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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2022/0011625 A1), in view of Wild et al. (US 2020/0409199 A1) (“Wild”).
With respect to claim 1, Li discloses a liquid crystal film (abstr., 0016) for automotive glass (0003-0004), comprising a first base layer – element 202 – a second base layer – element 212 (0098, Fig. 4A), a first conductive layer disposed on the first base layer, a second conductive layer disposed on a side of the second base layer, close to the first conductive layer – the base layers are coated and patterned with conductive materials for driving an electric field across liquid crystal to control light transmittance (0070), a liquid crystal layer – element 214 - disposed between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (0077, 0095, Fig. 4A), wherein the liquid crystal layer comprises a plurality of spacers, and a liquid crystal mixture, the plurality of spacers – elements 208 and 402 - being perpendicularly disposed between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (0096, 0097, Fig. 4A), wherein the liquid crystal layer divides a space between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer (Fig. 4).
Li discloses the spacers within the liquid crystal layer form lattices, wherein the liquid crystal mixture is filled in the plurality of lattices (0067, Fig. 4A), but is silent with respect to a shape of each of the plurality of lattices being polygonal.
Wild discloses a liquid crystal layer for optical components (0002), wherein each of the plurality of lattices is a polygonal lattice, spacers being incorporated into the lattices (abstr., 0006, 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the liquid crystal layer of Li wherein the spacers are incorporated into a plurality of lattices, wherein each of the plurality of lattices has a polygonal shape as it is known in the art of liquid crystal optical devices to include spacers so that they are part of lattices, the lattices having polygonal shape for support (0006).
Regarding claim 2, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Li discloses the film comprises a bottom plate – bottom element 404 which comprises resin - disposed on the second conductive layer, the plurality of spacers being perpendicularly disposed between the bottom plate and the first conductive layer, and divides a space between the bottom plate and the first conductive layer into a plurality of lattices (0098, Fig. 4A).
As to claim 3, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Li discloses the bottom plate and the plurality of lattices are integrally formed by a curing glue (0098).
With respect to claim 4, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Wild discloses the shape of each of the plurality of lattices is regular hexagonal (0025).
Regarding claim 5, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Wild discloses the shape of each of the plurality of lattices is regular quadrilateral (0025).
With respect to claim 6, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 2. Li does not state explicitly what is the thickness of the bottom plate, however, Li discloses that the thickness of the bottom plate – element 404 - is adjusted according to a target degree of haze and resistance to deformation (0099), thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the bottom plate of Li in order to obtain the desired degree of haze and resistance to deformation.
As to claim 7, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Wild discloses a thickness of each of the plurality of spacers of 10 µm (0055), which is within the recited range.
With respect to claim 8, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 4. Wild discloses a maximum diameter of the shape of each of the plurality of lattices calculated based on the spacer diameter and the spacer density is overlapping the recited range (0055, 0056). Overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Li discloses the first base layer and the second base layer can be PET films or polycarbonate flexible material (0070).
With respect to claim 13, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1. Li discloses indium tin oxide as first and second conductive layers (0070), which are known in the art to be transparent.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Wild, and further in view of Hakemi et al. (US 6049366) (“Hakemi”).
With respect to claim 9, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1, but are silent regarding the liquid crystal mixture as recited in the claim. Hakemi discloses a film coated with liquid crystal mixture (col. 4, lines 37-65) for use in electrooptical device (col. 2, lines 30-44), the liquid crystal mixture comprising liquid crystal, chiral agent and glue (abstr., col. 29, lines 42-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include liquid crystal, chiral agent and glue in the liquid crystal mixture of the film of Li and Wild, as the recited components are known in the art of liquid crystal mixtures used in optical films.
The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 9 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 9. The references teach the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Li, Wild and Hakemi teach the film of claim 9. Li discloses the liquid crystal can be TN liquid crystal or GH liquid crystal ((0079, 0084, 0085).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Wild, and further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 5680185) (“Kobayashi”).
With respect to claim 10, Li and Wild teach the film of claim 1, but are silent regarding the liquid crystal mixture as recited in the claim. Kobayashi discloses a liquid crystal display apparatus comprising liquid crystal medium comprising liquid crystal, chiral agent and microparticles (abstr., col. 9, lines 27-48, col. 10, lines 4-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include liquid crystal, chiral agent and microparticles in the liquid crystal mixture as recited in the claim, as the recited components are known in the art of liquid crystal mixtures.
The claim defines the product by how the product is made, thus, claim 10 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP 2113). In the instant case the recited steps imply the structure of claim 10. The references teach the structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on Apr. 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant argued Li does not disclose that the plurality of spacers is perpendicularly disposed between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer. The Examiner notes in Li the spacers are perpendicularly disposed as shown in Fig. 4 between the conductive layers formed on the base layers as disclosed in par. [0070] of Li.
The Applicant argued Li does not disclose that the spacers divide a space between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer into a plurality of lattices, let alone that the spacers form the structural boundaries of such lattices. The Examiner notes Li discloses that the spacers form cells (0067), thus, they form the structural boundaries of the lattices. Furthermore, the Examiner notes claim 1 does not require the spacers to form the structural boundaries of the lattices. Li discloses that the spacers form cells (0067) which has been interpreted as spacers forming a plurality of lattices. Li is silent with respect to the shape of each of the plurality of lattices being polygonal. This has been disclosed by Wild as discussed above.
The Applicant argued Li is silent with respect to “a shape of each of the plurality of lattices is polygonal.” The Examiner notes that limitation is disclosed in Wild as discussed above.
The Applicant argued Li’s bottom element 404 is not the “bottom plate” recited in claim 2, it is a localized bonding structure. The Applicant argued Li does not disclose that element 404 is a continuous plate disposed on the second conductive layer, nor that it forms the base boundary of the lattice space divided by the spacers. The Examiner notes element 404 is formed of a layer of resin (0098), it is disposed on the second conductive layer as the second base layer has a conductive layer formed thereon (0070). Claim 2 does not recite specific relative size of the bottom plate, or that it is a continuous plate, or that it forms the base boundary of the lattice space divided by the spacers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights