DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2016/0243773, “Wang”) in view of Yang et al. (US 2009/0290078, “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a liquid crystal variable transmission glazing ([0012], [0034] varying voltage adjust transmission of light) having first and second glass substrates (e.g., Fig. 2, layers 230, [0040]), having a liquid crystal cell therebetween (Fig. 2, liquid crystal layer 100, [0040]) and having interlayers between the glass layers and the liquid crystal layer ([0040], [0041]). The interlayers may be made of a polymeric resin or clear adhesive compositions ([0039] – [0044]). While Wang teaches a liquid crystal layer that may comprise microdroplets that exist in a single layer, and thus may be considered to be contained in a single volume of liquid crystal, nonetheless alternative switchable liquid crystal layers are well known in the prior art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of switchable liquid crystal windows ([0003] – [0006], [0008], [0009]), Yang teaches a liquid crystal layer that is polymer stabilized but wherein the liquid crystals exist in a single volume (i.e., not as dispersed droplets, [0008], [0009], Fig. 3). Such structures are shown to have improved control over the transmission of light ([0008]) and therefor the substitution of the liquid crystal layer or element of Yang for that of Wang would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of filing. Further, the simple substitution of one known element for another that would provide predictable results (in this case substituting one known liquid crystal cell for another, both of which effectively act as light shutters when a voltage is applied or removed from the layer) would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Please see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Wang additionally teaches that the first interlayer may be made of PVB ([0040]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination remains as applied to claim 1, above, and Wang additionally teaches that the glazing may include additional functional interlayer films (e.g., [0007], e.g., electrode layers, necessary to modify voltage applied to liquid crystalline layer, the inclusion of which would be both necessary and obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan in order to functionalize the liquid crystalline component of the laminate).
Regarding claim 5, the combination remains as applied to claim 1, above, and Wang additionally teaches that the glazing may comprise a frame which may be made of a polymeric material ([0045]). Further, Wang teaches that such laminates may be used in various applications that would require a frame, such as windows that are conventionally made of a polymeric material ([0066]) and thus the inclusion of a frame in order to fit the laminate in an application such a window for use in a building would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Regarding claim 6, Wang additionally teaches that the adhesive may be a polyurethane adhesive (e.g., [0040], [0038]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang additionally teaches that the glazing may include peripheral seals, which may be considered to be encapsulation substrates (that is, they help to encapsulate the liquid crystal layer, see e.g., [0042], may be an adhesive and thus polymeric).
Regarding claim 13, Wang additionally teaches the interlayer may be made of PVB ([0040]).
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 102935746, “Liu,” a machine copy of which has been provided and is used as the citation copy).
Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied above however Wang fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an ultraviolet filter. However, in the same field of endeavor of laminated liquid crystal glazings ([0001] – [0010]), Liu teaches that a PVB layer may include an anti-ultraviolet agent in order to, for example, protect an underlying vehicle from ultraviolet radiation when the glazing is used in a vehicular application and thus the inclusion of such a layer in the laminate of Wang would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing ([0014], [0037]).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Wang fails to specifically teach the inclusion of an infrared protection layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of laminated liquid crystal glazings ([0001] – [0010]), Liu teaches to include an infrared protection layer in order to, for example, provide the glazing with a heat insulation effect and thus the inclusion of such a layer in the laminate of Wang would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing ([0088], [0069]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hakemi et al. (US 2018/0311937, “Hakemi”).
Regarding claim 15, Wang fails to specifically teach that the glazing should include multiple liquid crystal cells however in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal cells for use in glazing applications (e.g., [0094], [0120]), Hakemi teaches that it is known to include multiple layers of liquid crystalline components ([0012] – [0015], and may be liquid or cured to form a solid film, [0012], [0096]) and wherein the liquid crystalline may include a dichroic dye ([0018]). Hakemi teaches that at least one of its cells may be a PDLC cell (e.g., [0012]). Hakemi teaches that its layers provide an improvement in cost and thinness while providing multiple liquid crystal layers to a glazing ([0004], [0048]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included a multilayer liquid crystal layer as described by Hakemi to the glazing of Wang for its improved light transmission, thinness, and cost for multilayer liquid crystal laminates which may provide the ability to produce display characteristics via the glazing ([0004], [0044], [0048], [0100] – [0110]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/9/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 13-15 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights