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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A and Species C in the reply filed on February 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-6, 10 and 12-19 read on the elected species and claims 7-9, and 11 are withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comment
Given the indefiniteness of the claims, the Examiner can not yet apply prior art. The Examiner urges Applicants to clarify their claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because in line 15 bridged to line 16, “the periphery of the light control film at the upper edge portion” lacks antecedent basis. Although the claim may recite a light control film and separately recites the presence of an upper edge portion of the laminated glass, note that the claim never explicitly states that the location of the lightly control film, or a periphery of such film, is at the upper edge portion. Instead, the claim only recites the light control film be provided inside the interlayer, no requirement of where in the interlayer it is nor that it is stretched to the upper edge. Also note that the claim does not even require the interlayer containing the film to be at an upper edge of the laminated glass (i.e. note that there is no previous requirement that the interlayer even extend along the entirety of the first and second glass interior surfaces where it would arguably be in an upper edge. Instead, the claim only states an interlayer being between two glasses). As such, the structure and the orientation/location of the light control film as well as the interlayer itself is not yet clear.
Claim 1 is also rejected because in the last two lines of “Structure A”, the claim recites “at least a part of the shielding or semi-shielding portion formed by the second shielding layer” but there is lack of antecedent basis for “the…semi-shielding portion”.
Note that while the presence of the second shielding layer previously recited in
the claim may implicitly provide antecedent basis for a shielding portion, there is absolutely no previous mention of a semi-shielding layer, a semi-shielding portion formed by the second shielding layer nor any previous limitation in which one skilled in the art would conclude a semi-shielding portion to be implicit. As such, it is completely unclear what this portion is.
Further, it is unclear what is even meant by “semi-shielding portion”. Note that “Semi” is considered a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “semi-shielding” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does the term mean
a portion that may shield but just not greatly or completely and if so, how much shielding would have to be present to be considered “semi-shielding”. Additionally, given that the language implies the second shielding layer is what is forming this semi-shield portion, it is unclear how the layer is considered shielding but the portion formed by the layer is only semi-shielding. The scope is simply not clear.
Claims 2-6, 10, 12-19 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1 above.
Claim 3 is also rejected because of the limitation “the light control film at the upper edge portion” for the same reasons previously discussed.
Also note, that while the claim recites the periphery of the second shielding layer… at the upper edge portion”, claim 3 depends on claim 1 which did not require the second shielding layer to be at the upper edge (note the alternative “at least either one of the side edge portions and the upper edge portion” language of Structure A in claim 1). As such, is claim 3 now requiring the second shielding layer to be in the upper edge or is claim 3 conditional wherein if the prior art teaches the second shielding layer in the upper edge alternative of claim 1 then it must have a distance from the light control film as required by claim 3.
Claims 12-13 are also rejected because there is lack of antecedent basis for “the semi-shielding portion formed by the first shielding layer or the second shielding layer”.
Similar to remarks above, while the presence of the first and second shielding
Layers previously recited in the claims would implicitly provide antecedent basis for a shielding portion, there is absolutely no previous mention of a semi-shielding layer nor any previous limitation in which one skilled in the art would conclude a semi-shielding portion to be implicit.
Further, it is unclear what is even meant by “semi-shielding portion”. Note that “Semi” can be considered a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “semi-shielding” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Does the term mean
a portion that may shield but just not greatly or completely and if so, how much shielding would have to be present to be considered “semi-shielding”.
Claims 13 is also rejected because it is unclear whether these claims are conditional or requiring the limitations recited.
For instance, while claim 13 may recite “the semi-shielding portion formed by the first shielding layer”, claim 13 depends on claim 12 which did not require a semi-shielding portion formed by the first shielding layer and a semi-shielding portion formed by the second shielding layer (note the alternative “or” language of claim 12). As such, is claim 13 now requiring both a semi-shielding portion formed by the first shielding layer having the required limitations claimed and a semi-shielding portion formed by the second shielding layer having the required limitations claimed or is this merely conditional wherein if the prior art teaches the semi-shielding portion formed by the first shielding layer alternative from claim 12, then it must have the limitations of claim 13 and if the prior art teaches the semi-shielding portion formed by the second shielding layer alternative from claim 12, then it must have the limitations of claim 13. The scope is simply not clear and will be considered conditional until the scope is clarified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights