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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 7/14/2025 Applicant amended claim 1 and canceled claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002214653 A to Higashida et al. in view of WO 2004049047 A1 to Yu et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Higashida discloses a method for manufacturing a light valve, (See Fig. 1) wherein the light valve is composed of a film (See Fig. 1) in which a light polarizing suspension (Fig. 1 dispersion medium 9), containing: light polarization variable particles (See at least Fig. 2 particle 10, para 23 ) showing light polarization characteristics (See at least para 38) and having a size of 0.2 to 0.5 μm (para 22); a dispersion aid (para 3, referring to the addition of a dispersion agent); and a suspension agent which is a plasticizer (See para 5 and para 17), is dispersed in the form of fine droplets (See Fig. 1 droplet 3) in a polymer resin (Fig. 1 resin matrix 2).
Higashida discloses does not specifically disclose 5 to 20 wt % of light polarization variable particles, 2 to 10 wt % of a dispersion aid, 80 to 93 wt % of a suspension agent which is a plasticizer, wherein a weight ratio of the droplets 5 and the polymer resin 2 is 0.5 to 1:1, and wherein the polymer resin has a refractive index of 1.463 to 1.50 , wherein a refractive-index difference (Δn) between the polymer resin and the suspension agent is 0.01 or less, wherein the polymer resin is polyvinyl butyral.
However, Higashida discloses 4 to 50 wt % of light polarization variable particles (para 23). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (See MPEP 2144.05).
Further Yu discloses a light valve comprising 15 wt % of a dispersion aid (page 21 lines 13-14), 65 wt % of a suspension agent which is a plasticizer (page 21 lines 13), wherein a weight ratio of the droplets 5 and the polymer resin 2 is 0.5 to 1:1 (page 11 lines 22-26), and wherein the polymer resin has a refractive index of 1.46 to 1.50 (page 14 lines 12-13), wherein a refractive-index difference (Δn) between the polymer resin and the suspension agent is 0.01 or less (page 18 lines 10-12 “the increase of clarity in colored state can be achieved by coinciding the refraction index of the suspension medium with that of the polymeric resin”), wherein the polymer resin is polyvinyl butyral (page 14 lines 2-3).
The amount dispersion aid and amount of suspension agent are result-effective variables. In that, the proportion of dispersion aid would be optimized to easily enclosed light-polarizing particles in microdroplets formed by phase separation. In addition, amount of suspension agent determines the quality of how the droplet are interconnected (page 22 lines 14-15). It has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable is obvious because it involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include 5 to 20 wt % of light polarization variable particles, 2 to 10 wt % of a dispersion aid, 80 to 93 wt % of a suspension agent which is a plasticizer, wherein a weight ratio of the droplets 5 and the polymer resin 2 is 0.5 to 1:1, and wherein the polymer resin has a refractive index of 1.463 to 1.50 , wherein a refractive-index difference (Δn) between the polymer resin and the suspension agent is 0.01 or less, wherein the polymer resin is polyvinyl butyral.
Regarding Claim 2. Yu further discloses the light valve comprises any one or two among a liquid light-polarizing suspension produced by mixing light polarization variable particles produced by adding a polymer material which enhances an effect of dispersing light polarization variable particles 4 (Page 16 lines 1-9) while having no affinity for a polymer resin which is a film medium with a plasticizer solution during the preparation of the light polarization variable particles 4 (See page 16 lines 1-9), or a liquid light-polarizing suspension prepared by additionally adding a polymer dispersant to the liquid light-polarizing suspension (See page 16 lines 9-13).
Regarding Claim 3. Yu further discloses the light valve is manufactured by a phase separation method unsing a heat drying method after mixing a polymer resin solution obtained by dissolving the polymer resin in a solvent with the liquid light-polarizing suspension (page 21 lines 16-20).
Regarding Claim 6. Yu further discloses that the dispersion aid is an A-B block copolymer or graft polymer of poly(neopentyl-block-hydroxyethyl methacrylate), acrylonitrile-styrene, or poly(neopentyl methacrylate-block-styrene) (Yu page 3 lines 25-26 and page 4 lines 1-2 ).
Regarding Claim 7. Higashida and Yu further discloses a light valve manufactured by the method of claim 1 (See at least Fig. 1 and the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashida and Yu as applied to claim 3 in view of JP H06129168 A to Ri et al.
Regarding Claim 4. As stated above Higashida and Yu discloses all the limitations of base claim 3
Yu further discloses the polymer resin is polyvinyl butyral (page 14 lines 2-3).
Higashida and Yu do not specifically disclose that the suspension agent is at least one plasticizer selected from the group consisting of diisooctyl phthalate-, dioctyl phthalate-, butyloctyl phthalate-, dioctyl isophthalate-, trioctyl trimellitate- and trioctyldecyl trimellitate-based plasticizers.
However, Ri discloses a light valve comprising at least one plasticizer among diisooctyl phthalate-, dioctyl phthalate-, butyloctyl phthalate-, dioctyl isophthalate-, trioctyl trimellitate- and trioctyldecyl trimellitate-based plasticizers is used as a suspension agent (para 51-52). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the suspension agent is at least one plasticizer selected from the group consisting of diisooctyl phthalate-, dioctyl phthalate-, butyloctyl phthalate-, dioctyl isophthalate-, trioctyl trimellitate- and trioctyldecyl trimellitate-based plasticizers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant amended Claim 1 to include “the polymer resin has a refractive index of 1.463 to 1.50, wherein a refractive-index difference (Δn) between the polymer resin and the suspension agent is 0.01 or less, wherein the polymer resin is polyvinyl butyral.” Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose the newly added limitation of newly amended claim 1. As stated in the rejection above, Yu discloses the polymer resin has a refractive index of 1.463 to 1.50, wherein a refractive-index difference (Δn) between the polymer resin and the suspension agent is 0.01 or less, wherein the polymer resin is polyvinyl butyral.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871