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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-25 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyazaki (US 2010/0073594).
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a glass with a function of regulation in sections, comprising:
a glass body comprising a glass substrate (20, 30; figure 4; see at least paragraph 0040) and a functional component (10) attached to the glass substrate and divided into sections capable of being individually regulated (figures 5-6); and
a conductive component (3, 4) coupled to each section of the functional component;
wherein the functional component comprises one of an electrochromic component, an electro-induced transparency changing component, an electric lighting component, an electroluminescent display component, and an electric heating component (see at least paragraph 0040);
wherein the functional component is entirely or partially colored (8; see at least paragraphs 0037 and 0041);
wherein the conductive component comprises a flexible printed circuit (7) and a conductive adhesive (6; see at least paragraph 0035), the flexible printed circuit comprising a conductive trace electrically connected to each section of the functional component via the conductive adhesive to allow an individual regulation of each section of the functional component (33, 43).
The limitations " allow an individual regulation of each section of the functional component " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the functional component comprises S sections, and wherein S is an integer greater than 1.
Regarding claim 3, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses discloses wherein the functional component is divided, in X and Y directions, into M.sub.X×N.sub.Y sections capable of being individually regulated, and wherein M and N are both integers, and M and N are not equal to 1 at the same time.
Regarding claim 5, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein each section of the functional component comprises a functional element and an electrode element, the electrode element being electrically connected to the conductive trace of the flexible printed circuit via the conductive adhesive.
Regarding claim 6, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the electrode element is a transparent conductive metal-oxide film layer, a carbon nanotube film layer, graphene, a metal nanowire network or a copper network (ITO).
Regarding claim 7, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the transparent conductive metal-oxide film layer is any one of an ITO layer, an AZO layer, an ATO layer, an IZO layer, a GZO layer, or a LaNiO.sub.3 layer.
Regarding claim 8, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the functional component is a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) component, an electrochromic (EC) component, or a suspended particle device (SPD) component.
Regarding claim 10, Yamazaki et al. (figures 1-18) teaches wherein the flexible printed circuit further comprises an interface coupled to an external power source and a control module (40), to allow the external power source to be electrically connected to each section of the functional component, and/or to allow the control module to regulate each section of the functional component.
The limitations " allow the external power source to be electrically connected to each section of the functional component, and/or to allow the control module to regulate each section of the functional component " are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the interface comprises a connector or an interface circuit.
Regarding claim 12, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the conductive adhesive is an isotropic conductive adhesive or an anisotropic conductive adhesive.
Regarding claim 13, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the conductive adhesive is a pressure-sensitive adhesive (PSA), a thermo-sensitive adhesive (TSA), an anisotropic conductive film (ACF), or an anisotropic conductive paste (ACP).
Regarding claim 15, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the glass is a vehicle glass, a building glass or a display glass.
Regarding claim 16, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the glass is a vehicle glass being a windshield glass, a sunroof glass, a door glass, or a quarter window glass.
Regarding claim 17, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a system for regulating a glass in sections, comprising:
a glass unit being a glass with a function of regulation in sections according to claim 1;
a signal receiving module (portion of 40; see at least paragraph 0041) configured to receive an instruction and/or an environmental parameter corresponding to a target section of the functional component and to output a signal; and
a control module (40) coupled to the glass unit and the signal receiving module, and configured to regulate a function of the target section of the functional component in response to the signal from the signal receiving module.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 18, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein regulating the function of the target section of the functional component comprises turning on and off the function of the target section, and/or adjusting the strength of the function of the target section.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 22, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the signal receiving module comprises any one or more of a voice recognition device, a gesture recognition device, a fingerprint recognition device, an iris recognition device, a touch device, an operation button, an operation handle, a light sensor, a temperature sensor, and/or a humidity sensor.
Regarding claim 23, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a method for regulating a glass in sections, based on a system for regulating a glass in sections according to claim 17, and comprising: receiving an instruction and/or an environmental parameter corresponding to the target section of the functional component and outputting a signal; and regulating a function of the target section of the functional component in response to the signal from the signal receiving module.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 24, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein regulating the function of the target section of the functional component comprises: applying a continuously-varying electrical signal to the target section, so as to continuously adjust the function of the target section; applying a stepwise-varying electrical signal to the target section, so as to stepwise adjust the function of the target section; or applying an electrical signal with a predetermined amplitude to the target section, so as to adjust the function of the target section to a predetermined level.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 25, Chang et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the target sections are continuous sections or discontinuous sections.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. in view of Shamarao et al. (US 2017/0285793).
Regarding claim 9, Chang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chang et al. is silent regarding wherein the functional component is entirely or partially colored. Shamarao et al. (figures 1-5) teaches (see at least paragraph 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the color filter as taught by Shamarao et al. in order to achieve a color display device.
Regarding claim 19, Chang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 18 above. However, Chang et al. is silent regarding wherein the control module comprises a microcontroller, a storage unit, a voltage converter, and an input/output interface. Shamarao et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the functional component is entirely or partially colored (see at least paragraphs 0035 and 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the units as taught by Shamarao et al. in order to effectively drive the display device.
Regarding claim 20, Shamarao et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the voltage converter comprises a direct current (DC-DC) converter or a direct current-alternating current (DC-AC) converter (see at least paragraphs 0035 and 0048).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. in view of Shamarao et al. and further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 21, Yuichiro et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. Yuichiro et al. does not disclose wherein the input/output interface comprises a bus transceiver comprising at least one of a controller area network (CAN) bus transceiver and a local interconnect network (LIN) bus transceiver. The examiner takes Official Notice that the use of ‘wherein the input/output interface comprises a bus transceiver comprising at least one of a controller area network (CAN) bus transceiver and a local interconnect network (LIN) bus transceiver’ was well-known in the art at the time of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use those elements, motivated by the desire to connect the display device to other devices wirelessly. Therefore, an increase in profitability will be achieved. Claim 21 is therefore unpatentable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0235341).
Regarding claim 14, Chang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Chang et al. is silent regarding wherein the glass is a laminated glass or a tempered glass. Wang et al. (in at least paragraph 0073) teaches wherein the glass is a laminated glass or a tempered glass. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass substrates as taught by Wang et al. in order to avoid the process to connect the electrochromic film to the external power source and simplify installations of smart windows.
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).
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 12/15/2023 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Caley, can be reached on (571) 272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights