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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-22, drawn to a continuous process for separating a first layer.
Group II, claim(s) 23, drawn to an interlayer containing the first layer.
Group III, claim(s) 24, drawn to a composition containing the first layer.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a first layer which is separated, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation.
Palmantier discloses a method for making a composite pane having a process where a sequence of layers is provided (abs) in an initial stage, step (a) followed by a step (b) whereby a first layer is separated from a multilayer interlayer sheet (abs, paragraph [0071]).
During a telephone conversation with Steven Owen, Eastman Chemical Company on July 28, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 23 and 24 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 21 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim a 2, 7-12 and 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/558396 in view of Cere’ (US 2022/0227513).
As to claim 1, independent claim 2 of the ‘396 application recites “a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet, the process comprising:
a. heating the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet to a temperature from about 250C to about 70*C; and
b. thereafter separating the first layer from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet by pulling the first layer and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet in different directions,
wherein an angle ɑ defined by the first layer and the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet at the separation point is smaller than or equal to an angle β defined by the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet at the separation point,” which is similar to the instant application except, that both clams 1 and 18 recite a “tapered” multilayer interlayer sheet, while claim 2 of the ‘396 application recites a “ PVB interlayer’, only claim 18 recites a PVB.
The ‘396 application does not recite that “a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet has a thicker side and a thinner side, and wherein a positioning roll positioned before the separation point is positioned so that it is tilted in the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length, or in the Y direction up to about 0.5% of the positioning roll length, or in both the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length and in the Y direction up to about 0.5% of the positioning roll length, to prevent the thicker side of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll, during the continuous process.”
Cere’ discloses in an unwinding apparatus for a wrapping machine using a positioning roll that can be tilted in a Z or Y direction (abs - a guiding roller – 6 that can be tilted for reducing a band width of the film). This positioning roll (guiding roller), can be tilted into a plurality of positions (Figs. 1-15, abs, paragraph [0036] theoretically infinite positions) and these can be the Z direction (Figs, 11, 5, 8 paragraphs [0036]-[0040] where the operating positions are P0, P1, P2 in a vertical axis in relation to pre-stretching rollers), in a Y direction (Fig. 4 paragraph [0042] where the guiding roller – 6 is mounted on a support element – 15 that rotates around a transverse axis – Y orthogonal to a longitudinal axis – X of the guiding roller) and in both a Z direction and Y direction (Fig 4, paragraphs [0038] [0058] where the guiding roller is tiled by a first angle ɑ1 and a second angle ɑ2 defined by a tilt in a first operating position P1 and a second operating position P2). This tilting angle would have the effect of preventing the thicker side of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll, during the continuous process (Fig. 1 paragraph [0033] guiding roller – 6 rotatably mounted on supporting means – 2 so as to be tiltable with respect to longitudinal rotating axes - X1, X2 of the roller means – 3, 4, 7 so as to reduce a band width of the film – 50 wrapped around the load – 30 and/or deviate the film – 50 itself toward a supporting plane – M adapted to for support).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of claim 1 with the teachings of Cere’ whereby a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet would have a positioning roll positioned before the separation point so that it is tiled in the various direction including Z and Y separately and both directions.
As stated above, the motivation would be similar to what is recited as an intended use in claim 1 whereby this is to prevent the thicker side of the multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll during the continuous process (paragraph [0033] so as to reduce a band width of the film wrapped around the load and/or deviate the film itself toward a supporting plane adapted to for support).
However, Cere’ does not explicitly disclose that the positioning roll is tilted in the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length, or in the Y direction up to about 0.5% of the positioning roll length or in both the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length and in the Y direction up to about 0.5 % of the positioning roll length.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited percentages for the tilting of the positioning roll in the Z and/or the Y directions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these percentages of the positioning roll lengths in the Z and/or Y directions for the purpose of reducing the band width of the film wrapped around the load (paragraph [0033]).
As to independent claim 18, the obviousness analysis is similar to claim 1 regarding independent claim 2 of the ‘396 application except for the incorporation of polyvinyl acetal whereby PVB (polyvinyl butyral) is a representative. See evidence below – Kobayashi (US 2020/0147933 A10 IDS 02/07/2025 used in the rejection of claims 5, 7, 18-22.
As to claims 5 and 19, see claim 7 in the ‘396 application.
As to claims 6 and 20, see claim 8 in the ‘396 application.
As to claims 7 and 21, see claim 9 in the ‘396 application
As to claim 8, see claim 10 in the ‘396 application.
As to claim 12, see claim 11 in the ‘396 application.
As to claim 14, see claim 12 in the ‘396 application.
As to claim 15, see claim 14 in the ‘396 application.
As to claim 16, see claim 15 in the ‘396 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. While the claims are not identical, they contain similar subject matter and may be amended to contain overlapping claim scopes.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-17 and 19-22 objected to because of the following informalities: unlike the preambles of claims 1-3 and 18 these claims are drawn to "the process" rather than "the continuous process" of the claims they are dependent on (i.e. independent claims 1 and 18). The preambles of the claims should all recite "the continuous process" to be consistent. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the claims to all be drawn to “the continuous process”.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: the second line recites "pull-roll" while the following third line recites “pull roll". . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-13 and 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 12 and 13 recite the limitation "the first layer pull-roll and the remainder pull-roll" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the other skin layer" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider in the case of claims 12 and 13 that “the first layer pull-roll and the remainder pull-roll” is dependent on claim 8 and that “the other skin layer” of claims 15 and 16 is dependent on claim 14.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation in view of Yamada (EP 0 369 341 A2) and further in view of Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1).
Note: See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) discussion above where claim 14 is the antecedent basis for claims 15-16.
Regarding Claim 1, Palmantier discloses a process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Fig. 3 paragraphs [0065] -[0067] protective layer – 11, functional layer – 6 corresponding to tapered multilayer interlayer sheet where there is a thinner thickness of the inner thermoplastic composite film – 5 compared to the outer thermoplastic composite film – 4 making this a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet – see Figures 3(a), (b), (c) below), the process comprising:
a. heating the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet to a temperature from about, and Palmantier discloses a temperature range of 120 °C to 150 °C (paragraph [0022]) and
b. thereafter separating the first layer from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet by pulling the first layer and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet in different directions (Figs. 3(a), (b), (c) paragraphs [0066] [0068] where in process step (b) the protective layer – 11 is removed exposing the first surface V of the functional layer – 6 (tapered multilayer interlayer sheet)) See Figs. 3(a), (b), (c) below:
PNG
media_image1.png
565
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, based on Fig. 3 above, it appears to the examiner that an angle ɑ defined by the first layer and the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet at the separation point is smaller than or equal to an angle β defined by the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet at the separation point where there is apparent from the comparison from the separation point to the remainder.
However, while Palmantier disclose a temperature range of 120 °C to 150 °C this is a lamination temperature but does not disclose the recited temperature range prior to the separation is about 25°C to about 70°C.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a method for recovering scraps of multi-layer plastic sheet or film for reuse which comprises separating the scraps into at least two layers (abs) where different film materials comprising the multi-layer sheet or film are used (p. 2 ll. 10-17). In order to separate the layers, the adhesive resin used in the lamination of the layers (p. 3 ll. 45-46), it becomes necessary to make the peeling strength of the adhesive resin smaller than the strength at break of the resin itself to prevent base layer material from being broken (p. 4 ll. 1-5). This is achieved by means of the temperature dependency of the adhesive strength on adhesive resin (p. 4 ll. 13-15). However, Yamada teaches that its recommended temperature range is 30 to 70°C which is encompassed by the recited temperature range of about 25°C to about 70°C.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified Palmantier to utilize this range as taught by Yamada because while the heating temperature varies with the type of the resin, and so on, and is difficult to determine unconditionally, it is sufficient for it to be not more than the softening point of the base material layer and when an adhesive resin is used, it is preferred from a viewpoint of handling that the temperature of the adhesive resin is 30 to 70°C.
Also, Palmantier does not disclose that its’ process is a continuous process.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have used a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet because making a process continuous has been determined to be obvious by legal precedent. MPEP § 2144.04 V.E. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963 where the court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of prior art)
Here, Palmantier discloses a process procedure divided into several process steps (Fig.3 paragraphs [0009] within a controlled environment, including cleanroom (paragraphs [0035]- [0038] where different examples of controlled environments are disclosed) and, therefore, this would not inherently favor the use of batch processing.
However, while Palmantier does teach that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet has a thicker side and a thinner side (Fig. 3 paragraph [0062] thermoplastic composite film – 4 thicker than the thinner inner thermoplastic composite film – 5, see Figure 3 above), Palmantier is silent on the use of a positioning roll.
Cere’ discloses in an unwinding apparatus for a wrapping machine using a positioning roll that can be tilted in a Z or Y direction (abs - a guiding roller – 6 that can be tilted for reducing a band width of the film). This positioning roll (guiding roller), can be tilted into a plurality of positions (Figs. 1-15, abs, paragraph [0036] theoretically infinite positions) and these can be the Z direction (Figs, 11, 5, 8 paragraphs [0036]-[0040] where the operating positions are P0, P1, P2 in a vertical axis in relation to pre-stretching rollers), in a Y direction (Fig. 4 paragraph [0042] where the guiding roller – 6 is mounted on a support element – 15 that rotates around a transverse axis – Y orthogonal to a longitudinal axis – X of the guiding roller) and in both a Z direction and Y direction (Fig 4, paragraphs [0038] [0058] where the guiding roller is tiled by a first angle ɑ1 and a second angle ɑ2 defined by a tilt in a first operating position P1 and a second operating position P2). This tilting angle would have the effect of preventing the thicker side of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll, during the continuous process (Fig. 1 paragraph [0033] guiding roller – 6 rotatably mounted on supporting means – 2 so as to be tiltable with respect to longitudinal rotating axes - X1, X2 of the roller means – 3, 4, 7 so as to reduce a band width of the film – 50 wrapped around the load – 30 and/or deviate the film – 50 itself toward a supporting plane – M adapted to for support).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Palmantier/Yamada with the teachings of Cere’ whereby a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet would have a positioning roll positioned before the separation point so that it is tiled in the various direction including Z and Y separately and both directions.
As stated above, the motivation would be similar to what is recited as an intended use in claim 1 whereby this is to prevent the thicker side of the multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll during the continuous process (paragraph [0033] so as to reduce a band width of the film wrapped around the load and/or deviate the film itself toward a supporting plane adapted to for support).
However, Cere’ does not explicitly disclose that the positioning roll is tilted in the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length, or in the Y direction up to about 0.5% of the positioning roll length or in both the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length and in the Y direction up to about 0.5 % of the positioning roll length.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited percentages for the tilting of the positioning roll in the Z and/or the Y directions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these percentages of the positioning roll lengths in the Z and/or Y directions for the purpose of reducing the band width of the film wrapped around the load (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and while Cere’ discloses an unwinding apparatus for a wrapping machine using a positioning roll that can be tilted in a Z or Y direction (abs - a guiding roller – 6 that can be tilted for reducing a band width of the film), Cere’ does not explicitly disclose that the positioning roll is tilted in the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length, or in the Y direction up to about 0.5% of the positioning roll length.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited percentages for the tilting of the positioning roll in the Z and/or the Y directions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these percentages of the positioning roll lengths in the Z and/or Y directions for the purpose of reducing the band width of the film wrapped around the load (paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Yamada further discloses where in order to separate the layers, the adhesive resin used in the lamination of the layers (p. 3 ll. 45-46), it becomes necessary to make the peeling strength of the adhesive resin smaller than the strength at break of the resin itself to prevent base layer material from being broken (p. 4 ll. 1-5). This is achieved by means of the temperature dependency of the adhesive strength on adhesive resin (p. 4 ll. 13-15) where Yamada teaches that its’ recommended temperature range is 30 to 70°C (p. 4 ll. 45-47).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Palmantier further discloses that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a core layer, with a skin layer on each side (Figs. 3(a), (b), (c) see above, paragraph [0066] where core layer comprises the functional layer – 6 and an inner thermoplastic composite film – 5, and a skin layer on each side protective layers – 11 and 12).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Palmantier further discloses that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a first skin layer, and wherein the first skin layer is thicker than the other skin layer (Figs. (a)(b)(c) paragraphs [0066] [0071] where the first protective layer – 11 can also, broadly interpreted, includes the functional layer – 6 which appears in the figures to be thicker than the outer protective layer – 12 and become a first intermediate stage).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and Palmantier further discloses that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a first skin layer, and wherein the first skin layer is thinner than the other skin layer (Fig. 3(d) paragraph [0071] where adding an outer thermoplastic composite film – 4 on the functional layer -6 causes the first skin layer to be thinner, broadly interpreted forming a second intermediate stage)
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and while Cere’ discloses that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a positioning roll that is tilted, it does not disclose explicitly that it is tilted at least 0.01 milliradians and less than 0.05 milliradians in the Z direction.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited angles for the tilting of the positioning roll in the Z direction, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these tilted angles in the positioning roll for the purpose of reducing the band width of the film wrapped around the load (paragraph [0033]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation, Yamada (EP 0 369 341 A2) and Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsujimoto (US 2005/0224174 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but while Palmantier does disclose heating the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet to a given temperature range (paragraph [0022] 120 °C to 150 °C) where it is disclosed that this process is performed in a cleanroom environment where temperature can be precisely controlled (paragraph [0031]), however, Palmantier nor Cere’ disclose that the multilayer interlay sheet is heated in step a) by a positioning roll.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsujimoto discloses a method for producing a multi-layer laminated composite sheet whereby prior to bonding and lamination a longitudinal sheet is pulled out from reels to be added to a core material on either side and as part of this process heating rolls are positioned such that an upper and lower longitudinal sheet supply supplies sheets that are passed between the core material and the heating rolls and pressed by the rolls resulting in the core material and the longitudinal sheet to be melted and bonded to each other (Fig. 18a paragraph [0429] reels – 2 heating rolls – 4 core material (C), longitudinal sheet (S1)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Palmantier/Cere’ with the teaching of Tsujimoto whereby a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer sheet having a positioning roll positioned before the separation point is heated and the heats the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet is step a). One with ordinary skill would utilize the positioning roll to heat the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet in step a) prior to the separation step b) because the heating can be utilized to not only bond and laminate (paragraph [0429]) but also if the heating temperature is less than the flow starting temperature which would include softening the melting of the other resins does not occur and separation by peeling can occur (paragraph [0164]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation, Yamada (EP 0 369 341 A2) and Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR101912160B1) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the multilayer interlayer sheet is heated in step a) by a heating unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses a method for separation of coated paper and resin film by a peeling process (abs). This separation device operates by a heating unit and a peeling part (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0029] separation device – 100 heated moving part – 120 and peeling part – 130), where the heating unit is configured to heat the coating paper laminated on the supply plate and move it to the peeling unit (Figs, 1, 2 paragraph [0030] heating moving unit – 120 heats laminated coating paper – 10 on supply plate – 110 and move it to the peeling unit – 130 and includes a heater – 121).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to have modified the combination of Palmantier and Yamada with the disclosure of Park whereby the separating of a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises heating in step a) by a heating unit and would be motivated to add this feature so that the first layer is separated from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Fig. 4 paragraph [0034] heated and moved from the heating moving unit – 120 so that the synthetic resin film – 12 is peeled from the paper – 11).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation, Yamada (EP 0 369 341) and Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2020/0147933 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 l and Thakkar (US 5,861,211)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the first layer comprises a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg (glass transition temperature) from about 25*C to about 40*C.
Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for recycling an intermediate film for laminated glass (abs paragraph [0001]) where the laminated glass is preferably made with a sheet formed of a composition including polyvinyl butyral resin (paragraphs [0002] [0045]).
It would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to have used polyvinyl butyral resin as comprising the first layer because it has excellent adhesiveness with glass and transparency and mechanical strength (paragraph [0002]). However, Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose that the polyvinyl butyral polymer has a Tg from about 25*C to about 40*C.
Thakkar discloses regarding articles incorporating pressure-sensitive adhesives having improved adhesion used in composites (abs), that one adhesive used is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (Col. 8 ll. 60-61) and further teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of adhesives have a usefulness dependent on the Tg values which are lowered from the pressure-sensitive adhesive being plasticized by the addition of varying weights of plasticizers in the adhesive composition (Col. 5 ll. 59-63).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’ and Kobayashi with the teaching of Thakkar by lowering the Tg of poly (vinyl butyral) polymer (PVB) by use of a plasticizer as is taught and suggested by Thakkar, and would be considered by the one with ordinary skill in the art because Tg is a critical feature to optimize peel strength (Col. 15 ll. 30-39)
However, while Thakkar discloses varying peel strengths from varying amounts of plasticizer weights (Cols 18-24 with examples and tables), there is no explicit disclosure of the Tg range being from about 25 °C to about 40 °C.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first layer comprising a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg from about 25 °C to about 40 °C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
The skilled artisan would be motivated because when an adhesive absorbs plasticizer, the Tg is lowered thereby reducing peel strength, which is desired for enabling the process for separating a first layer from a remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Col.15, ll. 39-42).
Claim(s) 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation, Yamada (EP 0 369 341) and Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thakkar (US 5,861,211)l and Schroeter (EP 3 808 558 B1) IDS 02/07/2025
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that at least a portion of the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that is at least 15*C lower than the Tg of the first layer.
Thakkar discloses regarding articles incorporating pressure-sensitive adhesives having improved adhesion used in composites (abs), that one adhesive used is polyvinyl butyral (Col. 8 ll. 60-61) and further teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of adhesives have a usefulness dependent on the Tg values which are lowered from the pressure-sensitive adhesive being plasticized by the addition of varying weights of plasticizers in the adhesive composition (Col. 5 ll. 59-63).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ with the teaching of Thakkar by lowering the Tg of poly (vinyl butyral) polymer by use of a plasticizer as is taught and suggested by Thakkar. The skilled artisan would be motivated because when an adhesive absorbs plasticizer, the Tg is lowered thereby reducing peel strength, which is desired for enabling the process for separating a first layer from a remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Col.15, ll. 39-42).
However, Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’ and Thakkar do not disclose that PVB polymer which is comprised in the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet has a Tg that is at least 15 °C lower than the Tg of the first layer.
Schroeter discloses a process for splitting plasticized polyvinyl butyral (PVB) films with at least one layer comprising PVB resin (A) with at least one plasticizer (PA) and at least one layer comprising PVB resin (B) with at least one plasticizer (PB) wherein the PVB resins A and B are chemically different (abs). Because these amounts of plasticizer are different in content and are subsequently separated into separate film layers which are cut with a band knife (paragraphs [0016- [0018]). Therefore, these layers of PVB having differing plasticizer content are chemically different and inherently have different Tg’s, as shown by Thakkar above.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’ and Thakkar with the teachings Schroeter whereby the process of separating the first layer from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet includes the feature of at least a portion of the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that lower than the Tg of the first layer. One with ordinary skill would recognize that these differing Tg’s would help in separating out the layers since a lowered Tg reduces peel strength (Thakkar, Col. 15 ll. 39-42) and, therefore, the different Tg’s of the at least two layers where the different Tg’s provides for splitting different PVB resins which would ordinarily have poor miscibility/compatibility, results in an agglomerations visible as haze (Schroeter, paragraph [0003]). However, Schroeter is silent as to the poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that is at least 15 °C lower than the Tg of an adjacent layer.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprising a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that is at least 15 °C lower than the Tg of the first layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One with ordinary skill would use this range in order to effectively separate interlayer laminates that have an improved purity of the separated layers, higher throughput and/or lower maintenance costs (paragraph [0006]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose cooling one or more of the first layer and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet below a Tg of a poly (vinyl butyral) of the first layer or a Tg of a poly (vinyl butyral) of the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet.
Schroeter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method for splitting an interlayer film for laminated glass wherein the interlayer film comprises at least one layer of at least one polyvinyl butyral resin with differing amounts of plasticizer (paragraph [0007]). During this splitting process using a continuous band knife, the softness of the layers can cause one layer to be separated preferentially to another, so a temperature range is used to lower the temperature of the polyvinyl butyral from 0 to 25 °C (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ with the disclosure of Schroeter whereby a continuous process of separating a first layer comprising polyvinyl butyral would further include a step of cooling one or more of the first layer and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet to below a Tg of the polyvinyl butyral of the first layer or a Tg of a polyvinyl butyral of the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet. The skilled artisan would use this step to prevent, during the separating step, any residual stickiness and yet have enough softness that splitting or separation is possible (paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose cooling the first layer to a temperature from about 15*C to about 30*C.
Schroeter discloses a separation of an interlayer film and during the splitting or slicing of the films a temperature of separation is from 0 to 25 °C (paragraph [0019]), but does not explicitly disclose the range of about 15*C to about 30*C.
However prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose cooling the first layer to a temperature from about - 15 °C to about 0 °C.
Schroeter discloses that the layers, after separation are rolled up and cooled to a temperature of 10 to 20 °C to avoid blocking, but does not explicitly disclose the range of - 15 °C to about 0 °C.
However prior art which teaches a range within, overlapping or touching the claimed range anticipated if the prior art range discloses the claimed range with “sufficient specificity”. MPEP 2131.03.
Claim(s) 8 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation, Yamada (EP 0 369 341 A2) and Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokuda (JPH09314776A) with machine translation.
Note: See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) discussion above where claim 8 is the antecedent basis for claims 12-13.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that in the separating step the first layer is pulled by a first layer pull-roll nor that the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet is pulled by a remainder pull roll.
In the same field of endeavor, Tokuda teaches the peeling and separation of thin film to be stably performed without causing breaking and qualitative defects by the help and tension of a pair of rolls (abs). This is accomplished by the tension of the film provided by differences in the peripheral speed between the two rolls during the peeling and separation (abs). Tokuda further teaches that the peeling points of each layer is performed in a straight line across the width direction by gripping or fixing the separation point with the pair of tensioning (pulling) rolls (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ with the disclosure of Tokuda whereby a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet would include in the separating step that the first layer is pulled by a first layer pull roll and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet is pulled by a remainder pull roll.
One with ordinary skill in the art would consider this to be a necessity because this configuration of pull rolls applies a tension to each layer which is if lower than the adhesion force between the layer, the separation point will move downstream (in the direction of film travel) and the separation point will shift in the width direction, leading to undesirable film tearing (paragraph [0016]). However, Tokuda is silent as to a distance between the first layer pull-roll and the remainder pull-roll is maintained, that is less than about 50% of the width of the sheet, while the separating occurs.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use this manufacturing parameter of a distance between a first layer pull roll and the remainder pull roll, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use this distance of less than about 50% of the width of the sheet, while the separating occurs.
One with ordinary skill would maintain this distance between the first layer pull-roll and the remainder pull-roll to be less than about 50% of the width of the sheet, while the separating occurs, because if the separation tension is sufficiently higher than the adhesion force between the layers, the peeling point will be fixed at this distance point from the roll nips, but if the separation tension is too high this separation point will shift in the width direction causing tearing (paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ disclose all the limitations of claim 8 [1] (see 112(b) rejection above) but does not disclose that in the separating step the first layer is pulled by a first layer pull-roll nor that the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet is pulled by a remainder pull roll (see claim 8 above whereby the examiner assumes that claims 12 and 13 are dependent upon claim 8).
And while Tokuda discloses that the tension of the film provided by differences in the peripheral speed between the two rolls during the peeling and separation (abs) and further teaches that the peeling points of each layer is performed in a straight line across the width direction by gripping or fixing the separation point with the pair of rolls (paragraph [0015])
Tokuda does not disclose that the distance between the first layer pull-roll and the remainder pull-roll is less than about 15% of the width of the sheet, while the separating occurs, nor that the distance between the first layer pull-roll and the remainder pull-roll is less than about 5% of the width of the sheet, while the separating occurs.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these manufacturing parameters of a distance of about 15% of the width of the sheet and of about 5% of the width of the sheet between a first layer pull roll and the remainder pull roll while the separating occurs, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
The one with ordinary skilled would be motivated to use these values because if the separation tension is sufficiently higher than the adhesion force between the layers, the peeling point will be fixed at this distance point from the roll nips, but if the separation tension is too high this separation point will shift in the width direction causing tearing (paragraph [0016]).
Claim(s) 18, 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmantier (WO 2022/161821 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 with machine translation in view of Yamada (EP 0 369 341 A2) and further in view of Cere' (US 2022/0227513 A1), Kobayashi (US 2020/0147933 A1) IDS 02/07/2025 and Park (KR101912160B1) with machine translation.
Regarding Claim 18, Palmantier discloses a process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Fig. 3 paragraphs [0065] -[0067] protective layer – 11, functional layer – 6 corresponding to tapered multilayer interlayer sheet where there is a thinner thickness of the inner thermoplastic composite film – 5 compared to the outer thermoplastic composite film – 4 making this a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet – see Figures 3(a), (b), (c) below), the process comprising:
a. heating the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet to a temperature from about, and Palmantier discloses a temperature range of 120 °C to 150 °C (paragraph [0022]) and
b. thereafter separating the first layer from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet by pulling the first layer and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet in different directions (Figs. 3(a), (b), (c) paragraphs [0066] [0068] where in process step (b) the protective layer – 11 is removed exposing the first surface V of the functional layer – 6 (tapered multilayer interlayer sheet)) See Figs. 3(a), (b), (c) below:
Additionally, based on Fig. 3 above, it appears to the examiner that an angle ɑ defined by the first layer and the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet at the separation point is smaller than or equal to an angle β defined by the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet and the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet at the separation point where there is apparent from the comparison from the separation point to the remainder.
However, while Palmantier discloses a temperature range of 120 °C to 150 °C, this is a lamination temperature and does not disclose the recited temperature range prior to the separation is about 25°C to about 70°C.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamada discloses a method for recovering scraps of multi-layer plastic sheet or film for reuse which comprises separating the scraps into at least two layers (abs) where different film materials comprising the multi-layer sheet or film are used (p. 2 ll. 10-17). In order to separate the layers, the adhesive resin used in the lamination of the layers (p. 3 ll. 45-46), it becomes necessary to make the peeling strength of the adhesive resin smaller than the strength at break of the resin itself to prevent base layer material from being broken (p. 4 ll. 1-5). This is achieved by means of the temperature dependency of the adhesive strength on adhesive resin (p. 4 ll. 13-15). However, Yamada teaches that its recommended temperature range is 30 to 70°C which is encompassed by the recited temperature range of about 25°C to about 70°C.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified Palmantier to utilize this range as taught by Yamada because while the heating temperature varies with the type of the resin, and so on, and is difficult to determine unconditionally, it is sufficient for it to be not more than the softening point of the base material layer and when an adhesive resin is used, it is preferred from a viewpoint of handling that the temperature of the adhesive resin is 30 to 70°C.
Also, Palmantier does not disclose that its’ process is a continuous process.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have used a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet because making a process continuous has been determined to be obvious by legal precedent. MPEP § 2144.04 V.E. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963 where the court held the claimed continuous operation would have been obvious in light of the batch process of prior art)
Here, Palmantier discloses a process procedure divided into several process steps (Fig.3 paragraphs [0009] within a controlled environment, including cleanroom (paragraphs [0035]- [0038] where different examples of controlled environments are disclosed) and, therefore, this would not favor the use of batch processing.
However, while Palmantier does teach that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet has a thicker side and a thinner side (Fig. 3 paragraph [0062] thermoplastic composite film – 4 thicker than the thinner inner thermoplastic composite film – 5, see Figure 3 above) Palmantier is silent on the use of a positioning roll.
Cere’ discloses in an unwinding apparatus for a wrapping machine using a positioning roll that can be tilted in a Z or Y direction (abs - a guiding roller – 6 that can be tilted for reducing a band width of the film). This positioning roll (guiding roller), can be tilted into a plurality of positions (Figs. 1-15, abs, paragraph [0036] theoretically infinite positions) and these can be the Z direction (Figs, 11, 5, 8 paragraphs [0036]-[0040] where the operating positions are P0, P1, P2 in a vertical axis in relation to pre-stretching rollers), in a Y direction (Fig. 4 paragraph [0042] where the guiding roller – 6 is mounted on a support element – 15 that rotates around a transverse axis – Y orthogonal to a longitudinal axis – X of the guiding roller) and in both a Z direction and Y direction (Fig 4, paragraphs [0038] [0058] where the guiding roller is tiled by a first angle ɑ1 and a second angle ɑ2 defined by a tilt in a first operating position P1 and a second operating position P2). This tilting angle would have the effect of preventing the thicker side of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll, during the continuous process (Fig. 1 paragraph [0033] guiding roller – 6 rotatably mounted on supporting means – 2 so as to be tiltable with respect to longitudinal rotating axes - X1, X2 of the roller means – 3, 4, 7 so as to reduce a band width of the film – 50 wrapped around the load – 30 and/or deviate the film – 50 itself toward a supporting plane – M adapted to for support).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Palmantier/Yamada with the teachings of Cere’ whereby a continuous process for separating a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet would have a positioning roll positioned before the separation point so that it is tiled in the various direction including Z and Y separately and both directions.
As stated above, the motivation would be similar to what is recited as an intended use in claim 1 whereby this is to prevent the thicker side of the multilayer interlayer sheet from shifting toward the middle of the positioning roll during the continuous process (paragraph [0033] so as to reduce a band width of the film wrapped around the load and/or deviate the film itself toward a supporting plane adapted to for support).
However, Cere’ does not explicitly disclose that the positioning roll is tilted in the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length, or in the Y direction up to about 0.5% of the positioning roll length or in both the Z direction up to about 1% of the positioning roll length and in the Y direction up to about 0.5 % of the positioning roll length.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited percentages for the tilting of the positioning roll in the Z and/or the Y directions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these percentages of the positioning roll lengths in the Z and/or Y directions for the purpose of reducing the band width of the film wrapped around the load (paragraph [0033]).
However, the combination of the combination of Palmantier, Yamada and Cere’ does not disclose that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet is a tapered poly (vinyl acetal) multilayer interlay sheet,
Kobayashi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for recycling an intermediate film for laminated glass (abs paragraph [0001]) where the laminated glass is preferably made with a sheet formed of a composition including polyvinyl acetal resin (paragraphs [0002] [0045] where the resin used is described as polyvinyl acetal resin but is represented as a polyvinyl butyral resin being most preferable).
It would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to have used polyvinyl acetal resin as comprising the first layer because it has excellent adhesiveness with glass and transparency and mechanical strength (paragraph [0002]).
However, while Palmantier does disclose heating the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet to a given temperature range (paragraph [0022] 120 °C to 150 °C) where it is disclosed that this process is performed in a cleanroom environment where temperature can be precisely controlled (paragraph [0031]) and where Cere’ discloses a positioning roll, however, Palmantier nor Cere’ disclose that the multilayer interlay sheet is heated in step a) by a heating unit or by the positioning roll.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses a method for separation of coated paper and resin film by a peeling process (abs). This separation device operates by a heating unit and a peeling part (Figs. 1, 2 paragraph [0029] separation device – 100 heated moving part – 120 and peeling part – 130), where a heating unit is configured to heat the coating paper laminated on the supply plate and move it to the peeling unit (Figs, 1, 2 paragraph [0030] heating moving unit – 120 heats laminated coating paper – 10 on supply plate – 110 and move it to the peeling unit – 130 and includes a heater – 121).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’ and Kobayashi with the disclosure of Park whereby the separating of a first layer from a remainder of a tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises heating in step a) by a heating unit and would be motivated to add this feature so that the first layer is separated from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Fig. 4 paragraph [0034] heated and moved from the heating moving unit – 120 so that the synthetic resin film – 12 is peeled from the paper – 11).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’, Kobayashi and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and Yamada further discloses where in order to separate the layers, the adhesive resin used in the lamination of the layers (p. 3 ll. 45-46), it becomes necessary to make the peeling strength of the adhesive resin smaller than the strength at break of the resin itself to prevent base layer material from being broken (p. 4 ll. 1-5). This is achieved by means of the temperature dependency of the adhesive strength on adhesive resin (p. 4 ll. 13-15) where Yamada teaches that its recommended temperature range is 30 to 70°C (p. 4 ll. 45-47).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’, Kobayashi and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 18 and while Cere’ discloses that the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a positioning roll that is tilted, it does not disclose explicitly that it is tilted at least 0.01 milliradians and less than 0.05 milliradians in the Z direction.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use these recited angles for the tilting of the positioning roll in the Z direction, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to use these tilted angles in the positioning roll for the purpose of reducing the band width of the film wrapped around the load (paragraph [0033]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere', Kobayashi and Park as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Thakkar (US 5,861,211).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’, Kobayashi and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 18 and while Kobayashi discloses a first layer that comprises a poly (vinyl butyral) resin which represents a poly (vinyl acetal) resin, Kobayashi is silent that the polyvinyl butyral has a Tg from about 25*C to about 40*C.
Thakkar discloses regarding articles incorporating pressure-sensitive adhesives having improved adhesion used in composites (abs), that one adhesive used is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) (Col. 8 ll. 60-61) and further teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of adhesives have a usefulness dependent on the Tg values which are lowered from the pressure-sensitive adhesive being plasticized by the addition of varying weights of plasticizers in the adhesive composition (Col. 5 ll. 59-63).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’ and Kobayashi with the teaching of Thakkar by lowering the Tg of poly (vinyl butyral) polymer (PVB) by use of a plasticizer as is taught and suggested by Thakkar, and would be considered by the one with ordinary skill in the art because Tg is a critical feature to optimize peel strength (Col. 15 ll. 30-39)
However, while Thakkar discloses varying peel strengths from varying amounts of plasticizer weights (Cols 18-24 with examples and tables), there is no explicit disclosure of Tg range from about 25 °C to about 40 °C.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first layer comprising a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg from about 25 °C to about 40 °C, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
The skilled artisan would be motivated because when an adhesive absorbs plasticizer, the Tg is lowered thereby reducing peel strength, which is desired for enabling the process for separating a first layer from a remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Col.15, ll. 39-42).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere', Kobayashi and Park as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Thakkar (US 5,861,211) and Schroeter (EP 3 808 558 B1) IDS 02/07/2025.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’, Kobayashi and Park disclose all the limitations of claim 18 but does not disclose that at least a portion of the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that is at least 15*C lower than the Tg of the first layer.
Thakkar discloses regarding articles incorporating pressure-sensitive adhesives having improved adhesion used in composites (abs), that one adhesive used is polyvinyl butyral (Col. 8 ll. 60-61) and further teaches that the glass transition temperature (Tg) of adhesives have a usefulness dependent on the Tg values which are lowered from the pressure-sensitive adhesive being plasticized by the addition of varying weights of plasticizers in the adhesive composition (Col. 5 ll. 59-63).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’, Kobayashi and Park with the teaching of Thakkar by lowering the Tg of poly (vinyl butyral) polymer by use of a plasticizer as is taught and suggested by Thakkar. The skilled artisan would be motivated because when an adhesive absorbs plasticizer, the Tg is lowered thereby reducing peel strength, which is desired for enabling the process for separating a first layer from a remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet (Col.15, ll. 39-42).
However, Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’, Kobayashi and Thakkar do not disclose that PVB polymer which is comprised in the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet having a Tg that is at least 15 °C lower than the Tg of the first layer.
Schroeter discloses a process for splitting plasticized polyvinyl butyral (PVB) films with at least one layer comprising PVB resin (A) with at least one plasticizer (PA) and at least one layer comprising PVB resin (B) with at least one plasticizer (PB) wherein the PVB resins A and B are chemically different (abs). Because these amounts of plasticizer are different in content and are subsequently separated into separate film layers which are cut with a band knife (paragraphs [0016- [0018]). Therefore, these layers of PVB having differing plasticizer content are chemically different and inherently have different Tg’s as disclosed by Thakkar above.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Palmantier, Yamada, Cere’ and Thakkar with the teachings Schroeter whereby the process of separating the first layer from the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet includes the feature of at least a portion of the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprises a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that lower than the Tg of the first layer. One with ordinary skill would recognize that these differing Tg’s would help in separating out the layers since a lowered Tg reduces peel strength (Thakkar, Col. 15 ll. 39-42) and, therefore, the different Tg’s of the at least two layers where the different Tg’s provides for splitting different PVB resins which would ordinarily have poor miscibility/compatibility, resulting in agglomerations visible as haze (Schroeter, paragraph [0003]). However, Schroeter is silent as to the poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that is at least 15 °C lower than the Tg of an adjacent layer.
But it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the remainder of the tapered multilayer interlayer sheet comprising a poly (vinyl butyral) polymer having a Tg that is at least 15 °C lower than the Tg of the first layer, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One with ordinary skill would use this range in order to effectively separate interlayer laminates that have an improved purity of the separated layers, higher throughput and/or lower maintenance costs (paragraph [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights