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 filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the "cold bent" curved glass substrate (140) of Boggs does not undergo a permanent shape change and returns to its original flat shape upon removal of the applied mechanical stress, such as vacuum. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses a method of making an optical device as claimed including conformally adhering the shaped flexible liquid crystal film structure to the multicurved surface to create a lamination-formed liquid crystal film structure, wherein the adhesive comprises a pressure-activated adhesive and applying pressure causes the adhering (the method of one or more embodiments includes laminating an adhesive to the first major surface 142 of the glass substrate 140 before laminating the display module to the first major surface such that the adhesive is disposed between the first major surface and the display module; see at least paragraphs 0101, 0119, 0125-0126). In addition, Boggs discloses a curved vehicle display including a display module having a display surface, a curved glass substrate disposed on the display surface having a first major surface (see at least abstract). The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 28 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 § 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.
Claim 57 is 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. The specific limitation “wherein the gap across an active area of the liquid crystal film structure is maintained within 20% of an average gap measured over the active area” as presented in claim 57 appears to be unclear. The examiner is not sure what the difference between the gap across the active area and the average gap over the active area. Appropriate correction is required.
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 28, 30, 32-33, 44, 46-47, 50-53, 55-60, 63-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al. (US 2018/0188870) in view of Miller et al. (US 2007/0209393).
Regarding claim 28, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses a method of making an optical device, the method comprising:
providing a low-flexibility carrier having a multicurved surface (1110);
providing a flexible liquid crystal film structure (140, 142, 144) comprising:
a first flexible substrate; and
a second flexible substrate spaced apart from the first flexible substrate to form a gap designed to contain an electro-optic material,
wherein an outer surface of the first flexible substrate corresponds to a first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure and an outer surface of the second flexible substrate corresponds to a second surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure;
applying an adhesive (2050; see at least paragraph 0148) to i) the multicurved surface, ii) the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure, or iii) both (i) and (ii);
aligning the carrier to the flexible liquid crystal film structure;
applying pressure between the multicurved surface and the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure to shape the flexible liquid crystal film structure in accordance with the multicurved surface of the carrier (see at least paragraph 0119); and
conformally adhering the shaped flexible liquid crystal film structure to the multicurved surface to create a lamination-formed liquid crystal film structure, wherein the adhesive comprises a pressure-activated adhesive and applying pressure causes the adhering (the method of one or more embodiments includes laminating an adhesive to the first major surface 142 of the glass substrate 140 before laminating the display module to the first major surface such that the adhesive is disposed between the first major surface and the display module; see at least paragraphs 0101, 0119, 0125-0126).
Boggs et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 28 above. However, Boggs et al. is silent regarding wherein the first substrate and the second substrate comprise a flexible polymeric material. Miller et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the first substrate and the second substrate comprise a flexible polymeric material (at least one cell having opposed flexible substrates and the substrates 12 are substantially flat sheets of thermoplastic polymer; see at least abstract and paragraph 0044). Given the teachings of Smith, 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 substrate as taught by Miller et al. in order to substantially retain the curved shape of the cell when the heat and the mold surface are removed.
Regarding claim 30, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the adhesive comprises a curable adhesive and the adhering further comprises a curing step (see at least paragraph 0142).
Regarding claim 32, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the curable adhesive is in the form of a fluid or gel (see at least paragraph 0135).
Regarding claim 33, Boggs et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 28 above. However, Boggs et al. is silent regarding wherein the steps of applying pressure and conformally adhering are performed at a temperature of 60° C. or less. Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) teaches wherein the steps of applying pressure and conformally adhering are performed at a temperature of 60° C. or less (see at least paragraph 0142). 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 method as taught by Boggs et al. in order to reduce the manufacturing cost and prevent optical distortion and/or surface marking occurring during curving.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 44, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the electro-optic material is provided into the gap and enclosed by a border seal prior to applying pressure between the multicurved surface and the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure (see at least claim 20).
Regarding claim 46, Boggs et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 28 above. However, Boggs et al. is silent regarding wherein applying pressure between the multicurved surface and the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure is conducted in an environment having a gas pressure of less than 100 Torr. Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) teaches wherein applying pressure between the multicurved surface and the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure is conducted in an environment having a gas pressure of less than 100 Torr (.5 and 1.5 atmospheres of pressure (atm); see at least paragraph 01343). 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 method as taught by Boggs et al. in order to reduce the manufacturing cost and prevent optical distortion and/or surface marking occurring during curving.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 47, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein aligning the carrier to the flexible liquid crystal film structure further comprises contacting the adhesive, the multicurved surface and the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure at one end of the carrier (figures 10-11).
Regarding claim 50, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the curing step comprises exposure to UV radiation (he adhesive is a UV-curable adhesive, UV light is applied to cure the adhesive; see at least paragraph 0135).
Regarding claim 52, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein more pressure is applied to an outer area of the flexible liquid crystal film structure area than a central area (the air pressure differential is formed by generating increased air pressure around the glass substrate and the frame with an overpressure device; see at least paragraph 0126).
Regarding claim 53, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the carrier comprises a window, a windshield, a cockpit, a display, a heads-up display, a sunroof, a mirror, a headset for augmented reality or virtual reality, goggles, a visor, a lens, glasses, or sunglasses (the vehicle interior system may include a base that is an arm rest, a pillar, a seat back, a floor board, a headrest, a door panel, or any portion of the interior of a vehicle that includes a curved surface; see at least paragraph 0037).
Regarding claim 55, Boggs et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the electro-optic material contains less than 10 % by weight of polymeric material. 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 electro-optic material contained less than 10 % by weight of polymeric material, 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 56, Miller et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the liquid crystal film structure further comprises unpatterned spacers provided between the first and second flexible substrates (see at least paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 57, Boggs et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the gap across an active area of the liquid crystal film structure is maintained within 20% of an average gap measured over the active area. 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 gap across an active area of the liquid crystal film structure being maintained within 20% of an average gap measured over the active area, 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 58, Miller et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein at least one substrate comprises polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, polyvinyl acetate, or a cyclic olefin polymer (Two coated thermoplastic polycarbonate substrates 12 (for example, HA120-B60 from N.I. Teijin Shoji Co., Ltd.) having a diameter of about two inches with electrodes 14 are coated with an alignment layer material solution; see at least paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 59, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the first substrate is different than the second substrate with respect to chemical composition or thickness (the second glass substrate may have a thickness greater than the thickness of the glass substrate; see at least paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 60, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein at least the first substrate has an average thickness in a range of 75 µm to 300 µm (the second glass substrate has a thickness in a range from about 0.1 mm to about 1.5 mm; see at least paragraph 0102).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 63, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the adhesive has an average thickness in a range of 25 µm to 100 µm (the adhesive may have a thickness of about 1 mm or less; see at least paragraph 0109).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 64, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein a ratio of the average thickness of the liquid crystal film structure relative to the average thickness of the adhesive is less than 10 (the second glass substrate has a thickness in a range from about 0.1 mm to about 1.5 mm and the adhesive may have a thickness of about 1 mm or less; see at least paragraphs 0102 and 0109).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 65, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein the multicurved surface is characterized by:i) a first curvature having a first height H1 and a first length L1 measured along a first direction, wherein a first curvature ratio C1=H1/L1; andii) a second curvature having a second height H2 and second length L2 measured along a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, wherein a second curvature ratio C2= H2/L2,wherein both C1 and C2 are greater than zero, and at least one of C1 and C2 is less than 0.5 (the display module has a second radius of curvature that is within 10% of the first radius of curvature; see at least paragraph 0118).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 66, Boggs et al. discloses wherein multicurved surface is characterized by: i) a first curvature curved to a first value of greater than 0 diopter; and ii) a second curvature orthogonal to the first curvature and curved to a second value of greater than 0 diopter, wherein at least one of the first value and second value is less than 8 diopter. 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 multicurved surface being characterized by: i) a first curvature curved to a first value of greater than 0 diopter; and ii) a second curvature orthogonal to the first curvature and curved to a second value of greater than 0 diopter,wherein at least one of the first value and second value is less than 8 diopter, 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 67, Boggs et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein at least one of the first value and second value is less than 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein at least one of the first value and second value being less than 4, 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 68, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses wherein an area of the multicurved surface is between 0 and 15% greater than a virtual area defined by projection of the multicurved surface onto a flat surface (wherein the display comprises a second glass substrate that is substantially flat and is cold-bendable to a second radius of curvature that is within 10% of the first radius of curvature; see at least paragraph 0247).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 69, Boggs et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a combined thickness of the adhesive and the liquid crystal film structure is less than 1% a maximum length of the carrier over which the liquid crystal film structure is provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a combined thickness of the adhesive and the liquid crystal film structure being less than 1% a maximum length of the carrier over which the liquid crystal film structure is provided, 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 51, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses
Regarding claim 51, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses
Regarding claim 51, Boggs et al. (figures 2, 9, 16-17) discloses
Claims 34-36, 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al. (US 2018/0188870) in view of Miller et al. (US 2007/0209393); further in view of Brennan et al. (US 2020/0398539).
Regarding claim 34, Boggs et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 33 above. However, Boggs et al. is silent regarding wherein applying pressure comprises contacting the carrier, the second surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure, or both, with one or more rollers (1790). Brennan et al. (figures 1-17) teaches wherein applying pressure comprises contacting the carrier, the second surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure, or both, with one or more rollers. 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 method as taught by Brennan et al. in order to easily integrate high quality coatings and surface treatments on a curved substrate surface.
Regarding claim 35, Brennan et al. (figures 1-17) teaches wherein at least one roller is a deformable roller (see at least paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 36, Brennan et al. (figures 1-17) teaches wherein at least one roller has a concave lateral shape that applies pressure to a convex portion of the multicurved surface, or wherein at least one roller has a convex lateral shape that applies pressure to a concave portion of the multicurved surface.
Regarding claim 51, Boggs et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pressure applied across the one or more rollers is within 50% of an average pressure applied. 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 pressure applied across the one or more rollers being within 50% of an average pressure applied, 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).
Claims 38, 45, 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al. in view of Miller et al. and Brennan et al.; further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2020/0055281).
Regarding claim 38, Boggs et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 34 above. However, Boggs et al. is silent regarding wherein at least one roller is heated to a temperature of least 30° C and at least 10° C lower than a Tg of either the first substrate or the second substrate. Yoon et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein at least one roller is heated to a temperature of least 30° C and at least 10° C lower than a Tg of either the first substrate or the second substrate (see at least paragraph 0044). 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 method as taught by Boggs et al. in order to reduce the manufacturing cost and prevent optical distortion and/or surface marking occurring during curving.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 45, Yoon et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the electro-optic material is provided into the gap and enclosed by a border seal after applying pressure between the multicurved surface and the first surface of the flexible liquid crystal film structure (see at least paragraph 0088).
Regarding claim 61, Yoon et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the liquid crystal film structure has an average thickness in a range of 150 µm to 750 µm (the lamination film may have a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1 mm; see at least paragraph 0037).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boggs et al. in view of Miller et al.; further in view of Lester et al. (US 2019/0308924).
Regarding claim 54, Boggs et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 28 above. However, Boggs et al. is silent regarding wherein the adhesive comprises a viscoelastic polymer and a tackifier. Lester et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein the adhesive comprises a viscoelastic polymer and a tackifier (see at least paragraph 0040). 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 adhesive layer as taught by Lester et al. in order achieve adhesive compositions and laminate articles coated on at least one side with the adhesive compositions.
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