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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/24/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/24/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups share a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because as described in the requirement for restriction of 5/4/26 and in the rejection of claim 1, below, the shared technical feature of the two groups of claims, when considered as a whole (i.e., upon examination of each of the elements of the claims) is known in the prior art and thus does not constitute a special technical feature. As described below, Mannheim Astete in view of Winstanley teach the shared feature of a curved laminated glazing.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-7 include numerals enclosed by parentheses. While it is believed that these numerals refer to the figures of the present application consistent with MPEP 608.01(m), it is not entirely clear from the language of the claims what these numerals are referring to because the numerals are not applied consistently through the claims. For example, claim 1 recites a “functional film (13)” and claim 3 recites the “functional film” with no corresponding numeral (claim 3, line 2). It is therefore not apparent that the numerals are intended to be part of the names of the elements themselves.
Claim 1 includes elements not separated by a line indentation. Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (US 2021/0138767, “Mannheim Astete”) in view of Winstanley et al. (US 2021/0114354, “Winstanley”).
Regarding claim 1, Mannheim Astete teaches an automotive curved laminated glazing comprising at least: a first glass sheet (e.g.,. Fig. 3, layer 201, [0021]) having an outer and an inner faces, an electrically powered functional film (Fig. 3, liquid crystal layer 16, [0023]), a second glass sheet (e.g., Fig. 3, layer 203, [0023]) having an outer and an inner faces, at least one optical coupling material (Fig. 3, layer 12, [0023] – [0025]) being a layer of polymer that is polymerized or cured from a liquid resin and provided between the said functional film and the at least first and/or the second glass sheets (Fig. 3, layer 12, [0023] – [0025]). While Mannheim Astete teaches that the glazing may be curved ([0031]), it is silent as to the degree of curving. However, in the same field of endeavor of curved automotive glazings (e.g., [0006]), Winstanley teaches that an appropriate amount of curvature for a curved automotive glazing is between 1000 and 8000 mm ([0189] and thus the ordinarily skilled artisan would have adopted such a conventional radius of curvature for the glazing of Mannheim Astete in order to effectively use such a glazing in an automobile (Winstanley, e.g., [0189], [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Mannheim Astete additionally teaches that the adhesive may aid in maintaining a distance between the liquid crystal layer and the lower glass sheet layer (see Fig. 3, lower glass layer 103 and liquid crystalline layer 16 wherein adhesive layer 12 fills a gap between these layers, see also [0023]).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mannheim Astete additionally teaches that the functional layer may be a switchable liquid crystalline film layer (thus containing liquid crystal material, [0023]).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Mannheim Astete additionally teaches that the liquid resin may be, among others, an acrylic resin ([0025]) and may be UV curable ([0025]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete in view of Winstanley as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Gahagan et al. (US 2018/0215125, “Gahagan”).
Regarding claim 5, Mannheim Astete fails to specifically teach that the glazing includes or is used in combination with an active-matrix light emitting diode (i.e., an OLED display). However, the application of a switchable glazing to such a display device is well known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of switchable glasses (e.g., [0005], [0006]), Gahagan teaches to apply a switchable glazing to an OLED type display so as to provide an image to a viewer and then to suitably modulate or enhance the image (e.g., the contrast of the image, see [0005], [0006], [0025], [0026], [0035]). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have applied a switchable glazing to an OLED type display so as to provide an image to a viewer and then to have suitably modulated or enhanced the image (e.g., the contrast of the image, see [0005], [0006], [0025], [0026], [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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 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.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights