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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 7-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 1, 7-8, 11-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 206282057) in view of Osawa et al. (US 2018/0031933).
Regarding claim 1, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses a switchable film, sequentially comprising:
a first substrate (12);
a first conductive layer (22);
a switchable material layer (PDLC 3);
a second conductive layer (21); and
a second substrate (11), wherein
the first substrate (12) includes a first cut out portion (102) wherein the first cut out portion aligns entirely with the second substrate (11; figure 2); wherein
a first busbar (flexible flat cable 20; figure 3) is formed on the first conductive layer on the first substrate and a second busbar (flexible flat cable 20; figure 3) is formed on the second conductive layer on the second substrate within the first cut out portion of the first substrate (The flat cable bonding areas 221, 211 are exposed and the flexible flat cable 20 of an external flexible printed circuit (FPC) can be electrically connected so that the polymer dispersed liquid crystal composite layer 10 can be made flexible by the FPC The cable 20 is electrically connected to an external driving circuit so that the external driving circuit can drive the driving power through the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 to drive the PDLC layer 3; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph), and wherein
a first barrier (encapsulation layer 4; see at least page 4, the last two paragraphs) is positioned around the first cut out portion of the first substrate (figure 3).
Liu et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein the first cut out portion is disposed entirely within an interior of the first substrate and aligns entirely with the second substrate. Osawa et al. (figures 1-6) teaches wherein the first cut out portion is disposed entirely within an interior of the first substrate and aligns entirely with the second substrate (V1 and SUB2; see at least paragraph 0041). Therefore, 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 substrates as taught by Osawa et al. in order to manufacture a display device whose width of the frame can be reduced, and which can lower the cost can be provided.
Regarding claim 7, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the switchable material layer is a liquid crystal material (PDLC 3; see at least page 5, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the switchable material layer is a polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC 3; see at least page 5, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the first barrier is a tape (The encapsulation layer 4 is a colloid, and UV glue is applied to the periphery or the periphery of the PDLC layer 3 between the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 in a syringe-filled manner with UV glue, and is applied to the transparent substrate and then the so-called encapsulation layer 4 is formed by heating and hardening; see at least page 4, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the first barrier is a resin (The encapsulation layer 4 is a colloid, and UV glue is applied to the periphery or the periphery of the PDLC layer 3 between the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 in a syringe-filled manner with UV glue, and is applied to the transparent substrate and then the so-called encapsulation layer 4 is formed by heating and hardening; see at least page 4, last paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the resin is a cured product of a multiple component material (The encapsulation layer 4 is a colloid, and UV glue is applied to the periphery or the periphery of the PDLC layer 3 between the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 in a syringe-filled manner with UV glue, and is applied to the transparent substrate and then the so-called encapsulation layer 4 is formed by heating and hardening; see at least page 4, last paragraph).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 14, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the resin is a cured product of an ultraviolet curable material or a thermally curable material (The encapsulation layer 4 is a colloid, and UV glue is applied to the periphery or the periphery of the PDLC layer 3 between the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 in a syringe-filled manner with UV glue, and is applied to the transparent substrate and then the so-called encapsulation layer 4 is formed by heating and hardening; see at least page 4, last paragraph).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 15, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the resin is a solidified thermoplastic material (The encapsulation layer 4 is a colloid, and UV glue is applied to the periphery or the periphery of the PDLC layer 3 between the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 in a syringe-filled manner with UV glue, and is applied to the transparent substrate and then the so-called encapsulation layer 4 is formed by heating and hardening; see at least page 4, last paragraph).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 16, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the first busbar and the second busbar are aligned along the same edge of the switchable film (3 and 20; figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein the first busbar and the second busbar run parallel to each other (20; figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses a first connector attached to the first busbar and a second connector attached to the second busbar (portions of 20; figure 3).
Regarding claim 20, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses laminated glazing comprising:
a first glass sheet (40; see at least page 4, 9th paragraph);
a first adhesive interlayer (PVB 50; figure 6; see at least page 5, last paragraph);
a switchable film comprising
a first substrate (12);
a first conductive layer (22);
a switchable material layer (PDLC 3);
a second conductive layer (21); and
a second substrate (11), wherein
the first substrate (12) includes a first cut out portion (102) wherein the first cut out portion aligns entirely with the second substrate (11; figure 2); wherein
a first busbar (flexible flat cable 20; figure 3) is formed on the first conductive layer on the first substrate and a second busbar (flexible flat cable 20; figure 3) is formed on the second conductive layer on the second substrate within the first cut out portion of the first substrate (The flat cable bonding areas 221, 211 are exposed and the flexible flat cable 20 of an external flexible printed circuit (FPC) can be electrically connected so that the polymer dispersed liquid crystal composite layer 10 can be made flexible by the FPC The cable 20 is electrically connected to an external driving circuit so that the external driving circuit can drive the driving power through the upper transparent conductive layer 21 and the lower transparent conductive layer 22 to drive the PDLC layer 3; see at least page 5, 4th paragraph), and wherein
a first barrier (encapsulation layer 4; see at least page 4, the last two paragraphs) is positioned around the first cut out portion of the first substrate (figure 3).
a second adhesive interlayer (PBV 50; figure 6; see at least page 5, last paragraph); and
a second glass sheet (30; see at least page 4, 9th paragraph).
Liu et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein the first cut out portion is disposed entirely within an interior of the first substrate and aligns entirely with the second substrate. Osawa et al. (figures 1-6) teaches wherein the first cut out portion is disposed entirely within an interior of the first substrate and aligns entirely with the second substrate (V1 and SUB2; see at least paragraph 0041). Therefore, 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 substrates as taught by Osawa et al. in order to manufacture a display device whose width of the frame can be reduced, and which can lower the cost can be provided.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 206282057) in view of Osawa et al.; further in view of Kurokawa et al. (US 2019/0079323).
Regarding claim 2, Liu et al. (figures 1-6) discloses wherein a second barrier is positioned around the second substrate and the switchable material layer (encapsulation layer 4; see at least page 4, the last two paragraphs). However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein the second substrate is smaller than the first substrate such that the first substrate extends beyond the second substrate along an entire edge of the second substrate. Kurokawa et al. (figure 2) teaches wherein the second substrate is smaller than the first substrate such that the first substrate extends beyond the second substrate along an entire edge of the second substrate (SUB1 and SUB2, figure 2). Therefore, 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 substrates as taught by Kurokawa et al. in order to suppress degradation in display quality.
Claims 9, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 206282057) in view of Osawa et al.; further in view of Klein et al. (US 2021/0268774).
Regarding claim 9, Liu et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding the first busbar the second busbar each have a width in the range of 4 mm to 8 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the widths of the first busbar the second busbar to be in the range of 4 mm to 8 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Liu et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein the first barrier has a width of from 2 mm to 8 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width of the first barrier to be from 2 mm to 8 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Liu et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Liu et al. is silent regarding wherein the first cut out portion of the first substrate has a width of from 10 mm to 15 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the width the first cut out portion of the first substrate to be from 10 mm to 15 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lauren Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights