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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2020/0285107) in view of Varaprasad et al. US 2008/0268260).
As to claim 22, Park discloses in figure 4: a first substrate 100b and a second substrate 100a that are arranged opposite to each other; a light adjustment module 300 located between the first substrate and the second substrate; and an ultraviolet light blocking layer disposed in the light adjustment module (paragraph [0179], “The ultraviolet blocking layer may be formed on one side or both sides of the polarizing layer, the liquid crystal layer, or the electrode layer”).
Park does not disclose wherein a refractive index of the ultraviolet light blocking layer is greater than a refractive index of the first substrate. Varaprasad discloses in paragraph [0011], a conventional UV blocking coating comprising a mixture of oxides of cerium, titanium, and silicon and having a refractive index (n) of 1.55 to 1.85. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li by providing the UV blocking layer structure of Varaprasad because conventional structures were known to be cost-effective and reliable. A refractive index of 1.55 to 1.85 would be higher than that of the first substrate, which is a glass substrate having a refractive index of about 1.5.
As to claim 23, Park in view of Varaprasad discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 22. Park further discloses in figure 4, wherein the light adjustment module 300 includes a first base material layer 305b, a first electrode layer 303b, a light adjustment layer 301, a second electrode layer 303a and a second base material layer 305a that are sequentially stacked; the first base material layer 305b is closer to the first substrate 100b than the second base material layer 305a; the ultraviolet light blocking layer is located between the first base material layer and the first electrode layer (paragraph [0179], “The ultraviolet blocking layer may be formed on one side or both sides of the polarizing layer, the liquid crystal layer, or the electrode layer”). Varaprasad further discloses in paragraph [0011], wherein a material of the ultraviolet light blocking layer includes cerium dioxide and titanium dioxide.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, 13 and 15-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a light adjustment device comprising the combination required by claim 1, wherein the ultraviolet light blocking layer is disposed on a surface of the light adjustment module proximate to the first substrate; the light adjustment device further comprises: a first adhesive layer located between the ultraviolet light blocking layer and the first substrate; wherein a refractive index of the first adhesive layer is greater than the refractive index of the first substrate, and is less than the refractive index of the ultraviolet light blocking layer. Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13 and 15-21 are allowed by virtue of their dependency.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a light adjustment device comprising the combination required by claim 6, wherein the ultraviolet light blocking layer is disposed on a surface of the first substrate proximate to the light adjustment module; the light adjustment device further comprises: a first adhesive layer located between the ultraviolet light blocking layer and the light adjustment module; wherein a refractive index of the first adhesive layer is greater than the refractive index of the ultraviolet light blocking layer; and the refractive index of the ultraviolet light blocking layer is in a range of 1.4 to 1.5. Claims 7 and 11 are allowed by virtue of their dependency.
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 David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights