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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
No claims are amended in the current application.
Claims 2, 4, and 10 are canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on October 10, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests to defer action on the nonstatutory double patenting rejection over US 11872787 B2 until claims in the present application are deemed allowable.
Examiner acknowledges. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection over US 11872787 B2 is maintained.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest a transmission control layer with a cell having a thickness of 16 µm or less configured in the manner recited in amended claim 1.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Fernando is applied in combination with Jaeger, Maehara, and Giron, where Fernando teaches that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to form and implement a specific transmission control layer design (such as Fernando’s liquid crystal cell) within a laminate glass structure (such as modified Jaeger’s) to achieve a liquid crystal device that achieves preferred liquid crystal alignment, provides liquid crystal pre-tilt facilitating variable control of opacity and light transmission, exhibits smooth changes of transmittance when stimulus is changed, and maintains cell thickness even when bent (Fernando, [0124]-[0129], [0132], [0176]-[0181], [0184]). Fernando teaches spacers 90 (formed of a sphere 94 with a diameter of about 5-30 µm and an adhesive coating 96 with a thickness of less than about 5 µm) are utilized to maintain a constant thickness of the liquid crystal cell even when bent (Fernando, [0039], [0130]-[0132], [0182]-[0184], Fig 12). Fernando’s total spacer 90 thickness (equivalent to cell thickness) is less than about 15 to less than about 40 µm (5 µm + less than about 5 µm + less than about 5 µm; 30 µm + less than about 5 µm + less than about 5 µm). Fernando’s cell thickness overlaps the claimed range of 16 µm or less, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Applicant argues that Fernando’s spacer 90 does not correspond to a thickness of a cell as required by claim 1, because Fernando teaches an interval between panes is between 1 to 2 millimeters.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. Note that while Fernando does not disclose all the features of the presently claimed invention, Fernando is used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the other applied prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the presently claimed invention. Fernando is not relied upon for the entirety of the window pane structure, but rather establishes that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to configure and to assemble electrodes, polymer alignment layers, spacers, an adhesive, and an optical liquid crystal layer to form a liquid crystal cell structure that is suitable for use within a laminated window pane (such as modified Jaeger’s) to yield a transmission control device that achieves preferred liquid crystal alignment, provides liquid crystal pre-tilt facilitating variable control of opacity and light transmission, exhibits smooth changes of transmittance when stimulus is changed, and maintains cell thickness even when bent (Fernando, [0124]-[0129], [0132], [0176]-[0181], [0184]).
Furthermore, one skilled in the art would readily understand the distinction between the terms window pane interval and liquid crystal cell thickness. The window pane interval referred to by Applicant pertains to the spacing between Fernando’s external and internal panes 52 and 54 (Fernando, [0145], [0149], Fig 19), whereas the liquid crystal cell thickness (depicted by spacer 90) pertains to the spacing between the liquid crystal cell electrode+polymer alignment layers 70 and 72 (Fernando, [0146]-[0148], Figs 11, 19). Moreover, Fernando explicitly states “even though the cell 66 as a whole is bent, the distance between the first and second electrodes 70, 72, and hence the thickness of the cell 66 is kept constant throughout the cell …” at [0132] and [0184]. The difference between Fernando’s external and internal panes 52 and 54 thickness and Fernando’s liquid crystal cell electrode+polymer alignment layers 70 and 72 is significant, and would include the thicknesses of many additional layers (61, 76, 63, 108, 62, 64, 78, and 65) that form the totality of Fernando’s window pane, but as discussed above, these features are not relied upon in the grounds of rejection below.
PNG
media_image1.png
547
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fernando – Figure 11
PNG
media_image2.png
767
582
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fernando – Figure 19
Applicant argues that the grounds of rejection ignore the other layers required by Fernando beyond the spacers.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. As discussed above, Fernando is used as a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The entirety of Fernando’s window pane structure is not utilized, but rather, establishes that it is well known and well within the abilities of those skilled in the art to configure and to assemble electrodes, polymer alignment layers, spacers, an adhesive, and an optical liquid crystal layer to form a liquid crystal cell structure that is suitable for use within a laminated window pane (such as modified Jaeger’s).
Furthermore, the totality of components of Fernando’s liquid crystal cell structure have been fully considered and are considered to render obvious the claimed liquid crystal cell thickness. Relative to the spacer 90(94) diameter, the remaining components are significantly smaller in magnitude as shown by Fernando’s Figure 16. Fernando’s Figure 16 depicts the conductive electrode coatings 133, first and second polymer alignment layers 134/136, and the spacer adhesive 96 (less than about 5 µm) as being considerably smaller in thickness than the spacer 90(94), where the spacer 90(94) has a diameter of about 5 to about 30 µm (Fernando, [0194], Fig 16). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art based upon Fernando’s teachings and depicted components would readily understand that adding the totality of thicknesses of the conductive electrode coatings 133, first and second polymer alignment layers 134 and 136, spacer adhesive 96, and spacer 90(94) would yield a cell thickness that would still render obvious the claimed cell thickness of 16 µm or less with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05, MPEP 2143).
PNG
media_image3.png
423
579
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fernando – Figure 16
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 17 recite the term “substantially.” The term "substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III D. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “substantially.” For the purpose of examination limitations preceded by the term “substantially” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 11872787 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a window pane comprising a transmission control layer with first and second glass sheets with a liquid crystal material disposed therebetween, where each glass sheet is a fusion formed alkali-free aluminosilicate glass sheet having thickness of 1 mm or less, first and second panels are bonded to each of the glass sheets, and a bow of the window pane is about 0.02 mm or less per 40 mm of length.
Regarding Claim 1, US 11872787 B2 claims a window pane comprising a transmission control layer with first and second glass sheets with a liquid crystal material disposed therebetween; where each glass sheet is a fusion formed alkali-free aluminosilicate glass sheet having thickness of 0.5 mm to 0.7 mm, the first and second panels are bonded to each of the glass sheets with two polyvinyl butyral adhesive layers, the transmission control layer is disposed between the first and second panels, the liquid crystal material is controllable to adjust a transmittance of the window pane, and a bow of the window pane is about 0.02 mm or less per 40 mm of length (US 11872787 B2, Claims 1, 8). US 11872787 B2’s thickness range falls within the claimed range of 1 mm or less, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). US 11872787 B2’s bow range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). US 11872787 B2 claims the transmission control layer comprises a first conductive layer disposed between the first glass sheet and the liquid crystal material, and a second conductive layer disposed between the first glass sheet and the liquid crystal material (US 11872787 B2, Claim 3). US 11872787 B2 claims the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet are arranged substantially parallel to and spaced from each other to define a cell therebetween, the liquid crystal material is disposed within the cell, where the cell thickness is 10 µm or less (US 11872787 B2, Claim 1). US 11872787 B2’s cell thickness range falls within the claimed range of 16 µm or less, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding Claim 3, US 11872787 B2 claims a width of the window pane is 400-600 mm, and a length of the window pane is 600-900 mm (US 11872787 B2, Claims 1-2). US 11872787 B2’s ranges overlap with the claimed ranges of 500 mm or more and 750 mm or more, respectively, and therefore, render obvious the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5, US 11872787 B2 claims the first panel is bonded to the first glass sheet with the first adhesive layer comprising polyvinyl butyral adhesive, and the second panel is bonded to the second glass sheet with the second adhesive layer comprising polyvinyl butyral adhesive (US 11872787 B2, Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 6, US 11872787 B2 claims the cell thickness is 10 µm or less (US 11872787 B2, Claim 1). US 11872787 B2’s cell thickness range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 7, US 11872787 B2 claims the first and second glass sheets having thicknesses of 0.5 to 0.7 mm (US 11872787 B2, Claim 1). US 11872787 B2’s thickness range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 8, US 11872787 B2 claims each of the first and second panels has a thickness of 3 mm to 5 mm (US 11872787 B2, Claim 1). US 11872787 B2’s thickness range falls within the claimed range of 3 mm or more, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 9, US 11872787 B2 claims the first and second panels are soda lime glass panels (US 11872787 B2, Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 11, US 11872787 B2 claims the transmission control layer comprises a first alignment layer disposed between the first glass sheet and the liquid crystal material, and a second alignment layer disposed between the first glass sheet and the liquid crystal material (US 11872787 B2, Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 12, US 11872787 B2 claims the liquid crystal material comprises a polymer dispersed liquid crystal material (US 11872787 B2, Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 13, US 11872787 B2 claims a thickness of the transmission control layer is 1.5 mm or less (US 11872787 B2, Claim 6). US 11872787 B2’s thickness range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 14, US 11872787 B2 claims a thickness of the window pane is 15 mm or less (US 11872787 B2, Claim 7). US 11872787 B2’s thickness range is identical to the claimed range, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (DE 102006042538 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), in view of Maehara et al. (US 2009/0176640 A1), in view of Giron et al. (US 2012/0017975 A1), and in view of Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12, Jaeger teaches a glazing element containing a laminated glass (a window pane) comprising two thick glass layers (a first glass panel and a second glass panel) 1,5; two thin glass layers (a first glass sheet and a second glass sheet) 3a,3b having thickness preferably between 0.5 to 1.1 mm disposed between the two thick glass layers 1,5; and a functionalized layer 6,601-609 disposed on the inner surface of the two thin glass layers 3a,3b, where the functionalized surface can be a switchable liquid crystal-based structure for electrically controlling optical effects, image displaying, light, sun, glare, or privacy protection (i.e. adjust and control transmittance) (Jaeger, [0001], [0016], [0019]-[0020], [0024], [0037], [0082], [0095], [0106]-[0107], [0119]-[0121], Fig 6A-6E); Jaeger’s two thin glass layers (a first glass sheet and a second glass sheet) 3a,3b and functionalized layer 6,601-609 disposed on the inner surface of the two thin glass layers 3a,3b are equivalent to the claimed transmission control layer. Jaeger teaches the thick glass layers (first and second panels) 1,5 are arranged directly next to the thin glass layers (first and second glass sheets) 3a/3b by adhesive composite material layers (first and second adhesive layers) 2,4 (Jaeger, [0037], [0064], [0081]-[0082], [0106], Fig 6A). Jaeger’s thin glass layer thickness substantially overlaps with the claimed range of 1 mm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Jaeger teaches the functionalized surface applied to inner surfaces of the thin glass layers are provided with conductive electrode layers 603,604 for applying an electrical voltage to a liquid crystal material (Jaeger, [0030], [0119]-[0121], Figs 6A-6E).
PNG
media_image4.png
425
348
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
417
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jaeger – Figure 6A & 6D
Jaeger remains silent regarding that the two thin glass layers (first glass sheet and second glass sheet) 3a,3b are fusion formed glass sheets having 0.1 mol% or less of R2O, where R is one or more of Li, Na, and K.
Maehara, however, teaches alkali-free glass substrates for large size liquid crystal display panels that exhibit little sag, where the alkali-free glass substrates do not substantially contain alkali components of Li, Na, or K except for unavoidable impurities (Maehara, [0001]-[0012], [0020]-[0031]). Maehara’s unavoidable impurities of alkali components of Li, Na, or K are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed 0.1 mol% or less range with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, I). Maehara teaches the alkali-free glass substrates may be formed by a fusion method (Maehara, [0108]). Maehara teaches the alkali-free glass substrates can have thickness of 0.3-1.1 mm (Maehara, [0108]). Maehara’s alkali-free glass substrate thickness overlaps the claimed thickness of 1 mm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05, I). Maehara teaches the liquid crystal display panels comprise electrodes and a liquid crystal material interposed between the alkali-free glass substrates and the electrodes to form a liquid crystal cell (a transmission control layer) (Maehara, [0109]).
Since Jaeger and Maehara both disclose alkali-free glass laminates having substantially similar thicknesses for liquid crystal-based structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Maehara’s liquid crystal cell (comprising alkali-free glass substrates, electrodes, and a liquid crystal material disposed between) as Jaeger’s transmission control layer (first glass sheet and second glass sheet comprising a functionalized layer of liquid crystal material disposed between) to yield a glass laminate that has little sag, has excellent homogeneity and flatness, has low linear expansion coefficient, has high strain point, has low density, is free of devitrification, has excellent acid resistance, has little deflection, exhibits a highly fine contrast ratio as taught by Maehara (Maehara, [0020]-[0024], [0027]-[0028], [0132]-[0133]).
Modified Jaeger teaches controlling the alkali-free glass composition ratio, linear expansion coefficient in a range of 30x10-7/oC to 40x10-7/oC from 50-350oC, and Young’s modulus to at least 75 GPa allows for reducing sag as desired for large size glass substrates of about 2 m2 (Maehara, [0052]-[0055]). Modified Jaeger remains silent regarding the window pane exhibiting a bow of 0.02 mm or less per 40 mm of length.
Giron, however, teaches a laminated glass pane comprising an electrically active layer structure disposed between glass substrates having thickness from 0.3-25 mm, polymer layers applied to the glass substrates, and cover glass layers; where the laminated glass pane layer structure prevents deformation, delamination, and glass breakage (Giron, [0005]-[0026], Fig 2). Giron’s glass substrate thickness range of 0.3-25 mm completely encompasses the claimed range of 0.3-1 mm, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Giron teaches the glass substrates have coefficient of expansion of 25x10-7/K to 80x10-7/K (25x10-7/oC to 80x10-7/oC) from 30-300oC to avoid appearance of critical mechanic stresses (Giron, [0025], [0034]). Giron teaches the laminated glass pane layer structure preferably has a maximum deflection (dz) less than or equal to 16 mm, where the maximum deflection (dz) can also be less than or equal to 1/150 of the length (L) to prevent delamination, deformation, and glass breakage (Giron, [0031]-[0032], [0056], Fig 3); Giron’s maximum deflection (dz) calculated per 40 mm of length as claimed yields: dz = (40 mm)*(1/150) = 0.267 mm or less per 40 mm of length. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that Giron’s maximum deflection property is substantially similar to the claimed bow property, where any differences would be considered minor and obvious. Giron’s maximum deflection (dz) renders obvious the claim range of 0.02 mm or less per 40 mm of length, and therefore, establishes renders obviousness the claim range (MPEP 2144.05, I & II).
PNG
media_image6.png
356
615
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Giron - Figure 2
PNG
media_image7.png
440
571
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Giron - Figure 3
Since modified Jaeger and Giron both disclose laminated glass pane layer structures comprising glass substrates that can have thicknesses on a millimeter scale (such as less than 1 mm), both disclose glass having zero to small weight proportions of alkali elements (Giron, [0044]-[0045]), and modified Jaeger discloses glass substrates having coefficients of expansion that fall within Giron’s desired range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that modified Jaeger’s glazing element, glass sheets, and glass panels are necessarily capable of achieving deflection within Giron’s range with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success, and it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured modified Jaeger’s glazing element, glass sheets, and glass panels according to Giron’s guidance to yield an adjustable opaque window pane that possesses maximum deflection property that prevents delamination, deformation, and glass breakage as taught by Giron (Giron, [0031]-[0032], [0056], MPEP 2143).
Modified Jaeger depicts the glazing element (comprising alkali-free glass substrates, electrodes, and the liquid crystal material disposed between) has the first and second glass sheets 3a,3b of the functionalized layer 6,601-609 being arranged parallel to and spaced apart from each other to define a cell where liquid crystal material is disposed (Jaeger, [0106]-[0107], [0119]-[0121], Fig 6A-6E; Maehara, [0108]-[0109]). Modified Jaeger teaches the space located between sub-elements can be sealed by a spacer (Jaeger, [0140]-[0141], Fig 8).
PNG
media_image8.png
464
527
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jaeger – Figure 8
Modified Jaeger remains silent regarding a liquid crystal cell having thickness of 16 µm or less, remains silent regarding first and second alignment layers disposed between the first and second glass sheets and the liquid crystal material (as required by claim 11), and remains silent regarding a specific liquid crystal material (as required by claim 12).
Fernando, however, teaches an adjustable opaque window (211, window pane) comprising a light transmission control layer formed of a liquid crystal material 74 that is bounded by and disposed between a pair of flexible substrates that can be formed from glass (64, first glass sheet and 62, second glass sheet) to form a liquid crystal cell, and a first polymer layer that provides preferential alignment (86, first alignment layer) and a second polymer layer that provides preferential alignment (88, second alignment layer) that are disposed on inner surfaces of the substrates 62 & 64 (Fernando, [0036]-[0037], [0124]-[0128], [0146]-[0180], Fig 19). Fernando teaches the opacity (transmittance) of the light transmission control layer is controlled by external stimulus of variably adjusting electric field amplitude applied to the light transmission control layer (Fernando, [0114]). Fernando teaches the light transmission control layer comprises the liquid crystal material, where the liquid crystal material can comprise nematic liquid crystals, a chiral liquid crystal material, and polymeric liquid crystals (Fernando, [0031], [0100], [0116], [0168]). Fernando teaches spacers 90 (formed of a sphere 94 with a diameter of about 5-30 µm and an adhesive coating 96 with a thickness of less than about 5 µm) are utilized to maintain a constant thickness of the liquid crystal cell even when bent (Fernando, [0039], [0130]-[0132], [0182]-[0184], Fig 12). Fernando’s total spacer 90 thickness (equivalent to cell thickness) is less than about 15 to less than about 40 µm (5+less than about 5+less than about 5 µm, 30+less than about 5+less than about 5 µm). Fernando’s cell thickness overlaps the claimed range of 16 µm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
PNG
media_image9.png
912
583
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fernando – Figure 19
Since modified Jaeger and Fernando both disclose laminated glass structures comprising glass sheets, electrodes, liquid crystal material disposed therebetween, and spacers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added Fernando’s first and second polymer layers onto the internal surfaces of the glass sheets and electrodes of modified Jaeger’s laminate glass structure and utilized Fernando’s liquid crystal materials and spacers to form modified Jaeger’s liquid crystal cell to achieve a liquid crystal device that achieves preferred liquid crystal alignment, provides liquid crystal pre-tilt facilitating variable control of opacity and light transmission, exhibits smooth changes of transmittance when stimulus is changed, and maintains cell thickness even when bent as taught by Fernando (Fernando, [0124]-[0129], [0132], [0176]-[0181], [0184]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Jaeger teaches the glazing element does not impair mechanical stability, does not impair thermal stability, fulfills safety-relevant aspects, and can have geometric dimensions of up to 4 m2 without any disadvantageous loss of properties (Jaeger, [0016], [0073]). Modified Jaeger tests glazing elements containing the laminated glass with dimensions of 1200 mm x 1600 mm and 1800 mm x 2500 mm (Jaeger, [0076]; Maehara, [0108]). Modified Jaeger’s dimensions fall within the claimed ranges, and therefore, satisfy the claimed ranges (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Jaeger teaches the thick glass layers (first and second panels) 1,5 are arranged directly next to the thin glass layers (first and second glass sheets) 3a/3b by adhesive composite material layers (first and second adhesive layers) 2,4 that can be formed of polyvinyl butyral material (Jaeger, [0031], [0037], [0064], [0081]-[0082], [0106], Fig 6A).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Jaeger teaches the spacers 90 (formed of a sphere 94 with a diameter of about 5-30 µm and an adhesive coating 96 with a thickness of less than about 5 µm) are utilized to maintain a constant thickness of the liquid crystal cell even when bent (Fernando, [0039], [0130]-[0132], [0182]-[0184], Fig 12). Modified Jaeger’s adhesive coating 96 thickness is less than about 5 µm, where this range envisages embodiments that can have thickness of about 2.5 µm to yield a total adhesive coating 96 thickness on each side of the spacer 90 that yields a total spacer 90 thickness (equivalent to cell thickness) that is about 10 to about 35 µm (5+about 2.5+about 2.5 µm, 30+less than about 2.5+less than about 2.5 µm). Modified Jaeger’s cell thickness overlaps the claimed range of 10 µm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Jaeger teaches the two thin glass layers (first glass sheet and second glass sheet) 3a,3b having thickness preferably between 0.5 to 1.1 mm. Modified Jaeger’s thickness range encompasses the claimed thickness of 0.5-0.7 mm, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Jaeger teaches the two thick glass layers (a first glass panel and a second glass panel) 1,5 each have thickness of particularly at least 4 mm (Jaeger, [0019]). Jaeger’s thickness range is completely encompassed within the claimed range of 3 mm or more, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Jaeger teaches the two thick glass layers (first glass panel and second glass panel) 1,5 are soda lime glass panels (Jaeger, [0016], [0019]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Jaeger teaches the light transmission control layer comprises the alkali-free glass substrates (first and second glass sheets) having thickness of 0.3-1.1 mm (Maehara, [0108]), and also comprises a spacer having a diameter of 5-30 microns (0.005-0.03 mm) that provides a uniform cell gap (Fernando, [0027], [0039], [0112], [0132], [0164]). In view of the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the light transmission control layer possesses thickness of approximately between 0.605 mm (0.3 mm + 0.005 mm + 0.3 mm) to 2.23 mm (1.1 mm + 0.03 mm + 1.1 mm). Modified Jaeger’s light transmission control layer interval of 0.605-2.23 mm overlaps with the claimed range of 1.5 mm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Jaeger teaches the light transmission control layer possesses thickness of approximately between 0.605 mm (0.3 mm + 0.005 mm + 0.3 mm) to 2.23 mm (1.1 mm + 0.03 mm + 1.1 mm) (see claim 19 above). Modified Jaeger teaches the two thick glass layers (the first glass panel and the second glass panel) each have thickness of at least 4 mm (Jaeger, [0019]). Modified Jaeger teaches the adhesive composite material layers (first and second adhesive layers) 2,4 can have thickness of 0.25-1.66 mm (Jaeger, [0085]). In view of the foregoing, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that modified Jaeger’s glazing element (window pane) possesses thickness of approximately at least 9.105 mm (4 mm1st glass panel + 0.25 mm1st adhesive layer + 0.605 mmtransmission control layer + 0.25 mm2nd adhesive layer + 4 mm2nd glass panel) to 13.55 mm or more (at least 4 mm1st glass panel + 1.66 mm1st adhesive layer + 2.23 mmtransmission control layer + 1.66 mm2nd adhesive layer + at least 4 mm2nd glass panel). Modified Jaeger’s thickness range overlaps with the claimed range of 15 mm or less, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (DE 102006042538 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), in view of Maehara et al. (US 2009/0176640 A1), in view of Giron et al. (US 2012/0017975 A1), and in view of Fernando et al. (US 2008/0158448 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koga et al. (US 2015/0337591 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Jaeger teaches the glazing element containing the laminated glass (the window pane) as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Jaeger teaches an insulated glazing unit comprising the laminated glass discussed above, where first and second laminated glasses 7,8 are arranged at a distance from one another, and a space 10 (cavity) is located between and sealed with a spacer 9 to create a double insulating glass unit (insulated glazing unit) (Jaeger, [0140], Fig 8). Modified Jaeger teaches a third laminated glass (i.e., a third panel) can be applied to from a triple insulating glass unit with even better thermal insulation (Jaeger, [0140]).
PNG
media_image8.png
464
527
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Jaeger – Figure 8
Modified Jaeger remains silent regarding a spacer disposed between the window pane and the third panel, where a cavity is disposed between the window pane and the third panel and is substantially circumscribed by the spacer.
Koga, however, teaches a multilayer glass structure comprising a plurality of glass substrates (such as three glass substrates) arranged to face one another and form a gap between each of the glass substrates, where spacers are arranged (i.e., circumscribed) around each of the gaps (Koga, Abstract, [0015]-[0016], [0019], [0024], [0029], [0044], Fig 1). Koga teaches the multilayer glass structure exhibits excellent heat insulation performance (i.e., is an insulated multilayer glazing unit), where the distribution density of the spacers can be configured to adjust and achieve desired heat insulation performance (Koga, [0005], [0019]-[0020], [0033]-[0039]).
Since modified Jaeger and Koga both disclose multilayer glass-based laminates and Jaeger discloses a triple insulating glass unit structure comprising spacers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured modified Jaeger’s third panel according to Koga’s guidance to be arranged facing the other laminated glasses with a gap circumscribed by spacers to yield a three panel insulated glazing unit that exhibits adequate heat insulation performance, suppresses occurrence of interference fringes, and maintains glass substrate gap distance uniformity as taught by Koga (Koga, [0036]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Jaeger teaches the thickness of the third glass substrate panel is preferably less than 6.0 mm (Koga, [0018]-[0019]). Modified Jaeger’s thickness range overlaps the claimed range of 3 mm or more, and therefore, establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Jaeger teaches the third substrate panel is a glass panel (Koga, [0016]-[0019]).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Jaeger teaches the third glass substrate panel may also include a low-e coating on a surface to function as a heat shield layer that prevents heat rays from passing through the overall structure (Koga, [0042]-[0043]).
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 ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 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, 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 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights