DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2023 and 06/06/2025 was filed and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “[a] detector” “surface charge-controlled layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Telfer et al., US 2023/0004061 A1.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Telfer et al. figures 1, 4 and accompanying text which discloses system comprising:
. a first layer 150
. a second layer 160
. a plurality of capsules 126
. wherein the plurality of capsules comprise a functional additive 121/122
. the functional additive is switchable to a first state and a second state (bistable display, [0054]).
Re claims 2 and 16, wherein the functional additive comprises a negatively charged component and a positively charged component ([0052]).
Re claims 3-4, wherein the functional additive absorbs light in a visible wavelength bandwidth (electrophoretic display property, [0062]).
Re claim 6, wherein the functional additive comprises one or more pigments ([0055]).
Re claim 7, wherein the functional additive comprises a colorant (Abstract, [0055]).
Re claims 8-9, wherein the first layer and the second layer are transparent in a wavelength range of from about 380 nm to about 700 nm (visible wavelength range)([0053]).
Re claim 10, wherein a surface charge-controlled layer 110/130 in proximity to the first layer or the second layer.
Re claims 11-13, wherein a first state comprises transparency in a first visible wavelength bandwidth and a second state comprises absorbance in a second visible wavelength bandwidth ([0010]-[0011]).
Re claim 15, wherein a carrier layer 120 disposed between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the carrier layer comprises the plurality of capsules and permits free movement of each of the plurality of capsules (fig 1).
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.
Claims 5, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al., US 2023/0004061 A1.
Re claim 5, Telfer et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the functional additive comprises a plurality of quantum dots. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ the Telfer et al. functional additive with a plurality of quantum dots since it would be considered equally well alternative for the electrophoresis particle (e.g., functional additive).
Re claim 14, Telfer et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a size of each of the capsule from about 15 to about 100 microns. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ the Telfer et al. capsule size in the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art
Re claim 17, Telfer et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a gap between the first layer and the second layer is from about 80 microns to about 150 microns. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ the Telfer et al. cell gap in the claimed range, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art
Re claims 18-19, Telfer et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for application in an eyewear and/or in an aerospace vehicle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Telfer et al. device/system in an eyewear and/or in an aerospace vehicle, since it was known in the art to obtain an electrophoresis advantages (e.g., adaptive, visual comfort, fast switching optical states).
Re claim 20, Telfer et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for a detector capable of detecting a target wavelength bandwidth that connecting to the first/second layer and the surface charge-controlled layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a detector as a sensor over the Telfer et al. device, since it is a known practice in the art for automatic controlling purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al., US 7,009,665, disclose a detector 5 over an electro-optical device (e.g., window) for sensing purposes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights