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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in the current application.
Claim Interpretations
Claims 4, 5, 6, and 9 recite the term “a technical function.” The specification as originally filed defines this term at [0010], [0019], and [0036] as meaning a function such as infrared-absorbing, reflecting, protection against ultraviolet radiation, opacity control, light transmission control, heating control, infrared-reflecting, blocking ultraviolet rays, infrared protection, acoustic functions, antireflective functions, non-stick functions, scratch-resistant functions, photocatalytic functions, fingerprint-resistance, anti-fogging function, or coloring property function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mannheim Astete et al. (WO 2020/003252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mannheim Astete teaches a laminated vehicle glazing unit comprising a first glass substrate 201, a second glass substrate 203, a liquid crystal layer 14/16 (a functional film) disposed between the first 201 and second 203 glass substrates, a first plastic bonding layer 4 (a first lamination interlayer film) between the first glass substrate 201 and the functional film 14/16, and an optically clear adhesive 12 (a second lamination interlayer film) between the second glass substrate 203 and the functional film 14/16 (Mannheim Astete, Abstract, Pgs 4-8, Figs 4-6). Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 14/16 (functional film) comprises a transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 that may or may not be cured and fixes the liquid crystal layer 16 in place for lamination to the interface 104, where the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of a liquid optically clear adhesive cured by UV light, temperature, moisture, or chemical reaction of a curable polymer, silicone, acrylic, urethane, or sulfide resin (Mannheim Astete, Pgs 5-6, Fig 4). The specification as originally filed discloses transparent adhesive materials that are curable by UV irradiation and are formed of curable polymers that include silicone, acrylic, or polyurethane (Spec, [0026], [0047], [0048]). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01, I. Mannheim Astete’s transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of materials and formed by a process of UV curing that are identical or substantially identical to the materials and process disclosed within the specification as originally filed. Therefore, Mannheim Astete’s transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is considered to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness over the claimed property of being viscoelastic so as to be deformable in a thickness direction during lamination with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
282
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mannheim Astete - Figure 4
Regarding Claim 4, Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 18/4/202/14/16 (functional film) can include a performance layer 18 (a first flexible transparent substrate), the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 (a first OCA layer), and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substate) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6, Fig 6). The performance layer 18 exhibits a technical function such as being an infrared reflective film, and the liquid crystal layer 16 exhibits a technical function such as providing variable light transmission (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6). Mannheim Astete teaches the entirety of the vehicle glazing unit is curved and bent, therefore, each component of the vehicle glazing unit including the performance layer 18 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are capable of being curved and bent (Mannheim Astete, Pg 7). In view of the foregoing, the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substrate) are considered to be flexible to achieve the curved and bent structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mannheim Astete – Figure 6
Regarding Claim 5, Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 18/4/202/14/16 (functional film) can include a performance layer 18 (a first flexible transparent substrate), the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 (a first OCA layer), the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substate), a plastic bonding layer 4 (a second OCA layer), and an intermediate glass layer 202 (a third flexible transparent substrate) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6, Fig 6). The performance layer 18 exhibits a technical function such as being an infrared reflective film, and the liquid crystal layer 16 exhibits a technical function such as providing variable light transmission (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6). Mannheim Astete teaches the entirety of the vehicle glazing unit is curved and bent, therefore, each component of the vehicle glazing unit including the performance layer 18 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are capable of being curved and bent (Mannheim Astete, Pg 7). In view of the foregoing, the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substrate) are considered to be flexible to achieve the curved and bent structure.
Regarding Claim 6, Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 18/4/202/14/16 (functional film) includes the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substate), where the liquid crystal layer 16 exhibits a technical function such as providing variable light transmission (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Mannheim Astete teaches the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) exhibits a technical function such as being an infrared reflective film (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Mannheim Astete teaches the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of a liquid optically clear adhesive cured by UV light, temperature, moisture, or chemical reaction of a curable polymer (i.e., forms a polymerized film) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 5, Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 13, Mannheim Astete teaches the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of a liquid optically clear adhesive cured by UV light, temperature, moisture, or chemical reaction of a curable polymer, silicone, acrylic, or urethane resin (Mannheim Astete, Pg 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Mannheim Astete teaches the entirety of the vehicle glazing unit is curved and bent, therefore, each component of the vehicle glazing unit including the performance layer 18 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are capable of being curved and bent (Mannheim Astete, Pg 7). In view of the foregoing, the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substrate) are considered to be flexible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (WO 2020/003252 A1) in view of Onishi et al. (US 2018/0354229 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Mannheim Astete teaches a laminated vehicle glazing unit comprising a first glass substrate 201, a second glass substrate 203, a liquid crystal layer 14/16 (a functional film) disposed between the first 201 and second 203 glass substrates, a first plastic bonding layer 4 (a first lamination interlayer film) between the first glass substrate 201 and the functional film 14/16, and an optically clear adhesive 12 (a second lamination interlayer film) between the second glass substrate 203 and the functional film 14/16 (Mannheim Astete, Abstract, Pgs 4-8, Figs 4-6). Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 14/16 (functional film) comprises a transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 that may or may not be cured and fixes the liquid crystal layer 16 in place for lamination to the interface 104, where the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of a liquid optically clear adhesive cured by UV light, temperature, moisture, or chemical reaction of a curable polymer, silicone, acrylic, urethane, or sulfide resin (Mannheim Astete, Pgs 5-6, Fig 4). The specification as originally filed discloses transparent adhesive materials that are curable by UV irradiation and are formed of curable polymers that include silicone, acrylic, or polyurethane (Spec, [0026], [0047], [0048]). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01, I. Mannheim Astete’s transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of materials and formed by a process of UV curing that are identical or substantially identical to the materials and process disclosed within the specification as originally filed. Therefore, Mannheim Astete’s transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is considered to establish a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness over the claimed property of being viscoelastic so as to be deformable in a thickness direction during lamination with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
282
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mannheim Astete - Figure 4
Mannheim Astete remains silent regarding explicitly disclosing a transparent adhesive material that is viscoelastic so as to be deformable in its thickness direction.
Onishi, however, teaches an optically clear adhesive sheet for use in a laminated article such as a display device (Onishi, Abstract, [0001], [0008]-[0010]). Onishi teaches the optically clear adhesive sheet is made from a polyurethane composition that has excellent flexibility, is capable of providing a thick film, achieves a stable and lasting bonding interface, reduces bubble generation, has a viscoelastic index characterization that is very close to a gel to deform accordingly to the shape of an adhered optical member and conform to uneven surfaces (Onishi, [0011]-[0012], [0020], [0025]-[0026], [0029]).
Since Mannheim Astete and Onishi both disclose optically clear adhesive materials for laminated articles and Mannheim Astete discloses curable polyurethane-type adhesive materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Onishi’s polyurethane-based optically clear adhesive to form Mannheim’s Astete transparent optically clear adhesive layers to yield a laminated article that exhibits excellent flexibility, a stable and lasting bonding interface, reduced bubble generation, a viscoelastic index characterization that is very close to a gel to deform accordingly to the shape of an adhered optical member and conform to uneven surface as taught by Onishi (Onishi, Abstract, [0011], [0020], [0025]-[0026], [0029]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the optically clear adhesive sheet has a viscoelastic index characterization that is very close to a gel to deform accordingly to the shape of an adhered optical member and conform to uneven surfaces (Onishi, [0026], [0029]). Modified Mannheim Astete teaches the optically clear adhesive sheet has a micro rubber hardness type A within the range of 0.1o to 25o (Onishi, [0029]). Although modified Mannheim Astete measures hardness on a different micro rubber hardness type A scale than the claimed Shore000 scale, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that these hardnesses are substantially similar, because both achieve substantially similar viscoelastic characteristics that deform accordingly to the shape of an adhered optical member and conform to uneven surfaces. If modified Mannheim Astete’s adhesives were measured on the same Shore000 scale as the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect modified Mannheim Astete’s hardness values to be substantially similar to the claimed ranges where any differences would be minor and obvious. Therefore, modified Mannheim Astete’s hardness values are considered to render obvious the claimed ranges with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143, MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the optically clear adhesive sheet has a thickness of 50 to 2000 μm (0.05 to 2.0 mm) (Onishi, [0027]). Modified Mannheim Astete’s thickness range overlaps the claimed range of greater than 0.5 mm, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 18/4/202/14/16 (functional film) can include a performance layer 18 (a first flexible transparent substrate), the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 (a first OCA layer), and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substate) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6, Fig 6). The performance layer 18 exhibits a technical function such as being an infrared reflective film, and the liquid crystal layer 16 exhibits a technical function such as providing variable light transmission (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6). Mannheim Astete teaches the entirety of the vehicle glazing unit is curved and bent, therefore, each component of the vehicle glazing unit including the performance layer 18 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are capable of being curved and bent (Mannheim Astete, Pg 7). In view of the foregoing, the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substrate) are considered to be flexible to achieve the curved and bent structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mannheim Astete – Figure 6
Regarding Claim 5, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 18/4/202/14/16 (functional film) can include a performance layer 18 (a first flexible transparent substrate), the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 (a first OCA layer), the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substate), a plastic bonding layer 4 (a second OCA layer), and an intermediate glass layer 202 (a third flexible transparent substrate) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6, Fig 6). The performance layer 18 exhibits a technical function such as being an infrared reflective film, and the liquid crystal layer 16 exhibits a technical function such as providing variable light transmission (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6). Mannheim Astete teaches the entirety of the vehicle glazing unit is curved and bent, therefore, each component of the vehicle glazing unit including the performance layer 18 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are capable of being curved and bent (Mannheim Astete, Pg 7). In view of the foregoing, the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substrate) are considered to be flexible to achieve the curved and bent structure.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 18/4/202/14/16 (functional film) includes the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substate), where the liquid crystal layer 16 exhibits a technical function such as providing variable light transmission (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) exhibits a technical function such as being an infrared reflective film (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the optically clear adhesive composition is deposited in a semi-crosslinked/semi-cured liquid form and then crosslinked to form the optically clear adhesive sheet (Onishi, [0081]-[0082], [0093]).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of a liquid optically clear adhesive cured by UV light, temperature, moisture, or chemical reaction of a curable polymer (i.e., forms a polymerized film) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 5, Fig 4).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the optically clear adhesive composition is deposited in a semi-crosslinked/semi-cured liquid form and then crosslinked to form the cured optically clear adhesive sheet (i.e. in a crosslinked post-adhesive film) (Onishi, [0081]-[0082], [0093]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the transparent optically clear adhesive layer 14 is formed of a liquid optically clear adhesive cured by UV light, temperature, moisture, or chemical reaction of a curable polymer, silicone, acrylic, or urethane resin (Mannheim Astete, Pg 5).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the entirety of the vehicle glazing unit is curved and bent, therefore, each component of the vehicle glazing unit including the performance layer 18 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are capable of being curved and bent (Mannheim Astete, Pg 7). In view of the foregoing, the performance layer 18 (first flexible transparent substrate) and the liquid crystal layer 16 (second flexible transparent substrate) are considered to be flexible.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (WO 2020/003252 A1) in view of Onishi et al. (US 2018/0354229 A1) as applied to claims 1, 4, and 6 above, and further in view of Li (US 2020/0409208 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, modified Mannheim Astete teaches the laminated vehicle glazing unit as discussed above for claims 1, 4, and 6. Modified Mannheim Astete teaches the liquid crystal layer 16 comprises liquid crystals encapsulated between two substrates (i.e. a liquid crystal cell) (Mannheim Astete, Pg 6).
Modified Mannheim Astete remains silent regarding a liquid crystal cell being a “guest-host” cell containing a mixture of a liquid solution and liquid crystals.
Li, however, teaches a liquid crystal cell for use in a laminated optical article (Li, Abstract, [0015]-[0016], [0056], [0065]-[0067]). Li teaches the liquid crystal cell comprises a guest-host liquid crystal comprising liquid crystal molecules and dye molecules (Li, [0080]-[0090]). Li also teaches polymer dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) cells are available, but exhibit higher haze and slower response times, and therefore, are not suitable for all applications (Li, [0074], [0080]).
Since Mannheim Astete and Li both disclose glazing laminates formed with liquid crystals encapsulated between two substrates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Li’s liquid crystal cells (such as the guest-host cell required by claim 7 or the PDLC cell as required by claim 8) as Mannheim’s Astete liquid crystal layer 16 to yield a laminated glazing article that exhibits good light blocking properties, desirable haze, improved visibility across a range of light transmittance, and fast response characteristics as taught by Li (Li, [0080]-[0090]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 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 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights