DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Although the prior art teaches similar methods for making laminate composites, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest such a method in which the light-reflecting bodies undergo the claimed deformation during the lamination process as recited in the present claim 12.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. All limitations of the present claim 4 are already recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seidler, US 2020/0262185 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-5, Seidler teaches an interlayer for a laminated composite (1001 of Fig. 1), the interlayer comprising a thickness ([0024]), a polymer resin composition ([0017], [0037]), and a plurality of deformable, visible, light-reflecting body precursors (300 of Fig. 1, [0020], [0027]). Note that Applicant’s specification teaches that the precursor bodies of Seidler are capable of deforming in the claimed manner ([0054] of Applicant’s specification), and there is no apparent reason why the precursor bodies of Seidler would be incapable of deforming in the claimed manner if property manipulated. Note that Seidler teaches that the precursor bodies may deform into a concave shape ([0027]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Seidler teaches that the precursor bodies may be paillettes ([0012]), which are a substantially flat plate-like shape that includes a first surface and opposite second surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler, US 2020/0262185 A1.
Regarding claims 9-11, Seidler teaches a composite glazing as discussed above. Seidler teaches that the composite glazing may comprise a first and second transparent substrate (100 and 200 of Fig. 1), and an interlayer comprising a thickness ([0024]), a polymer resin composition ([0017], [0037]), and a plurality of deformable, visible, light-reflecting bodies (300 of Fig. 1, [0020], [0027]). Seidler teaches that the light-reflecting bodies may have a concave shape ([0027]), with such a concave shape corresponding to the claimed “cupped” shape.
The teachings of Seidler differ from the present invention in that although Seidler teaches that the light-reflecting bodies may have a concave shape to achieve a visual effect, Seidler does not teach any specific deformation distance. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an appropriate deformation distance based on the desired optical effect and the size of the light-reflecting bodies. Additionally, Seidler teaches that the light-reflecting bodies may have a size of 2 – 20 mm ([0033]). Given the relatively large size of the light-reflecting bodies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deform the bodies by more than the claimed 0.05 mm because 0.05 mm represents merely 2.5% - 0.25% of the dimension of the bodies, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that virtually any visually-perceivable perceivable deformation of the bodies would likely require a deformation distance of greater than 0.25%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-29-2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding claim 12, but they are not persuasive regarding claims 1 and 9.
Regarding the teachings of Seidler, Applicant argues that Seidler does not teach deformable precursors that deform into cupped bodies with the recited deformation magnitude during the lamination process. This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant further argues that the claims now recite that the deformation occurs during lamination. This argument is unpersuasive regarding claim 1 because claim 1 merely states that the bodies are capable of deforming in the claimed manner without specifying that they actually are deformed. The argument is unpersuasive regarding claim 9 because the claim is a product-by-process claim and there is no apparent reason why the recited method of making the product would result in a product that materially differed from a similar product made according to any other method (eg, a method in which the bodies were deformed prior to lamination.
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 Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
IAN A. RUMMEL
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights