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.
Preliminary Amendment
The amendments to Claims 14,15 in the submission filed 1/22/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to the Specification are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 1-17.
Drawings
The drawings with 6 Sheets of Figs. 1-5b received on 1/22/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. The Replacement Drawings with 6 Sheets of Figs. 1-5B received on 1/22/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. The Application now has 6 Sheets of Figs. 1-5B.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because Abstract has more than 150 words. It is suggested to reduce the number of words to less than 150. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8,13,14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guntermann et al (KR 2014/0129201 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Guntermann teaches (fig 1b) a variable transmittance optical stack (layered structure used with screens with liquid crystals, page 1, LC implies variable voltage and transmission, layered structure 100, page 12) comprising:
a first polarizing plate (first polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 60, page 13);
a first transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 60, page 13) formed on one surface of the first polarizing plate (first polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 60, page 13) (as in fig 1b);
a second polarizing plate (second polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 90, page 13) opposing the first polarizing plate (first polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 60, page 13);
a second transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 90, “a further polarizer element 90 having the same construction as the polarizer element 60”, page 13 polarizer element 90 having same structure as polarizer element 60 indicates a second conductive layer 70 being present) formed on one surface of the second polarizing plate (second polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 90, page 13), and opposing the first transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 60, page 13) (as in fig 1); and
a liquid crystal layer (liquid crystal element 50, page 13) provided between the first transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 60, page 13) and the second transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 90, page 13) (as in fig 1),
wherein at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 60, page 13) and the second transparent conductive layer (conductor layer 70 in polarization element 90, page 13) is formed by directly contacting with any one polarizing plate of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate (polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization elements 60, 90, page 13) (as in fig 1b),
at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer (first polarizer layer 20 in polarization element 60, page 13) and the second transparent conductive layer (first polarizer layer 20 in polarization element 90, page 13) comprises conductive polymers (“conductive layer can comprise as an electrically conductive polymer materials”, page 13), and
at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (first and second polarizer layers 20 in polarization elements 60 and 90, page 13) has at least one value of 0 to 0.05 among crack density values calculated according to following Equation 1, at a tensile strain greater than 1% and less than or equal to 10%.
[Equation 1]
p(€) = l(€)/A
(In Equation 1, € is tensile strain (%), A is an area (mm2) of an observed region, p(€) is a crack density value of the transparent conductive layer calculated at the tensile strain e, and l(€) is a crack area (mm2) of the transparent conductive layer in the observed region A calculated at the tensile strain €.) (conductive polymer is preferably poly-3,4-ethylnedioxythiphene (PEDOT), page 9, this is the same as the current conductive polymer as recited in the current specification (para 116, current spec) and hence it inherently has the same function and hence it has at least one value of 0 to 0.05 among crack density values calculated according to following Equation 1, at a tensile strain greater than 1% and less than or equal to 10%.).
Regarding Claim 2, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (first and second conductor layers 70 in polarization elements 60 and 90, page 13) has a crack density value of 0, which is calculated according to Equation 1 when € is 2% (conductive polymer is preferably poly-3,4-ethylnedioxythiphene (PEDOT), page 9, this is the same as the current conductive polymer as recited in the current specification (para 116, current spec) and hence it inherently has the same function and hence it has a crack density value of 0, which is calculated according to Equation 1 when € is 2%.).
Regarding Claim 3, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (first and second conductor layers 70 in polarization elements 60 and 90, page 13) has at least one increase rate of 15% or less among surface resistance increase rates calculated according to following Equation 2, at the tensile strain equal to or greater than 1% and equal to or less than 10% (Guntermann teaches surface resistance in a range of 10 to 250 omega/square (page 9) (conductive polymer is preferably poly-3,4-ethylnedioxythiphene (PEDOT), page 9, this is the same as the current conductive polymer as recited in the current specification (para 116, current spec) and hence it inherently has the same function and hence there is an increase rate of 15% or less among surface resistance increase rates calculated according to following Equation 2, at the tensile strain equal to or greater than 1% and equal to or less than 10%.).
[Equation 2]
= [{R.S(€)/R.S(0)}-1] * 100 (in Equation 2, delta(€) is a surface resistance increase rate (%) of the transparent conductive layer calculated at the tensile strain €, R.S(€) is a surface resistance value (omega/square) of the transparent conductive layer measured from tensile strain €, R.S(0) is a surface resistance value (omega/square) of the transparent conductive layer measured from an initial state where the tensile strain is at 0%, and € has the same meaning as Equation 1.)
Regarding Claim 4, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 3,
wherein at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (first and second conductor layers 70 in polarization elements 60 and 90, page 13) has a surface resistance increase rate of 15% or less, which is calculated according to the Equation 2, when € is 1% (conductive polymer is preferably poly-3,4-ethylnedioxythiphene (PEDOT), page 9, this is the same as the current conductive polymer as recited in the current specification (para 116, current spec) and hence it inherently has the same function and hence it has a surface resistance increase rate of 15% or less, which is calculated according to the Equation 2, when € is 1%)..
Regarding Claim 5, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein the conductive polymers comprise one or more types selected from a group consisting of polythiophene, poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene), polyaniline, polyacetylene, polydiacetylene, polyphenylene, polyphenylenevinylene, polyphenylene sulfide, polythienylene vinylene, polythiophene vinylene, polyfluorene, polypyrrole, poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene): polystyrene sulfonate, poly(3,4- ethylene dioxythiophene): camphor sulfonic acid, poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene):toluenesulfonic acid, poly(3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene): dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, polyaniline: polystyrene sulfonate, polyaniline: camphor sulfonic acid, polypyrrole: polystyrene sulfonate, polypyrrole: camphor sulfonic acid, polypyrrole:toluenesulfonic acid, polypyrrole: dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, polythiophene: polystyrene sulfonate, polythiophene: camphor sulfonic acid, polythiophene: toluenesulfonic acid, and polythiophene: dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid (conductive polymer is preferably poly-3,4-ethylnedioxythiphene (PEDOT), page 9).
Regarding Claim 6, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (first and second conductor layers 70 in polarization elements 60 and 90, page 13) is formed by directly contacting with any one polarizing plate of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate (first polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 60 and second polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 90, page 13) without an additional substrate between the polarizing plate and the transparent conductive layer (there is no substrate between polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 and conductor layer 70 and there is direct contact, fig 1b).
Regarding Claim 7, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein at least one transparent conductive layer of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer (first and second conductor layers 70 in polarization elements 60 and 90, page 13) is formed by directly contacting with any one polarizing plate of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate (polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization elements 60, 90) with a highly adhesive layer between the polarizing plate and the transparent conductive layer (“The layered structure can have at least one further layer. An example of a further layer is an adhesive layer or a pressure-sensitive layer. The adhesive layer can be introduced, for example, between the polarizer layer and the conductor layer. Furthermore, an adhesive layer can be employed alternatively or additionally between the conductor layer and the additional layer.”, page 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein at least one polarizing plate of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate (first polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 60 and second polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 in polarization element 90, page 13) comprises one or more types of functional layers (additional layer 30, page 13, in fig 1b) selected from a group consisting of a protective layer, (“ The additional layer can function as a carrier layer, preferably in the production of a layer precursor, or as a covering, in particular for protection from environmental influences, such as mechanical damage. The additional layer can serve to protect the layered structure”, page 6) a retardation matching layer, and a refractive index-matching layer.
Regarding Claim 13, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1, further comprising:
one or more types selected from a group consisting of an alignment film, a pressure sensitive adhesive/adhesive layer (“The layered structure can have at least one further layer. An example of a further layer is an adhesive layer or a pressure-sensitive layer.”, page 8), an ultraviolet ray absorption layer, and a hard coating layer.
Regarding Claim 14, Guntermann teaches a manufacturing method (“process for production”, page 9) for the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guntermann et al (KR 2014/0129201 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1,
wherein the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate have a thickness ranging from 20 µm to 1000µm (Guntermann teaches polarizer layer has a thickness in the range 20 to 1000µm. page 4, the additional layer has a range 20 to 200µm, page 6, hence the polarization plate which is polarizer layer 20 plus additional layer 30 has a thickness in a range 20 to 1,000 µm, the current claimed range is encompassed by Guntermann’s range).
However, Guntermann does not teach
wherein the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate have a thickness ranging from 30µm to 200µm
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of thicknesses, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0096] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 20 to 1000 µm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Guntermann to have the claimed range of thicknesses for the purposes of sufficient surface resistance when undergoing tensile strain (page 4).
Claim(s) 10-12,15-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guntermann et al (KR 2014/0129201 A) in view of Park et al (US 2020/0285107 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 10, Guntermann teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1.
However, Guntermann does not teach
wherein the liquid crystal layer comprises one or more types selected from a group consisting of a ball spacer and a column spacer.
Guntermann and Park are related as liquid crystal layers.
Park teaches (fig 1),
wherein the liquid crystal layer comprises one or more types selected from a group consisting of a ball spacer and a column spacer (“The liquid crystal window included in the optical device of the present application may further comprise a spacer”, para 121, “a column shape or a ball shape”, para 124).
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 liquid crystal layer of Guntermann to include the spacer of Park for the purpose of maintaining gaps of the layers existing at the top and bottom of the liquid crystal layer (para 121).
Regarding Claim 11, Guntermann-Park teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 10.
However, Guntermann does not teach
wherein the ball spacer has a diameter ranging from 1 µm to 10µm.
Guntermann and Park are related as liquid crystal layers.
Park teaches (fig 1),
wherein the ball spacer (“The structure of the spacer may be, for example, a column shape or a ball shape”, para 124) has freely designed size (para 125).
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 liquid crystal layer of Guntermann to include the spacer of Park for the purpose of maintaining gaps of the layers existing at the top and bottom of the liquid crystal layer (para 121).
However, Guntermann-Park do not teach
wherein the ball spacer has a diameter ranging from 1 µm to 10µm
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The diameter of the ball spacer can be in a range of values. An increase in diameter results in coverage of a larger area by the spacer but makes the device bulky. A decrease in diameter results in smaller coverage of the area but makes the device less heavy. Therefore, the diameter of the ball spacer is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the diameter of ball spacer to be in the claimed range according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving target area coverage with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the diameter of the ball spacer. One would have been motivated to have the diameter of the ball spacer to be in the claimed range to have an optimal diameter balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired separation of polarization elements on either side of the liquid crystal for better image quality.
Regarding Claim 12, Guntermann-Park teaches the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 10.
However, Guntermann does not teach
wherein an occupancy area of the ball spacer in the liquid crystal layer ranges from 0.01 to 10% of the area of the liquid crystal layer.
Guntermann and Park are related as liquid crystal layers.
Park teaches (fig 1),
wherein an occupancy area of the ball spacer (“The structure of the spacer may be, for example, a column shape or a ball shape”, para 124) in the liquid crystal layer
has freely designed area ( “when the spacer is in a column shape, its shape and number, and the spacing between the spacers or the position on the substrate, and the like can be freely designed and changed within the range capable of achieving the purpose”, para 125, “the column-shaped spacer may comprise 3 to 6 main spacers and each main spacer may comprise 2 to 4 sub-spacers”, para 126,”the spacers may be disposed with space in the range of 20μm to 5,000μm or 50μm to 1,000μm”, para 128).
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 liquid crystal layer of Guntermann to include the spacer of Park for the purpose of maintaining gaps of the layers existing at the top and bottom of the liquid crystal layer with sufficient coverage (para 121).
However, Guntermann-Park do not teach
wherein an occupancy area of the ball spacer in the liquid crystal layer ranges from 0.01 to 10% of the area of the liquid crystal layer.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The occupancy area of the ball spacers can be in a range of values. An increase in occupancy area results in coverage of a larger area by the spacer but makes the device bulky. A decrease in occupancy area results in smaller coverage of the area but makes the device less heavy. Therefore, the occupancy area of the ball spacers is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the occupancy area of ball spacer to be in the claimed range according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving target area coverage with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the occupancy area of the ball spacers. One would have been motivated to have the occupancy area of the ball spacers to be in the claimed range to have an optimal occupancy balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired separation of polarization elements on either side of liquid crystal for better image quality.
Regarding Claim 15, Guntermann teaches a device comprising the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1.
However, Guntermann does not teach
a smart window
Guntermann and Park are related as liquid crystal layers.
Park teaches (fig 1),
a smart window (smart window, para 135) comprising the variable transmittance optical stack (1000, as in fig 1,2) (“a smart window having a property of varying transmittance depending on the presence or absence of an external action”, para 135)
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 device of Guntermann to include the smart window of Park for the purpose of practical applications of the stack (para 135).
Regarding Claim 16, Guntermann-Park teaches an automobile in which the smart window of claim 15 is applied to at least one of a front window, a rear window, a side window, a sunroof window (sunroof, ceiling of a vehicle, para 3), and an inner partition thereof.
Regarding Claim 17, Guntermann-Park teaches a window and a door for a building comprising the smart window of claim 15. (The recitation " a window and a door for a building comprising the smart window " 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. MPEP §2106. In the instant application, the smart window of Guntermann-Park can be used on a window and a door of a building).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/6/2026