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
The instant application having Application No. 17/920,466 filed on October 21, 2022 is presented for examination by the examiner.
The amended claims submitted November 13, 2025 in response to the office action mailed May 15, 2025 are under consideration. Claims 1-11 and 18-24 are pending. Claims 12-17 and 25-29 are cancelled.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
Some of the drawing objections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. However, the following issues persist.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed configurations in the table below must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim
limitation
Explanation as needed
5
wherein at least one of the first and second polymer layers comprises a PVB coating on PET.
This attribute is only discussed in the specification, not depicted in the drawings.
6
wherein the layered assembly further comprises an IR-blocking layer.
This IR-blocking layer is only discussed in the specification, not depicted in the drawings.
9
further comprising a polymer-based layer wherein the reflectance color-balancing layer is immediately adjacent the polymer-based layer.
This configuration is not depicted in any drawing.
10
The layered assembly of claim 4, further comprising rigid substrates respectively laminated to the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer.
This configuration is not depicted in any drawing.
11
The layered assembly of claim 9, further comprising rigid substrates respectively laminated to opposing sides of the polymer-based layer.
This configuration is not depicted in any drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Some of the 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims. However, the following 35 USC §112 rejections are revised in light of the amendments to the claims in which the subject matter of claims 12 and 13 (both previously rejected under 35 USC §112(b)) has been incorporated into claim 1 and new, similarly problematic, limitations are added to claim 1.
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 1-11 and 18-24 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “wherein the at least first reflectance color-balancing layer is configured to cause reflected visible light of the layered assembly to be closer to a target reflected color or spectrum” and “wherein the transmittance color-balancing layer is configured to cause transmitted visible light to meet a target transmitted color or spectrum” are indefinite because they contain a reference to an object that is variable. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(II) “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).” In particular, absent a claimed value or spectrum for the target reflected color or spectrum and the target transmitted color or spectrum, it is unclear what structural limitations are required or implied by the existence of a target value in the mind of the inventor, the user or the manufacturer. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that any layered assembly that meets the other limitations of claim 1 also meets the limitations on the target values because it is inherent that any manufactured layered assembly meets the requirements set therefor by the manufacturer, at least within tolerances. However, appropriate correction is required.
Further, regarding claim 1, the limitations “when the variable transmittance layer is in the dark state, a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color, and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color” are indefinite because it contains a reference to an object that is variable. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(II) “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).” In particular, absent a claimed value for the target transmittance color and the target reflected color, it is unclear what structural limitations are required or implied by the existence of a target value in the mind of the inventor, the user or the manufacturer. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that any layered assembly that meets the other limitations of claim 1 also meets the limitations on the target values because it is inherent that any manufactured layered assembly meets the requirements set therefor by the manufacturer, at least within tolerances. However, appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitations “a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color, and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color” are indefinite because it is unclear how close to the target values the properties of the layered assembly have to be to meet this limitation. In paragraph [00068] of the specification as filed, the disclosure explains “Generally, a stack approximating a target color will have a delta C of about zero to about 20, or any amount therebetween, or a delta E of about zero, or any amount therebetween. For clarity, a range of about zero to about 20 or any amount therebetween includes, about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19, or any amount therebetween.” This is a problematic explanation for a number of reasons. Firstly, this explanation is introduced as “generally” and thus is not a definition that can be imported into the claim. Secondly, it is unclear which of delta C or delta E it is that needs to be met. Thirdly, it is unclear what numerical value of delta C or delta E between 0 and about 20 needs to be met. Lastly, the target values in claims 14 and 16 are values of a* and b* themselves not C=(a2 +b2)1/2 or delta E = ((delta L*)2 _(delta a*)2 + (delta b*)2)1/2 . Thus, how close to the recited ranges on a* and b* it is that the layered assembly must obtain is ambiguous.
Further, regarding claim 1, the limitations “when the variable transmittance layer is in the light state, a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color, and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color” are indefinite because it contains a reference to an object that is variable. See MPEP §2173.05(b)(II) “A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).” In particular, absent a claimed value for the target transmittance color and the target reflected color, it is unclear what structural limitations are required or implied by the existence of a target value in the mind of the inventor, the user or the manufacturer. For the purpose of examination, it will be assumed that any layered assembly that meets the other limitations of claims 1 and 13 also meets the limitations on the target values because it is inherent that any manufactured layered assembly meets the requirements set therefor by the manufacturer, at least within tolerances. However, appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitations “a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color, and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color” are indefinite because it is unclear how close to the target values the properties of the layered assembly have to be to meet this limitation. In paragraph [00068] of the specification as filed, the disclosure explains “Generally, a stack approximating a target color will have a delta C of about zero to about 20, or any amount therebetween, or a delta E of about zero, or any amount therebetween. For clarity, a range of about zero to about 20 or any amount therebetween includes, about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19, or any amount therebetween.” This is a problematic explanation for a number of reasons. Firstly, this explanation is introduced as “generally” and thus is not a definition that can be imported into the claim. Secondly, it is unclear which of delta C or delta E it is that needs to be met. Thirdly, it is unclear what numerical value of delta C or delta E between 0 and about 20 needs to be met. Lastly, the target values in claims 15 and 17 are values of a* and b* themselves not C=(a2 +b2)1/2 or delta E = ((delta L*)2 _(delta a*)2 + (delta b*)2)1/2 . Thus, how close to the recited ranges on a* and b* it is that the layered assembly must obtain is ambiguous.
Claims 2-11 and 18-24 depend from claim 1 and inherit and do not mitigate the above indefiniteness issues from claim 1.
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, 4, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chevalier et al. WO2019/063911 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Chevalier, where reference will be made to US 2020/0225550 A1 as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Chevalier teaches “A layered assembly (optical system 1 of Fig. 4) comprising:
i. a variable transmittance layer (4, e.g. paragraph [0081]: “electrochemical functional system 4 with electrically controllable optical and/or energy properties” and paragraph [0002]: “Electrochromic devices have certain characteristics that can be modified under the effect of a suitable electrical supply, between a clear state and a tinted state…”) having opposing first and second sides (let the first side be to the right in Fig. 4 where layers 5 and 7 reside, and let the second side be to the left in Fig. 4 where layer 9 resides);
ii. at least a first reflectance color-balancing layer (7, paragraph [0082]: “a reflection-controlling coating 7 made of silicon nitride (SiNx) and arranged on the internal face of the counter-substrate 6. This coating 7 in particular allows the color in reflection of the optical system 1 to be attenuated from the point of view of an observer positioned on the exterior”) positioned on the first side of the variable transmittance layer (7 is positioned on the right side of layer 4 in Fig. 4 and thus on the first side); wherein the at least first reflectance color-balancing layer is configured to cause reflected visible light of the layered assembly to be closer to a target reflected color or spectrum (the layered assembly of Chevalier meets this function in that the reflected color in the dark state is acceptable to the manufacturer thus meeting a target value, given that there are no constraints on the numerical value of the target); and
iii. a transmittance color-balancing layer (5, paragraph [0077]: “a lamination interlayer 5 made of PVB”, paragraph [0126]: “tinting a PVB so that at least one preset portion of its total absorption (A) is comprised in a preset wavelength range”) positioned on the first side or second side of the variable transmittance layer (interlayer 5 is on the right side of layer 4 in Fig. 4 and thus on the first side), wherein the transmittance color-balancing layer is configured to cause transmitted visible light to meet a target transmitted color or spectrum (e.g. paragraph [0089]: “implementing a process for modifying its color in transmission, from an initial color (L*i; a*i; b*i) to a final color (L*f; a*f; b*f).” The layered assembly of Chevalier meets this function in that the transmitted color in the dark state is acceptable to the manufacturer thus meeting a target value, given that there are no constraints on the numerical value of the target);
wherein the variable transmittance layer is variable between a dark state and a light state (paragraph [0002]: “a clear state and a tinted state”);
wherein the variable transmittance layer has a dark state transmittance spectrum when in the dark state (the transmittance spectrum of 4 in the tinted state) and a different light state transmittance spectrum when in the light state (the transmittance spectrum of 4 in the clear state, which is different than the spectrum in the tinted state at least due to the fact of its higher transmittance); and
wherein the dark state transmittance spectrum and transmittance spectra for the color-balancing layers are selected (e.g. paragraph [0089]: “implementing a process for modifying its color in transmission, from an initial color (L*i; a*i; b*i) to a final color (L*f; a*f; b*f).”) such that in response to visible light incident on the reflectance color-balancing layer when the variable transmittance layer is in the dark state, a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color (the layered assembly of Chevalier meets this function in that the transmitted color in the dark state is acceptable to the manufacturer thus meeting a target value, given that there are no constraints on the numerical value of the target), and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color (the layered assembly of Chevalier meets this function in that the reflected color in the dark state is acceptable to the manufacturer thus meeting a target value, given that there are no constraints on the numerical value of the target); or
wherein the light state transmittance spectrum and transmittance spectra for the color-balancing layers are selected (e.g. paragraph [0089]: “implementing a process for modifying its color in transmission, from an initial color (L*i; a*i; b*i) to a final color (L*f; a*f; b*f).”) such that in response to visible light incident on the reflectance color-balancing layer when the variable transmittance layer is in the light state (e.g. paragraph [0096]: “measured in the clear state”), a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color (e.g. paragraph [0089]: “implementing a process for modifying its color in transmission, from an initial color (L*i; a*i; b*i) to a final color (L*f; a*f; b*f).”), and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color (the layered assembly of Chevalier meets this function in that the reflected color in the dark state is acceptable to the manufacturer thus meeting a target value, given that there are no constraints on the numerical value of the target).”
Regarding claim 4, Chevalier teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the first reflectance color balancing layer includes a first polymer layer (substrate 3, paragraph [0018]: “This optical system may consist of a succession of transparent sheets of vitrified or plastic material, that include a substrate and a counter substrate” where an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage1 that the plastic is a polymer because plastics being a range of synthetic or semisynthetic materials that use polymers as a main ingredient is how the term “plastic” would usually be understood.) and the transmittance color-balancing layer includes a second polymer layer (counter-substrate 6, which is plastic and thus a polymer see paragraph [0018]).”
Regarding claim 9, Chevalier teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, further comprising a polymer-based layer (substrate 3 and counter-substrate 6, paragraph [0018]: “This optical system may consist of a succession of transparent sheets of vitrified or plastic material, that include a substrate and a counter substrate” where an ordinary skilled artisan would at once envisage that the plastic is a polymer because plastics being a range of synthetic or semisynthetic materials that use polymers as a main ingredient is how the term “plastic” would usually be understood.) wherein the reflectance color-balancing layer is immediately adjacent the polymer-based layer (reflection-controlling coating 7 is immediately adjacent counter-substrate 6 see Fig. 4).”
Regarding claim 18, Chevalier teaches “The layered assembly of claim 12, wherein a difference between an actual transmitted color (Fig. 6 (a*f ; b*f) of about (-3,3) and thus Cf is about ((-3)2+32)1/2 = 4.24) compared with a transmittance of a layered assembly in the absence of the first reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color-balancing layer (Fig. 6 (a*I ; b*i) of (−10.4805; 10.9183) see paragraph [0096], thus Ci = ((-10.4805)2+10.91832)1/2 =15.13) has a delta C of at least 5 (delta C can be calculated as the difference between these C values to be delta C = 15.13 - 4.24 = 10.89 which is greater than 5).”
Claims 1-9 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Branda et al. US 2015/0109651 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Branda).
Regarding claim 1, Branda teaches “A layered assembly (any of Figs. 3-8) comprising:
i. a variable transmittance layer (variable transmittance layer 14) having opposing first and second sides (the outboard and inboard sides of 14 respectively);
ii. at least a first reflectance color-balancing layer (one or more of light attenuating layer 12 or adhesive layer 34. Both of these layers are reflectance color-balancing layers in that they are on the outboard side of the variable transmittance layer and they have color see paragraph [0068]: “the light attenuating layer comprises a spectrum that combines with the spectra of the other layers in the stack to provide a color that approximates a target color” and paragraph [0077]: “Adhesive layers 32, 34 may be colored, or comprise a colored layer--for example, adhesive layer 32 may comprise a color balancing layer, and/or adhesive layer 34 may comprise an light attenuating layer (incident light filter)…. the color of layer 12”) positioned on the first side of the variable transmittance layer (see Figs. 3 and 5 12 and 34 are on the outboard side of 14); wherein the at least first reflectance color-balancing layer is configured to cause a reflected visible light of the layered assembly to be closer to a target reflected color or spectrum (paragraph [0053]: “to alter the observed color of the window… to match or approximate a target color … For example, it may be desirable to match or approximate a target color to harmonize the appearance of the window with a building envelope or the exterior color of a vehicle” Matching the appearance of the building or exterior of a vehicle is matching the reflected color of the layered assembly); and
iii. a transmittance color-balancing layer (one or more of color balancing layer 16, adhesive layer 32 or second layer 28. Each of these layers are transmittance color-balancing layers in that they are on the inboard side of the variable transmittance layer and they have color see e.g. paragraph [0008]: “a color balancing layer selected to combine with the color of the variable transmittance layer in order to achieve a desired colour for the overall stack. A laminated glass with variable light transmittance, and color balancing layer to provide a target (e.g., neutral) color in a faded state, a dark state or both a faded and dark state” and paragraph [0077]: “Adhesive layers 32, 34 may be colored, or comprise a colored layer--for example, adhesive layer 32 may comprise a color balancing layer, and/or adhesive layer 34 may comprise an light attenuating layer (incident light filter)…. the color of layer ... 28”) positioned on the first side or second side of the variable transmittance layer (16, 32 and 28 are on the inboard side of 14), wherein the transmittance color-balancing layer is configured to cause the transmitted visible light to meet a target transmitted color or spectrum (paragraph [0053]: “to alter … the color of the transmitted light, to match or approximate a target color”);
wherein the variable transmittance layer is variable between a dark state (e.g. paragraph [0010]: “dark state”) and a light state (paragraph [0010]: “faded state”);
wherein the variable transmittance layer has a dark state transmittance spectrum when in the dark state (paragraph [0013]: “a first spectrum in a dark state” which includes the transmittance spectrum thereof) and a different light state transmittance spectrum when in the light state (paragraph [0013]: “a second spectrum in a faded state” which includes the transmittance spectrum thereof which is different from the first spectrum at least in that it is brighter, see also different L*a*b* values of the faded state and dark state of a switchable material in Table 1); and
wherein the dark state transmittance spectrum and transmittance spectra for the color-balancing layers are selected (paragraph [0013]: “and a color balancing layer having a third spectrum; each of the first, second and third spectra comprising a visible portion; the first and third spectra combining to provide a dark state spectrum approximating a dark state target color; and the second and third spectra combining to provide a faded state spectrum approximating a faded state target colour.”) such that in response to visible light incident on the reflectance color-balancing layer when the variable transmittance layer is in the dark state (paragraph [0013]: “a dark state spectrum approximating a dark state target color”), a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color (paragraph [0053]: “to alter … the color of the transmitted light, to match or approximate a target color”), and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color (paragraph [0053]: “to alter the observed color of the window… to match or approximate a target color … For example, it may be desirable to match or approximate a target color to harmonize the appearance of the window with a building envelope or the exterior color of a vehicle” Matching the appearance of the building or exterior of a vehicle is matching the reflected color of the layered assembly); or
wherein the light state transmittance spectrum and transmittance spectra for the color-balancing layers are selected (paragraph [0013]: “and a color balancing layer having a third spectrum; each of the first, second and third spectra comprising a visible portion; the first and third spectra combining to provide a dark state spectrum approximating a dark state target color; and the second and third spectra combining to provide a faded state spectrum approximating a faded state target colour.”) such that in response to visible light incident on the reflectance color-balancing layer when the variable transmittance layer is in the light state (paragraph [0013]: “a faded state spectrum approximating a faded state target color”), a transmitted color of the layered assembly approximates a target transmittance color (paragraph [0053]: “to alter … the color of the transmitted light, to match or approximate a target color”), and a reflected color of the layered assembly approximates a target reflected color (paragraph [0053]: “to alter the observed color of the window… to match or approximate a target color … For example, it may be desirable to match or approximate a target color to harmonize the appearance of the window with a building envelope or the exterior color of a vehicle” Matching the appearance of the building or exterior of a vehicle is matching the reflected color of the layered assembly).”
Regarding claim 2, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, further comprising a second reflectance color-balancing layer (a second one of color balancing layer 16, adhesive layer 32 or second layer 28. Each of these layers are reflectance color-balancing layers in that they are on the inboard side of the variable transmittance layer and they have color see e.g. paragraph [0008]: “a color balancing layer selected to combine with the color of the variable transmittance layer in order to achieve a desired colour for the overall stack. A laminated glass with variable light transmittance, and color balancing layer to provide a target (e.g., neutral) color in a faded state, a dark state or both a faded and dark state” and paragraph [0077]: “Adhesive layers 32, 34 may be colored, or comprise a colored layer--for example, adhesive layer 32 may comprise a color balancing layer, and/or adhesive layer 34 may comprise an light attenuating layer (incident light filter)…. the color of layer ... 28”)) on a side of the variable transmittance layer opposite the first reflectance color-balancing layer (16, 32 and 28 are on the inboard side of the variable transmittance layer opposite to the side of the first reflectance color-balancing layers 12 or 34).”
Regarding claim 3, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color- balancing layer comprises a plurality of colored films (the reflectance color-balancing layer can be both of 12 and 34 and thus a plurality of colored films, and the transmittance color-balancing layer can be both of 32 and 28 and thus a plurality of colored films).”
Regarding claim 4, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the first reflectance color balancing layer includes a first polymer layer on a first side of the layered assembly (Fig. 4, layer 12 may be an organic glass made of plastic/polymers (see paragraph [0084]) and layer 34 is an adhesive that can be PVB, see paragraph [0075]), and the transmittance color-balancing layer includes a second polymer layer (Fig. 4, layer 28 may be an organic glass made of plastic/polymers (see paragraph [0084]) and layer 32 is an adhesive that can be PVB, see paragraph [0075]).”
Regarding claim 5, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 4, wherein at least one of the first and second polymer layers comprises a PVB coating (paragraph [0075] the adhesive layers can be PVB) on PET (paragraph [0084] layers 12 and 28 can be PET. Thus the first and second polymer layers can both be a PVB coating on PET).”
Regarding claim 6, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the layered assembly further comprises an IR-blocking layer (38, Fig. 6 paragraph [0078]: “an infra-red (IR) blocking layer 38”).”
Regarding claim 7, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein at least the first reflectance color-balancing layer comprises a colored PVB (layer 34 is an adhesive, and the adhesive can be PVB see paragraph [0075] and can be colored see paragraph [0077]), and wherein the layered assembly further comprises a rigid substrate (layer 12 paragraph [0084] “Where layers 12 and/or 28 are glass, they may independently be from about 1 mm to about 6 mm thick” a 1 mm thick layer of glass or organic glass is a rigid substrate) laminated to the first reflectance color-balancing layer (see Fig. 5 12 is laminated to 34).”
Regarding claim 8, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 2, wherein both the first reflectance color-balancing layer and the second reflectance color-balancing layer comprise a colored PVB (see claims 1 and 2 above, the first reflectance color-balancing layer can be adhesive layer 34 and the second reflectance color-balancing layer can be adhesive layer 32, where paragraph [0075] teaches that the adhesive can be PVB), and wherein the layered assembly further comprises rigid substrates (layers 12 and 28 paragraph [0084] “Where layers 12 and/or 28 are glass, they may independently be from about 1 mm to about 6 mm thick” a 1 mm thick layer of glass or organic glass is a rigid substrate) respectively laminated to the first reflectance color-balancing layer and the second reflectance color-balancing layer (12 is laminated to 34 and 28 is laminated to 32).”
Regarding claim 9, Branda teaches (Fig. 5) “The layered assembly of claim 1, further comprising a polymer-based layer (either layer 12 or both layers 12 and 28, which are polymer-based see paragraph [0084]) wherein the reflectance color-balancing layer is immediately adjacent the polymer-based layer (34 is immediately adjacent to 12).”
Regarding claim 18, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 12, wherein a difference between an actual transmitted color (paragraph [0170]: “Light transmission spectra”, Table 1 “faded stack (L*a*b*)” or “dark stack (L*a*b*)” are the values when the color balancing layer is included) compared with a transmittance of a layered assembly in the absence of the first reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color-balancing layer (Table 1 “faded state (L*a*b*)” or “dark state (L*a*b*)” are the values of just the switchable material) has a delta C of at least 5 (the delta C values between the faded state and faded stack, or between the dark state and the dark stack are all significantly larger than 5. To illustrate, example 10 has a faded state a* and b* of (-15.1,38.3) for a C value of ((-15.1)2+38.32)1/2=41.2 and a faded stack a* and b* of (-2.7, 3.9) for a C value of ((-2.7)2+3.92)1/2 = 4.7 and thus delta C = 36.5. If the value of delta C were instead calculated as ((-15.1+2.7)2 + (38.3-3.9)2)1/2 then delta C =((-12.4)2+34.42)1/2= 36.6 both of which are significantly larger than 5).”
Regarding claim 19, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the variable transmittance layer comprises one or more of a photochromic material, an electrochromic material, a thermochromic material, a liquid crystal material, or a suspended particle device (e.g. paragraph [0009]: “The variable transmittance layer comprises a switchable film, an electrochromic material, a photochromic material, a suspended particle layer or a liquid crystal layer” which covers all of the claimed options above).”
Regarding claim 20, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the variable transmittance layer is transitionable from a faded state to a dark state when exposed to electromagnetic radiation (e.g. paragraph [0093]: “A switching material may darken when exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light or blue light from a light source”), and from a dark state to a faded state with the application of a voltage (e.g. paragraph [0093]: “may fade when exposed to a voltage”).”
Regarding claim 21, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the layered assembly has an LTA of less than about 1 %, or less than about 2% or less than about 5%, or less than about 10% in a dark state (e.g. Table 1, LTA of the stack in the dark state of 4.9% 3.5% for examples 10 and 11).”
Regarding claim 22, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim1, wherein the layered assembly has an LTA of greater than about 5% or greater than about 10% or greater than about 15% or greater than about 20% in a faded state (e.g. Table 1 LTA of the stack in the light state of 12.4%, 12.4%, 40.4% or 61.2% for examples 10, 11, 14 and 15).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10-11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda et al. US 2015/0109651 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Branda).
Regarding claim 10, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 4, further comprising [a] rigid [substrate] (paragraph [0125]: “a rigid material, such as a pane of a window, or a lens”) respectively laminated to the first polymer layer …[or] the second polymer layer (paragraph [0125]: “A substrate may be rigid or flexible--an optical filter comprising one or more flexible substrate(s) may be in the form of a film that may be applied to a rigid material, such as a pane of a window, or a lens.” Thus when polymer layers 12 and 28 are flexible, at least one of them may be laminated to a rigid substrate).”
However, Branda fails to explicitly teach “further comprising rigid substrates respectively laminated to the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer.”
It is a well-established proposition that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Branda discloses the claimed invention except for teaching only one rigid substrate in addition to the polymer layers 12 and 28 rather than two rigid substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two rigid substrates, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 11, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 9, further comprising [a] rigid [substrate] (paragraph [0125]: “a rigid material, such as a pane of a window, or a lens”) respectively laminated to [a side] … of the polymer-based layer (paragraph [0125]: “A substrate may be rigid or flexible--an optical filter comprising one or more flexible substrate(s) may be in the form of a film that may be applied to a rigid material, such as a pane of a window, or a lens.” Thus when polymer-based layer 12 and 28 are flexible, at least one of them may be laminated to a rigid substrate).”
However, Branda fails to explicitly teach “further comprising rigid substrates respectively laminated to opposing sides of the polymer-based layer.”
It is a well-established proposition that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Branda discloses the claimed invention except for teaching only one rigid substrate in addition to the polymer layer 12 and 28 rather than two rigid substrates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use two rigid substrates, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 23, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein the transmission haze … is 5% or less, 3% or less, 2% or less, or 1% or less (paragraph [0127]: “the switching material is optically clear (e.g. demonstrating a haze of less than about 5%, less than about 4%, less than about 3%, less than about 2% or less than about 1%).”).”
However, Branda does not explicitly teach “wherein the transmission haze through the layered assembly is 5% or less, 3% or less, 2% or less, or 1% or less.”
Branda teaches (paragraph [0144]): “Performance of laminated glass or multi-layer compositions as described herein may be tested by conducting studies using standard techniques in the art, for example, measurement of VLT, LTA, color, haze, switching speed, photostability, and/or durability.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize each of the layers of the layered assembly of Branda such that the transmission haze through the layered assembly is 5% or less, 3% or less, 2% or less, or 1% or less because Branda (paragraph [0127] and [0144]) teaches that an optically clear, low haze is the desired performance for the switching material and the layered assembly.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda et al. US 2015/0109651 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Branda) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nand et al. US 2016/0170104 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Nand).
Regarding claim 24, Branda teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1, wherein at least one of the reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color-balancing layer comprises a layer-by-layer optical product (see Fig. 5, the reflectance color-balancing layer can be both of layers 12 and 34, and the transmittance color-balancing layer can be both of layers 32 and 28) comprising:
a. a polymeric substrate (12 and 28 can be polymeric substrates see paragraph [0084] “organic glass”).”
However, Branda fails to teach “b. a composite coating, said composite coating comprising a first layer comprising a polyionic binder and a second layer comprising a electromagnetic energy-absorbing insoluble particle, wherein each of said first layer and said second layer include a binding group component which together form a complimentary binding group pair.”
Nand teaches (abstract): an electromagnetic energy-absorbing optical product useful particularly for automotive and architectural window films “wherein …the … color-balancing layer (an electromagnetic energy-absorbing optical product 10)… comprises a layer-by-layer optical product comprising:
a. a polymeric substrate (polymeric substrate 15), and
b. a composite coating (composite coating 20), said composite coating comprising a first layer (first layer 25) comprising a polyionic binder (paragraph [0016]: “first layer 25 includes a polyionic binder”) and a second layer (second layer 30) comprising a electromagnetic energy-absorbing insoluble particle (paragraph [0016]: “the second layer 30 includes an electromagnetic energy-absorbing insoluble particle”), wherein each of said first layer and said second layer include a binding group component which together form a complimentary binding group pair (paragraph [0016]: “Each layer 25 and 30 includes a binding group component with the binding group component of the first layer and the binding group component of the second layer constituting a complimentary binding group pair.”).”
Nand further teaches (paragraphs [0002]-[0004]): “Color has typically been imparted to optical products such as automotive and architectural window films by use of organic dyes. More particularly, the current commercial practice for producing dyed film from polyester involves swelling of the molecular structure of the substrate in baths of hot organic solvent such as ethylene glycol during the dyeing process, as swelled polyester (particularly PET) films are capable of absorbing organic dyes. These films and their manufacturing process suffer many drawbacks…. A continuing need therefore exists in the art for an optical product that meets all the haze, clarity, UV-stability and product longevity demands of current commercial window films, while also being manufacturable by an environmentally friendly, aqueous-based coloring process performed preferably at ambient temperatures and pressures.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form one or both of the reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color-balancing layer of Branda from a layer-by-layer optical product of Nand with a polymeric substrate and a composite coating as claimed because Nand teaches that such a configuration for an electromagnetic energy-absorbing optical product improves the haze, clarity, UV-stability and product longevity while also being manufacturable by an environmentally friendly, aqueous-based coloring process performed preferably at ambient temperatures and pressures (Nand paragraph [0004]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chevalier et al. WO2019/063911 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Chevalier, where reference will be made to US 2020/0225550 A1 as the English language equivalent) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nand et al. US 2016/0170104 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Nand).
Regarding claim 24, Chevalier teaches “The layered assembly of claim 1,” however, Chevalier fails to teach “wherein at least one of the reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color-balancing layer comprises a layer-by-layer optical product comprising:
a. a polymeric substrate
b. a composite coating, said composite coating comprising a first layer comprising a polyionic binder and a second layer comprising a electromagnetic energy-absorbing insoluble particle, wherein each of said first layer and said second layer include a binding group component which together form a complimentary binding group pair.”
Nand teaches (abstract): an electromagnetic energy-absorbing optical product useful particularly for automotive and architectural window films “wherein …the … color-balancing layer (an electromagnetic energy-absorbing optical product 10)… comprises a layer-by-layer optical product comprising:
a. a polymeric substrate (polymeric substrate 15), and
b. a composite coating (composite coating 20), said composite coating comprising a first layer (first layer 25) comprising a polyionic binder (paragraph [0016]: “first layer 25 includes a polyionic binder”) and a second layer (second layer 30) comprising a electromagnetic energy-absorbing insoluble particle (paragraph [0016]: “the second layer 30 includes an electromagnetic energy-absorbing insoluble particle”), wherein each of said first layer and said second layer include a binding group component which together form a complimentary binding group pair (paragraph [0016]: “Each layer 25 and 30 includes a binding group component with the binding group component of the first layer and the binding group component of the second layer constituting a complimentary binding group pair.”).”
Nand further teaches (paragraphs [0002]-[0004]): “Color has typically been imparted to optical products such as automotive and architectural window films by use of organic dyes. More particularly, the current commercial practice for producing dyed film from polyester involves swelling of the molecular structure of the substrate in baths of hot organic solvent such as ethylene glycol during the dyeing process, as swelled polyester (particularly PET) films are capable of absorbing organic dyes. These films and their manufacturing process suffer many drawbacks…. A continuing need therefore exists in the art for an optical product that meets all the haze, clarity, UV-stability and product longevity demands of current commercial window films, while also being manufacturable by an environmentally friendly, aqueous-based coloring process performed preferably at ambient temperatures and pressures.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form one or both of the reflectance color-balancing layer and the transmittance color-balancing layer of Chevalier from a layer-by-layer optical product of Nand with a polymeric substrate and a composite coating as claimed because Nand teaches that such a configuration for an electromagnetic energy-absorbing optical product improves the haze, clarity, UV-stability and product longevity while also being manufacturable by an environmentally friendly, aqueous-based coloring process performed preferably at ambient temperatures and pressures (Nand paragraph [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under the heading “Drawings” on page 7 of 12 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the drawing objections should be withdrawn because 37 CFR 1.81(a) states that drawings are required where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be claimed, and the applicant believes that drawings are not necessary for the understanding of claims 4-6 and 9-11. This argument is not persuasive, because 37 CFR 1.81(a) coexists with 37 CFR 1.83(a) which was the basis for the drawing objection and which states: “(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” The drawings are present in the specification for many reasons, but one of which is so that future searchers can easily identify the inventive subject matter of a document.