the primary reference) have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Burke (as the primary reference) have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Nakamura (as the primary reference) have been maintained despite Applicant’s amendment. However, the rejections have been updated to reflect Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 102/103 rejections over Zhang (as the primary reference) have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding Nakamura, filed July 23rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the references teach TPU-based interlayers comprising functional elements selected from a luminophore and/or ionomers. The Examiner disagrees.
While not explicitly cited in the rejection, Nakamura teaches additives to be included in the thermoplastic polyurethane resin-containing layers of the core and/or outer layers of the interlayer as being in particular infrared absorbent, ultraviolet absorbent, and a fluorescer [0058-0060], wherein upon further research it has been discovered that a fluorescent additive is a fluorophore, which is a type of luminophore. While this was not originally necessary to be explicitly cited by the Examiner due to the nature of a Markush group, the subject matter was explicitly set forth in Nakamura and thus the rejection has been maintained/updated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18-19 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nakamura et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0281568 A1) (hereinafter “Nakamura”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakamura in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,554,698) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 18-20 and 20-23, Nakamura teaches an intermediate film (monolithic interlayer) (All Figs. [2]) for automotive window laminate, wherein the intermediate film has a core (third) layer (All Figs. [2c]) disposed between a pair of (first and second) outer layers, wherein the outer layers can be thermoplastic polyurethane resin and the core layer can be thermoplastic polyurethane (or EVA or PVB) [0058], wherein the thermoplastic urethanes can contain one or more kinds of functional additives, in particular UV absorbers, IR absorbers, and/or fluorescers (luminophores) [0059-0060].
Further regarding claim 18, a functional element comprising an ionomer is not taught.
Wang teaches low haze ionomers, usable as a glass interlayer (col. 16, lines 1-14), wherein the ionomer can be blended with other thermoplastic polymers to modify the property/properties (i.e. softness and flexibility) of the polymer with which it is blended, such as polyurethane (col. 16, lines 30-40 & 43-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a functional element comprising an ionomer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a low haze component to a thermoplastic polyurethane, which may also modify the softness and flexibility thereof.
Claims 1-5, 14, 16-17, & 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, optionally in view of Wang, as applied to claim 19 above.
Regarding claims 1-5, 14, 16-17, and 22-25, Nakamura teaches an intermediate film (monolithic interlayer) (All Figs. [2]) for an automotive window laminate, wherein the intermediate film has a core (third) layer (All Figs. [2c]) disposed between a pair of (first and second) outer layers, wherein the outer layers can be thermoplastic polyurethane resin and the core layer can be thermoplastic polyurethane (or EVA or PVB) [0058], wherein the thermoplastic urethane layers can uniformly or non-uniformly contain one or more kinds of functional additives, in particular UV absorbers, IR absorbers, and fluorescers [0059-0060], wherein the outer layers are preferably 0.1 to 0.7 mm (about 0.004 in to 0.03 inch), more preferably 0.2 to 0.5 mm (0.008 to 0.02 in) and the core layer is preferably 0.05 to 0.3 mm (0.002 to 0.012 in), more preferably 0.07 to 0.27 mm (0.0027 to 0.01 in), for a monolithic total film thickness range of equal to or greater than 0.01 inch, more preferably 0.0187 inch, wherein in the latter case a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 10-15 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, optionally in view of Wang, as applied to claim 19 above, optionally (further) in view of Galica (WO 2021/015942 A1) (hereinafter “Galica”), wherein claim 11 is optionally even further in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,085,092) (hereinafter “Chang”).
Further regarding claims 10-13 and 15, a multilayer thermoplastic polyurethane interlayer comprising UV-absorbers is taught as recited above, wherein although Nakmura does not disclose a visible light transmission, percentage haze, yellowness index, and light transmission at 380 nm and 400 nm as claimed, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Nakamura teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Galica teaches an optical film interlayer for vehicle or building window laminates [0010, 0012], replacing PVB-based interlayers of the prior art due to moisture absorption and edge brightening [0007-0009], wherein the interlayer comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane [0012-0013] having a thickness of about 15 to about 30 mils [claims 6-7] that is castable or preferably extrudable [0052], comprising light stabilizer and first and second UV-absorbers, preferably at least Tinuvin 326 [0015-0019, 0022-0025, 0028-0029], that allows visible light therethrough but blocks UV light, wherein at least 99% of UV light at a wavelength of about 400 nm is blocked (less than 1% light transmittance) and at least an average value of 99.9% of UV light blockage from about 380 nm to 400 nm (less than 0.1% light transmittance), and a yellowness index of less than 2.0 [0020-0021], wherein a preferred example (Film 2) comprises a thickness of about 30 mils (~0.03 inch) comprising a light transmittance of 0.4% at 400 nm and an average light transmittance of 0.05% at 380-400 nm (wherein transmittance at 380 would likely be lower than 0.05% to provide the average value with the value of 0.4% at 400 nm), a visible light transmission (400~900 nm) of about 86%, and a yellowness index of 4.57 [Table 1, 0055] and a thinner embodiment having a lower yellowness index along with higher light transmittance at 400 nm (3.5%) and average light transmittances at 380-400 nm (0.4%) and at 400-900 nm (visible light transmittance of 90.8%) [Table 2, 0057-0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the claimed properties within the desired ranges due to an optimized inclusion of (first and second) UV absorbers (and a light stabilizer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the benefits of using polyurethane over PVB in any of the layers that prevents UV light-based damage for human health concerns while also being substantially transparent to visible light [0002, 0005-0014].
Further regarding claim 11, although the prior art does not disclose a haze, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Nakamura/Galica teach an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Chang teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane interlayer for building and automotive windows, improved over PVB-based interlayers with regard to moisture, haze, and performance at low temperatures (col. 1, lines 41-52), wherein the standard requirement for minimum light transmission for windshields is preferably 86.5% or above and less than 2% haze (col. 11, lines 8-15), wherein it would have been further obvious to optimize for known standards in the industry.
Claim 7-15 & 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura, optionally in view of Wang, as applied to claim 19 above, (further) in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0254877 A1) (hereinafter “Nakajima”), Burke (WO 2022/020087 A1) (hereinafter “Burke”), and optionally Byker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0202846 A1) (hereinafter “Byker”), wherein claim 11 is optionally even further in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,085,092) (hereinafter “Chang”).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 20-21, Nakamura teaches the multilayer interlayer may further comprise incorporated therein a functional film sandwiched between the plurality of layers, for example an infrared reflective metal/conductive coating via a PET film [0073-0074], and wherein the reflective film has a thickness of about 100 to 500 nm (about 0.000004 to 0.00002 in), and alone would not substantially change the thickness range of the core layer from 0.05 to 0.3 mm. However, a luminophore-based coating adhered/disposed on a TPU (third/core) layer such that it remains within the claimed thickness is not taught.
Nakajima teaches a vehicle window, wherein the multilayer interlayer thermoplastic resin film, such as polyurethane resin [0133] preferably comprises fluorescent material is contained, such that at least one light emitting layer is formed [0036, 0042, 0089, 0125-0131], wherein the resin film may further comprise antioxidants, adhesion modifiers, ultraviolet absorbers, infrared absorbers, and antistatic agents as required [0139], wherein the fluorescent material is not limited to the resin film and may also comprise be a fluorescent material coating formed by sputtering [0090].
AND
Burke teaches TPU-based interlayers, improved over PVB, due to low moisture resistance, mechanical properties that could negatively impact performance in windows and windshields, and edge bleeding/brightening [0009], wherein the interlayer comprises two outer TPU layers including and/or sandwiching an optical film layer, wherein the optical film comprises infrared absorbing/reflecting material in a central (TPU) interlayer optical film [0059-0061] and/or one of the outer TPU interlayer films [0059-0060 & 0062] and/or coated to a surface of one of the TPU interlayer films [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the functional luminophore material as a sputtered coating (directly or indirectly) adhered to an inner TPU (core) layer of Nakamura at a thickness that the combined TPU/coating thickness would have remained within or obviously near the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a known alternative and/or supplement to the fluorescers in the core and/or outer layers in a known manner directly on the TPU major surface.
In the event that Nakajima/Burke do not obviously teach and/or motivate the third TPU layer as being (sputter) coated:
Byker teaches that infrared radiation is often a problem for windows in buildings and motor vehicles [0004-0007], wherein the infrared radiation is absorbed/reflected by a vacuum-deposited/ sputtered directly coated thinner and stiffer PVB layer [0106, 0126], which directly modifies a known acoustic interlayer set-up [0120], wherein the PVB replaces the conventional adhesive-sandwiched, coated PET layer due to increased birefringence [0102], can cause difficult to eliminate wrinkling especially when applied to curved surfaces like windshields [0102-0103], and can appear to cause an “orange peel” or “apple sauce” effect that is exacerbated due to refractive index mismatch between the difference in polymers [0104], wherein the sputtering can be performed in roll-to-roll processing [0126], wherein the coated PVB film is 100 microns (wherein the coating is a negligible 0.1 microns in thickness) (0.1 mm/0.004 in) and the flanking PVB adhesive layers are 750 microns (0.75 mm/0.03 inch) [0137-0139], wherein it would have been obvious to apply optimize this set-up for the improved TPU-based interlayer comprising multiple sublayers having two thicker adhesive TPU layers sandwiching a coated thinner, stiffer TPU core layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize the set-up already taught by Nakamura for the inclusion of a sputter-coated layer, improved over using PET as a support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a coated core layer having less birefringence and less potential for refractive index mismatch [Byker] and improved over the use of PVB [Burke].
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15, Further regarding claims 10-13 and 15, a multilayer thermoplastic polyurethane interlayer comprising UV-absorbers is taught as recited above, wherein although Nakmura does not disclose a visible light transmission, percentage haze, yellowness index, and light transmission at 380 nm and 400 nm as claimed, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Nakamura teaches an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Burke incorporates Galica (62/876,171) by reference [0053], wherein Galica teaches an optical film interlayer for vehicle or building window laminates [0010, 0012], replacing PVB-based interlayers of the prior art due to moisture absorption and edge brightening [0007-0009], wherein the interlayer comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane [0012-0013] having a thickness of about 15 to about 30 mils [claims 6-7] that is castable or preferably extrudable [0052], comprising light stabilizer and first and second UV-absorbers, preferably at least Tinuvin 326 [0015-0019, 0022-0025, 0028-0029], that allows visible light therethrough but blocks UV light, wherein at least 99% of UV light at a wavelength of about 400 nm is blocked (less than 1% light transmittance) and at least an average value of 99.9% of UV light blockage from about 380 nm to 400 nm (less than 0.1% light transmittance), and a yellowness index of less than 2.0 [0020-0021], wherein a preferred example (Film 2) comprises a thickness of about 30 mils (~0.03 inch) comprising a light transmittance of 0.4% at 400 nm and an average light transmittance of 0.05% at 380-400 nm (wherein transmittance at 380 would likely be lower than 0.05% to provide the average value with the value of 0.4% at 400 nm), a visible light transmission (400~900 nm) of about 86%, and a yellowness index of 4.57 [Table 1, 0055] and a thinner embodiment having a lower yellowness index along with higher light transmittance at 400 nm (3.5%) and average light transmittances at 380-400 nm (0.4%) and at 400-900 nm (visible light transmittance of 90.8%) [Table 2, 0057-0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the claimed properties within the desired ranges due to an optimized inclusion of (first and second) UV absorbers (and a light stabilizer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the benefits of using polyurethane over PVB in any of the layers that prevents UV light-based damage for human health concerns while also being substantially transparent to visible light [0002, 0005-0014].
Further regarding claim 11, although the prior art does not disclose a haze, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Nakamura/Burke teach an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Chang teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane interlayer for building and automotive windows, improved over PVB-based interlayers with regard to moisture, haze, and performance at low temperatures (col. 1, lines 41-52), wherein the standard requirement for minimum light transmission for windshields is preferably 86.5% or above and less than 2% haze (col. 11, lines 8-15), wherein it would have been further obvious to optimize for known standards in the industry.
Claims 1-4 & 16-18 are rejected as anticipated by Jeroen et al. (WO 2022/171678 A1) (hereinafter “Jeroen”), or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen, optionally in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109177414 A) (hereinafter “Zhang”), and optionally Wang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,554,698) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 16-18, Jeroen teaches a window/windscreen glass laminate [0033, 0046-0047] with an interlayer comprising a first inner layer (All Figs. [12]), a central layer (All Figs. [13]), and a second inner layer (All Figs. [14]), wherein the first and second inner layers comprise PVB or an equivalent material such as TPU [0048] and the central layer is PET having a luminescent layer coated thereon [0050-0055], wherein the PVB first/second inner layers comprise a thickness of comprised between 0.05 and 1 mm, specifically 0.1, 0.38, or 0.76 mm, and a central layer comprises a thickness between 0.03 and 0.25 mm, and the luminescent coating is from about 5 to 50 microns , wherein in a specific example the thickness of the PVB layers is 0.76 mm (about 0.03 inch) and the PET central layer is 0.05 mm (about 0.002 in) and the luminescent coating is typically about 20 µm (0.02 mm/about 0.0008 in) for a combined thickness of about 0.07 mm (about 0.0028 in) and a total interlayer thickness of about 1.59 mm (0.06 in).
In the event that the values for the PVB layers are not considered as taught for TPU layers:
Zhang teaches a composite optical elastomer film (monolithic interlayer) usable in laminated glass or safety glass panes such as automobile windows [0049], improved over PVB-based interlayers due to increased adhesion of thermoplastic polyurethane to inorganic and organic glass plastics, improved low-temperature performance, and better environmental resistance [0005], wherein the composite interlayer is made by a roll-to-roll melt extrusion process and comprises a first and third layers of thermoplastic polyurethane having a functional coated PET layer disposed therebetween, wherein the PET layer comprises a functional coating sputtered thereon, wherein sputtering has a more uniform and stable performance over dispersing nanoparticles in the interlayer film [0016], wherein the first and third TPU layers have an exemplary thickness of 0.76 mm (0.03 in/30 mil) [0037, 0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace the PVB layers of the interlayer Jeroen with the known equivalent TPU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide increased adhesion of thermoplastic polyurethane to inorganic and organic glass plastics, improved low-temperature performance, and better environmental resistance.
Further regarding claims 1 and 18, a functional element comprising an ionomer is not taught.
Wang teaches low haze ionomers, usable as a glass interlayer (col. 16, lines 1-14), wherein the ionomer can be blended with other thermoplastic polymers to modify the property/properties (i.e. softness and flexibility) of the polymer with which it is blended, such as polyurethane (col. 16, lines 30-40 & 43-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a functional element comprising an ionomer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a low haze component to a thermoplastic polyurethane, which may also modify the softness and flexibility thereof.
Claims 5, 7-9, 19-21, & 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen in view of Zhang, and optionally Wang, as applied to claims 3 and 18 above, further in view of Byker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0202846 A1) (hereinafter “Byker”), and wherein claim 8 is evidenced by or even further in view of Nakajima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0254877 A1) (hereinafter “Nakajima”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 16-18, Jeroen/Zhang teaches a window/windscreen glass laminate [0033, 0046-0047] with an interlayer comprising a first inner layer (All Figs. [12]), a central layer (All Figs. [13]), and a second inner layer (All Figs. [14]), wherein the first and second inner layers comprise TPU [0048] and the central layer is PET having a luminescent layer coated thereon [0050-0055].
However, the central/third layer is taught to comprise PET, not TPU.
Byker teaches that infrared radiation is often a problem for windows in buildings and motor vehicles [0004-0007], wherein the infrared radiation is absorbed/reflected by a vacuum-deposited/ sputtered directly coated thinner and stiffer PVB layer [0106, 0126], which directly modifies a known acoustic interlayer set-up [0120], wherein the PVB replaces the conventional adhesive-sandwiched, coated PET layer due to increased birefringence [0102], can cause difficult to eliminate wrinkling especially when applied to curved surfaces like windshields [0102-0103], and can appear to cause an “orange peel” or “apple sauce” effect that is exacerbated due to refractive index mismatch between the difference in polymers [0104], wherein the sputtering can be performed in roll-to-roll processing [0126], wherein the coated PVB film is 100 microns (wherein the coating is a negligible at about 0.1 microns in thickness) (0.1 mm/0.004 in) and the flanking PVB adhesive layers are 750 microns (0.75 mm/0.03 inch) [0137-0139] giving a similar overall thickness 1.6 mm to the above example, wherein it would have been obvious to apply optimize this set-up for the improved TPU-based interlayer comprising multiple sublayers having two thicker adhesive TPU layers sandwiching a coated thinner, stiffer TPU core layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to optimize the set-up already taught by Jeroen/Zhang for the inclusion of a sputter-coated layer, improved over using PET as a support. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a coated core layer having less birefringence and less potential for refractive index mismatch [Byker] and improved over the use of PVB [Zhang].
Further regarding claim 8, Nakajima teaches a vehicle window, wherein the multilayer interlayer thermoplastic resin film, such as polyurethane resin [0133] preferably comprises fluorescent material is contained, such that at least one light emitting layer is formed [0036, 0042, 0089, 0125-0131], wherein the resin film may further comprise antioxidants, adhesion modifiers, ultraviolet absorbers, infrared absorbers, and antistatic agents as required [0139], wherein the fluorescent material is not limited to the resin film and may also comprise be a fluorescent material coating formed by sputtering [0090].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a known equivalent of applying a luminescent layer in a vehicle windshield [Nakajima], wherein sputtering is more uniform and stable than a dispersion coating [Zhang; 0016].
Claims 10-15 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen in view of Zhang and Byker, and optionally Wang, as applied to claims 5 and 19 above, further in view of Galica (WO 2021/015942 A1) (hereinafter “Galica”), wherein claim 11 is optionally even further in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,085,092) (hereinafter “Chang”).
Although each of the layers is a TPU layer as recited above, providing a material configured to reflect/absorb UV light and/or properties of the TPU-based interlayer are not taught.
Galica teaches an optical film interlayer for vehicle or building window laminates [0010, 0012], replacing PVB-based interlayers of the prior art due to moisture absorption and edge brightening [0007-0009], wherein the interlayer comprises a thermoplastic polyurethane [0012-0013] having a thickness of about 15 to about 30 mils [claims 6-7] that is castable or preferably extrudable [0052], comprising light stabilizer and first and second UV-absorbers, preferably at least Tinuvin 326 [0015-0019, 0022-0025, 0028-0029], that allows visible light therethrough but blocks UV light, wherein at least 99% of UV light at a wavelength of about 400 nm is blocked (less than 1% light transmittance) and at least an average value of 99.9% of UV light blockage from about 380 nm to 400 nm (less than 0.1% light transmittance), and a yellowness index of less than 2.0 [0020-0021], wherein a preferred example (Film 2) comprises a thickness of about 30 mils (~0.03 inch) comprising a light transmittance of 0.4% at 400 nm and an average light transmittance of 0.05% at 380-400 nm (wherein transmittance at 380 would likely be lower than 0.05% to provide the average value with the value of 0.4% at 400 nm), a visible light transmission (400~900 nm) of about 86%, and a yellowness index of 4.57 [Table 1, 0055] and a thinner embodiment having a lower yellowness index along with higher light transmittance at 400 nm (3.5%) and average light transmittances at 380-400 nm (0.4%) and at 400-900 nm (visible light transmittance of 90.8%) [Table 2, 0057-0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the claimed properties within the desired ranges due to an optimized inclusion of first and second UV absorbers (and a light stabilizer). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the benefits of using polyurethane over PVB in any of the layers that prevents UV light-based damage for human health concerns while also being substantially transparent to visible light [0002, 0005-0014].
Further regarding claim 11, although the prior art does not disclose a haze, the claimed properties are deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since Nakamura/Galica teach an invention with a substantially similar structure and chemical composition as the claimed invention. Products of identical structure and composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. The burden is on the Applicants to prove otherwise.
Alternatively, Chang teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane interlayer for building and automotive windows, improved over PVB-based interlayers with regard to moisture, haze, and performance at low temperatures (col. 1, lines 41-52), wherein the standard requirement for minimum light transmission for windshields is preferably 86.5% or above and less than 2% haze (col. 11, lines 8-15), wherein it would have been further obvious to optimize for known standards in the industry.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (Impact response of laminated glass with varying interlayer materials) teach TPU/ionomer/TPU hybrid/composite interlayers for improved load carrying and impact resistance at high velocities.
Friedman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0088082 A1) teach an interlayer core of ionomer or ionomer/TPU or TPU/ionomer/TPU as improved over PVB interlayers due to the inclusion of plasticizer (which is not included in TPU) causing bloom, moisture absorption, and a relatively high density/weight [0006], wherein the ionomer provides a low density, excellent processability, and very low haze [0028, 0037] and the polyurethane provides improved mechanical properties and impact resistance while balancing thickness of layers with haze concerns, wherein layers having a thickness of 10 mil/0.25 mm provide a haze value of about 1% and lower thickness values provide correlated lower haze values [0081, Table 3] [0031-0033, 0037] and the outer/polyurethane layers also preferably comprise UV-light absorbers [0035].
Bennison et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0167061 A1) teach ionomer interlayers, which may be combined with other sublayers of different composition such as thermoplastic polyurethane [0046, 0055].
Becker et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0347900 A1) teach TPU being varied in hardness/softness via the inclusion of ionomers, which Wang evidences/further teaches can be a transparent polyurethane.
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 JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 J 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 14th, 2026
Prosecution Insights