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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 8 is illegible. 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 Objections
Claims 1-3 and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claims 1-3 – “formed in directly contact” is presumed to be intended as “formed in direct contact” or “formed directly contacting”.
b. Claims 16-17 – “a transmittance variable optical laminate” is presumed to be intended as “the transmittance variable optical laminate”.
c. Claims 18-19 – “a smart window” is presumed to be intended as “the smart window”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 11, and claims 2-3 – “the/each polarizing plate”, as two polarizing plates have been recited
Claim 10 – “the thicknesses”
Claim 14 – “the area”
Claim 3 recites “wherein each transparent conductive layer formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate is formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate with a highly adhesive layer between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer.” This limitation appears contradictory and unclear as to whether each respective transparent conductive layer is formed in direct contact with each respective polarizing plate, or a highly adhesive layer is between each respective polarizing plate and each respective transparent conductive layer. For examination purposes, the limitation will be considered as the former case, which corresponds with the limitations in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends.
Claims 4-9, 11-13 and 15-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2004/0100598) in view of Tamir et al. (US 2010/0177255).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi discloses a transmittance variable optical laminate (Figs. 1-43) comprising:
a first polarizing plate (500) including a first transmission axis (Figs. 1-2, 9);
a second polarizing plate (300) including a second transmission axis (Figs. 1-2, 9);
a first transparent conductive layer (403) provided on one surface of the first polarizing plate (500);
a second transparent conductive layer (406) provided on one surface of the second polarizing plate (300); and
a liquid crystal layer (407) provided between the first transparent conductive layer (403) and the second transparent conductive layer (406),
wherein the liquid crystal layer (407) is driven in a twisted nematic mode (Figs. 1-2; para. [0070]), and
a cross angle of the first transmission axis and the second transmission axis is less than or equal to 50° (Figs. 1-2; para. [0090]).
Adachi fails to explicitly disclose at least one of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer is formed in directly contact with the polarizing plate.
However, Tamir discloses a transmittance variable optical laminate (Figs. 1-10), wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer (102) and the second transparent conductive layer (106) is formed in directly contact with the polarizing plate (101, 107) (Fig. 1; para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer is formed in directly contact with the polarizing plate, as in Tamir, into the transmittance variable optical laminate of Adachi to form a thin, flexible optical film as desired.
Regarding claims 2-3, Adachi fails to explicitly disclose wherein each transparent conductive layer formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate is formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate without a separate substrate between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer, and with a highly adhesive layer between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer (note rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
However, Tamir discloses wherein each transparent conductive layer (102, 106) formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate (101, 107) is formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate without a separate substrate between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer (Fig. 1; para. [0074]), and with a highly adhesive layer between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein each transparent conductive layer formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate is formed in directly contact with each polarizing plate without a separate substrate between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer, and with a highly adhesive layer between each polarizing plate and each transparent conductive layer, as in Tamir, into the transmittance variable optical laminate of Adachi to form a thin, flexible optical film as desired.
Regarding claim 4, Adachi discloses wherein total light transmittance in a light blocking mode is 10% to 30% (paras. [0230, 0326]).
Regarding claim 5, Adachi discloses wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate (500) and the second polarizing plate (300) comprises a polarizer (500) and at least one or more protective layers (500p, Fig. 41) (paras. [0154, 0347]).
Regarding claim 6, Adachi discloses wherein the protective layer is a protective film (500p) or an optical functional film (paras. [0154, 0347]).
Regarding claim 7, Adachi discloses wherein the optical functional film (901, Fig. 43) is a retardation film (para. [0353-0354]).
Regarding claim 8, Adachi fails to explicitly disclose wherein a value of in-plane phase difference of the retardation film is less than or equal to 100 nm.
However, the in-plane phase difference value is a result-effective variable which achieves a recognized result (paras. [0353-0354]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate a value of in-plane phase difference of the retardation film less than or equal to 100 nm to enhance light transmission in the transmission mode. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recited value range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Adachi discloses wherein the protective film (500p) comprises one or more kinds selected from a group consisting of polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene isophthalate, polyethylene naphthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, diacetyl cellulose, triacetyl cellulose, polycarbonate, polyethylene, polypropylene, polymethyl acrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethyl acrylate), polyethyl methacrylate, and cyclic olefin polymer (paras. [0132, 0154, 0347]).
Regarding claim 10, Adachi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate have the thicknesses of 30 μm to 200 μm.
However, the thickness is a result-effective variable which achieves a recognized result (paras. [0196-0197]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate having thicknesses of 30 μm to 200 μm to contribute to a thin-film design. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thickness range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Adachi discloses wherein the first transparent conductive layer (403) and the second transparent conductive layer (406) comprise one or more kinds selected from a group consisting of transparent conductive oxide, metal, carbonaceous matters, conductive polymers, conductive ink, and nanowires (para. [0146]).
Regarding claim 12, Adachi discloses wherein the liquid crystal layer (407) comprises one or more kinds selected from a group consisting of a ball spacer and a column spacer (para. [0147]).
Regarding claim 13, Adachi discloses wherein the ball spacer has a diameter of 1 μm to 10 μm (paras. [0204, 0264, 0272]; as deduced from thickness of liquid crystal layer).
Regarding claim 14, Adachi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ball spacer has an occupancy area in the liquid crystal layer of 0.01% to 10% of the area of the liquid crystal layer.
However, the occupancy area is a result-effective variable which achieves a recognized result (para. [0147]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the ball spacer having an occupancy area in the liquid crystal layer of 0.01% to 10% of the area of the liquid crystal layer to maintain a uniform cell gap while not obstructing light transmission. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the occupancy area range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Adachi discloses a refractive index-matching layer having a refractive index (para. [0208]).
Adachi fails to explicitly disclose the refractive index-matching layer having a refractive index of 1.4 to 2.6.
However, the refractive index range is a result-effective variable which achieves a recognized result (para. [0208]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the refractive index-matching layer having a refractive index of 1.4 to 2.6 to suppress unwanted glare. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the refractive index range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Adachi discloses a manufacturing method of a transmittance variable optical laminate of claim 1 (Figs. 1-43).
Regarding claims 17-19, Adachi fails to explicitly disclose a smart window comprising a transmittance variable optical laminate of claim 1, a vehicle in which a smart window of claim 17 is applied to at least one of a front window, a rear window, a side window, a sunroof window, and an inner partition thereof, and a window and a door for a building, the window and the door comprising a smart window of claim 17.
However, Tamir discloses a smart window (paras. [0082-0083]) comprising a transmittance variable optical laminate (Figs. 1-10) of claim 1, a vehicle (para. [0083]) in which a smart window of claim 17 is applied to at least one of a front window, a rear window, a side window, a sunroof window, and an inner partition thereof, and a window and a door for a building (para. [0098]), the window and the door comprising a smart window of claim 17.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a smart window comprising a transmittance variable optical laminate of claim 1, a vehicle in which a smart window of claim 17 is applied to at least one of a front window, a rear window, a side window, a sunroof window, and an inner partition thereof, and a window and a door for a building, the window and the door comprising a smart window of claim 17, as in Tamir, using the transmittance variable optical laminate of Adachi, to provide an application for sun blocking and privacy maintaining as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871