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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed June 2, 2026. Claim 20 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, applicant argues that the opaque coating of the Fernando reference may not be considered “an opaque panel”. However, it is noted that the portion with coating may be considered a panel and that there is access from at least a lower portion. Applicant’s currently claim language does not define any structural limitations to the accessing of the cavity via the panel and thus the limitation is met as set forth below.
Second, applicant argues that there is no teaching in the cited references of a “discrete optically opaque panel”. However, it is noted that this is not currently required by the claim language.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are rejected as set forth below.
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 1, 5-9, 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Fernando et al. discloses a privacy door comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-9, paragraph [0059] for privacy and [0043] for use in door):
a first pane of transparent material 52 (see e.g. paragraph [0113]);
a second pane of transparent material 54 (see e.g. paragraph [0113]);
an electrically controllable optically active material 74 positioned between the first pane of transparent material 52 and the second pane of transparent material 54, the electrically controllable optically active material 74 being further positioned between a first electrode layer 82 and a second electrode layer 82 (see e.g. paragraph [0116] and[0123] and Figure 9).
a driver 100 electrically connected to a power source and configured to condition power received from the power source 106 to provide a drive signal to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer for controlling the electrically controllable optically active material (i.e. in 66) (see e.g. Figure 13).
Fernando et al. fails to disclose
a cavity formed within the privacy door;
an optically opaque panel positioned across an external surface of the cavity, the optically opaque panel providing access to the cavity; and
a driver positioned in the cavity behind the optically opaque panel, the driver being electrically connected to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
However, Plummer discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
a cavity 150 (denoted “cartridge cavity”, see e.g. paragraph [0059]) formed within the privacy door (see e.g. paragraph [0066] for use as door);
an optically opaque panel positioned across a surface of the cavity, the optically opaque panel providing access to the cavity,(see e.g. paragraph [0060] for opaque coating on one or both panes of 120 and 130 and note that there is at least access to the cavity from the bottom); and
a driver 170 (denoted “control unit”, see e.g. paragraphs [0048], [0060]) positioned in the cavity 150 behind the optically opaque panel (see e.g. paragraph [0060]).
Plummer further discloses the cavity/cartridge being used to contain a number of devices for control of various functions of the panel (see e.g. paragraphs [0007], [0052]-[0054]).
Therefore one of ordinary skill would recognize that combination of Fernando et al. with Plummer would result in the driver being electrically connected to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
Further, 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 with an optically opaque panel positioned across an external surface of the privacy door, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04).
Given the teachings of Plummer, 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 Fernando et al. with a cavity formed within the privacy door; an optically opaque panel positioned across an external surface of the cavity, the optically opaque panel providing access to the cavity; and a driver positioned in the cavity behind the optically opaque panel, the driver being electrically connected to the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
Providing a cavity and optically opaque material covering the cavity allows for driving circuits and other electronics to be hidden from view.
In regard to claim 5, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the driver is configured to condition power received from the power source by altering at least one of a frequency, an amplitude, and a waveform of an electrical signal received from the power source.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using
wherein the driver is configured to condition power received from the power source by altering at least one of a frequency, an amplitude, and a waveform of an electrical signal received from the power source, as art recognized equivalent for powering the device.
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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the driver is configured to condition power received from the power source by altering at least one of a frequency, an amplitude, and a waveform of an electrical signal received from the power source.
Doing so would provide a means for applying voltage to the electrically controllable optically active material within the door.
In regard to claim 6, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the power source is wall power delivering alternating current.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using
wherein the power source is wall power delivering alternating current, as art recognized equivalent for powering the device.
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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the power source is wall power delivering alternating current.
Doing so would provide a means for applying voltage to the electrically controllable optically active material within the door.
In regard to claim 7, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the power source is a battery delivering direct current.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using wherein the power source is a battery delivering direct current , as art recognized equivalent for powering the device.
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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the power source is a battery delivering direct current.
Doing so would provide a means for applying voltage to the electrically controllable optically active material within the door.
In regard to claim 8, Fernando et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the driver comprises a controller that is configured to receive input from a user control located outside of the privacy glazing structure.
However, Plummer discloses
wherein the driver 170 comprises a controller that is configured to receive input from a user control located outside of the privacy glazing structure (see e.g. paragraph [0060] for the driver/control unit 170 using capacitive touch controls for user input).
Given the teachings of Plummer, 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 Fernando et al. with wherein the driver comprises a controller that is configured to receive input from a user control located outside of the privacy glazing structure.
Providing means for the user to interact with the glazing structure would allow additional use to the structure such as touch/display capabilities.
In regard to claim 9, Fernando et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1, and
wherein the first pane of transparent material 52 and the second pane of transparent material 54 are each fabricated from a glass (see e.g. paragraph [0113]).
In regard to claim 12, Fernando et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wiring 102 electrically coupling the driver 100 to the first and second electrode layers (i.e. via 66, see e.g. Figure 13).
In regard to claim 13, Fernando et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the electrically controllable optically active material is a liquid crystal material having a light transmittance that varies in response to application of an electrical field (see e.g. paragraphs [0030]-[0031]).
In regard to claim 16, Fernando et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein one or both of the first pane of transparent material and the second pane of transparent material are part of a laminate pane comprising a pair of substrates laminated together (see e.g. Figure 7 where layers 52 and 54 are laminated with layers 64 and 62).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1) and further in view of Shoup (US 5,887,391 A).
In regard to claim 2, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optically opaque panel comprises a kick plate.
However, Shoup discloses a door with a metal kick plate (see e.g. Column 6, lines 57-58). One of ordinary skill would recognize using a common opaque door feature to hide electrical components in order to improve the device aesthetically.
Given the teachings of Shoup, 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the optically opaque panel comprises a kick plate.
Doing so would provide a component of a typical door that may be utilized to obscure electrical components that is aesthetically pleasing.
Claims 3, 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1) and further in view of Artwohl et al. (US 2012/028089 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optically opaque panel comprises a hinge plate.
However, Artwohl et al. discloses
a hinge pin that is used to provide power to the device (see e.g. paragraphs [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the hinge pin to mask wiring/electrical components of the device.
Given the teachings of Artwohl et al., 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the optically opaque panel comprises a hinge plate.
Doing so would provide a means for hiding electrical components that serves the additional function of allowing the door to open and close.
In regard to claim 4, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optically opaque panel is made of metal.
However, Artwohl et al. discloses
a hinge pin that is used to provide power to the device (see e.g. paragraphs [0036]-[0037). Further, one of ordinary skill would recognize that hinge devices are typically made of metal, which is opaque.
Given the teachings of Artwohl et al., 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the optically opaque panel is made of metal.
Doing so would provide a means for hiding electrical components that serves the additional function of allowing the door to open and close.
In regard to claim 17, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the door comprises a frame, and the optically opaque panel is positioned across the external surface of the frame.
However, Artwohl et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
wherein the door comprises a frame 102, and the optically opaque panel 24 is positioned across the external surface of the frame 102.
Given the teachings of Artwohl et al., 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the door comprises a frame, and the optically opaque panel is positioned across the external surface of the frame.
Doing so would provide a means for holding the door in place mechanically.
In regard to claim 18, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the optically opaque panel comprises a hinge plate.
However, Artwohl et al. discloses
a hinge pin that is used to provide power to the device (see e.g. paragraphs [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the hinge pin to mask wiring/electrical components of the device.
Given the teachings of Artwohl et al., 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the optically opaque panel comprises a hinge plate.
Doing so would provide a means for hiding electrical components that serves the additional function of allowing the door to open and close.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1) and further in view of
Shalit (US 2012/0080080 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to discloses
wherein the glass comprises float glass.
However Shalit discloses
wherein the glass comprises float glass (see e.g. paragraph [0058]).
Given the teachings of Shalit, 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the glass comprises float glass.
Doing so would provide glass that has a uniform thickness, flat surface, and high optical clarity for use in the device.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1) and further in view of Thompson (US 2011/0171443 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first electrode layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide coating deposited over the first pane of transparent material and the second electrode layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide coating deposited over the second pane of transparent material.
However, Thompson discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
wherein the first electrode layer 26 comprises a transparent conductive oxide coating deposited over the first pane of transparent material 24 and the second electrode layer 27 comprises a transparent conductive oxide coating deposited over the second pane of transparent material 25 (see e.g. paragraph [0033]).
Given the teachings of Thompson, 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the first electrode layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide coating deposited over the first pane of transparent material and the second electrode layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide coating deposited over the second pane of transparent material.
Doing so would provide an inexpensive an easily manufactured electrode film, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 15, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the electrically controllable optically active material is selected from the group consisting of an electrochromic material and a suspended particle material.
However, Thompson discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
wherein the electrically controllable optically active material 20 is selected from the group consisting of an electrochromic material and a suspended particle material (see e.g. paragraph [0033]).
Given the teachings of Thompson, 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the electrically controllable optically active material is selected from the group consisting of an electrochromic material and a suspended particle material.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent material that may be used to vary transmission of light.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1) and further in view of Girardey (DE 10 2009 0549 991 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the liquid crystal material is monostable.
However, Girardey discloses
wherein the liquid crystal material is monostable (see e.g. page 2, third paragraph of English translation).
Given the teachings of Girardey, 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer, with wherein the liquid crystal material is monostable.
Doing so would provide a material that may be switched quickly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) in view of Plummer (US 2016/0376831 A1) in view of Artwohl et al. (US 2012/028089 A1) and further in view of Shoup (US 5,887,391 A).
In regard to claim 19, Fernando et al., in view of Plummer and Artwohl et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the frame is fabricated from one or more of wood, metal, and plastic.
However, Shoup discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the frame 12 is fabricated from one or more of wood, metal, and plastic (see e.g. Column 6, lines 19-28).
Given the teachings of Shoup, 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 Fernando et al., in view of Plummer and Artwohl et al., with wherein the frame is fabricated from one or more of wood, metal, and plastic.
Doing so would provide a sturdy construction for holding the glass panes of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
In regard to dependent claim 21, the closets prior art references fail to disclose or make obvious the limitation, “wherein the optically opaque panel covers an access opening to an interior space formed within the door, and wherein the cavity is accessible through the optically opaque panel.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights