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 .
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 5-6, 9 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the average pore size” lacks proper antecedent basis, since the pore size isn’t introduced until claim 4. For this reason, claim 5 is interpreted to depend on claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “color neutral” is ambiguous as to the metes and bounds of the claims. It is not apparent what it is meant by “color neutral” for light, since light is related to wavelength. For this reason, the limitation is not given any patentable weight.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0152620 A1, “Chen”) in view of Sakamoto (US Publication No.: US 2025/0250404 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen discloses a haze tunable assembly (Figures 1-3, 6-8) comprising:
A first substrate (Figure 6, first substrate 38);
A second substrate (Figure 6, second substrate 38);
A composite liquid crystal material interposed between the first substrate and he second substrate (Figure 6, composite liquid crystal material 50);
A first contact layer between the first substrate and the composite liquid crystal material (Figure 6, first contact layer 40); and
A second contact layer between the second substrate and the composite liquid crystal material (Figure 6, second contact layer 40), wherein
The composite liquid crystal material comprises:
Liquid crystal material (Figure 6, liquid crystal material 30LC; Paragraph 0026), and wherein
A haze of the composite liquid crystal material can be tuned by applying a bias across the first contact layer and the second contact layer (Figures 7-8; Paragraph 0025; Paragraph 0039; Paragraph 0032).
Chen fails to disclose a cross-linked unaligned network of nanofibers.
However, Sakamoto discloses a similar assembly comprising a cross-linked unaligned network of nanofibers (Sakamoto, Figure 8, cross-linked unaligned network of nanofibers 31; Paragraph 0075 discloses that the nanofibers are cross-linked and unaligned).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composite liquid crystal material as disclosed by Chen to include nanofibers as disclosed by Sakamoto. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing stability and insulation properties of the material (Sakamoto, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein the liquid crystal material is nematic liquid crystal material (Chen, Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose that an average diameter of the nanofibers if between about 3nm and about 6nm.
However, Sakamoto discloses a similar assembly where an average diameter of the nanofibers if between about 3nm and about 6nm (Sakamoto, Paragraph 0072 discloses a diameter of 5nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the composite liquid crystal material as disclosed by Chen to include nanofibers as disclosed by Sakamoto. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing stability and insulation properties of the material (Sakamoto, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose that an average pore size of pores within the cross-linked unaligned network of nanofibers is between about 50 nm and about 200 nm.
Sakamoto also fails to explicitly disclose that an average pore size of pores within the cross-linked unaligned network of nanofibers is between about 50 nm and about 200 nm. However, Sakamoto discloses a general environment of having pores with an average size of several tens of nms (Sakamoto, Paragraph 0041). When a limitation of a claim is a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which when modified achieves a recognized result, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges for the variable by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). In the instant claim recitation, the limitation regarding average pore size is the result-effective variable, and when this size is optimized to the appropriate value within the specified parameters of a given assembly, the recognized results of establishing a sponge-like bulk structure are realized. While Sakamoto does not directly disclose the exact average pore size, Sakamoto does disclose the general conditions recited in the instant claim, as noted above. In light of the disclosure of Sakamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to discover the limitation by routine experimentation that an average pore size of pores within the cross-linked unaligned network of nanofibers is between about 50 nm and about 200 nm for the purpose of lowering thermal conductivity of the structure.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein a total transmission of light of the assembly in the visible and/or near infrared region of the of the electromagnetic spectrum is greater than 80%, greater than 85%, or greater than 89% in both an off state and in an on state (Chen, Figures 7-8; Paragraph 0047 discloses a transmittance of 90% or greater).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 7, wherein a difference of the total transmission of light in the visible and/or near infrared region of the of the electromagnetic spectrum in the off state of the assembly is within 10% or within 5% of a transmission of light in the visible and/or near infrared region of the of the electromagnetic spectrum of the assembly in the in on state (Chen, Figure 10 discloses a very slight difference in transmittance between two states; Paragraph 0047; Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein light transmitted through the assembly is color neutral (Paragraphs 0027-0030 discloses transmission of visible light, where a particular is not mentioned, so it may be inferred that the color is neutral or not relevant).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein a haze coefficient of the composite liquid crystal material is less than 10% in an on state and greater than 80% in an off state (Chen, Paragraphs 0028-0029).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein a difference of a haze coefficient of the composite liquid crystal material in an off state and a haze coefficient of the composite liquid crystal material in an on state is greater than 75 absolute percent (Chen, Paragraphs 0028-0029).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1, wherein a driving voltage of the assembly is less than 5 V (Chen, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses a method of tuning a haze of a tunable assembly, the method comprising the steps of:
providing an assembly of claim 1; and applying a bias across the first contact layer and the second contact layer to thereby affect a change in a haze coefficient of the composite liquid crystal material of greater than 75 absolute percent (Chen, Paragraphs 0028-0029).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the method of claim 17, wherein a difference of a transmission of light in the visible and/or near infrared region of the of the electromagnetic spectrum in the off state of the assembly is within 10% or within 5% of a transmission of light in the visible and/or near infrared region of the of the electromagnetic spectrum of the assembly in the in on state (Chen, Figure 10 discloses a very slight difference in transmittance between two states; Paragraph 0047; Paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 19, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the method of claim 17, wherein a total transmission of light in the visible and/or near infrared region of the of the electromagnetic spectrum is greater than 80% in both an off state and in an on state (Chen, Paragraph 0028; Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 20, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses a window comprising the haze tunable assembly of claim 1 (Chen, Paragraph 0019).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sakamoto in further view of Lundin et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0115308 A1, “Lundin”).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose that the liquid crystal material comprises 4-cyano-4'-pentylbiphenyl (5CB), MLC-9200-000, MLC-9200-100, MLC-6608, MLC-6241-000, 5PCH, 5CB, TL-216, E7, or E44.
However, Lundin discloses a similar assembly where the liquid crystal material comprises 4-cyano-4'-pentylbiphenyl (5CB), MLC-9200-000, MLC-9200-100, MLC-6608, MLC-6241-000, 5PCH, 5CB, TL-216, E7, or E44 (Lundin, Paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal as disclosed by Chen to comprise a particular material as disclosed by Lundin. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing birefringence and light transmission (Lundin, Paragraph 0015).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sakamoto in further view of Morimura et al (US Publication No.: US 2025/0296066 A1, “Morimura”).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose that the nanofibers comprise cellulose nanofibers.
However, Morimura discloses a similar assembly where the nanofibers comprise cellulose nanofibers (Morimura, Paragraph 0255).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal composite material as disclosed by Chen to comprise a particular type of nanofiber as disclosed by Morimura. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the resin composition of the liquid crystal material (Morimura, Paragraph 0255).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sakamoto in further view of Butler et al (US Publication No.: US 2023/0229042 A1, “Butler”).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose that the composite liquid crystal material further comprises spacers.
However, Butler discloses a similar assembly where the composite liquid crystal material further comprises spacers (Butler, Paragraph 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal composite material as disclosed by Chen to include spacers as disclosed by Butler. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of maintaining a cell gap and desired liquid crystal thickness (Butler, Paragraph 0061).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Sakamoto discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose that a distance between the first substrate and the second substrate is greater than zero and less than 30 micrometers.
However, Butler discloses a similar assembly where a distance between the first substrate and the second substrate is greater than zero and less than 30 micrometers (Butler, Paragraph 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly as disclosed by Chen to have a particular distance between substrates as disclosed by Butler. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of maintaining a cell gap and desired liquid crystal thickness (Butler, Paragraph 0061).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the 112(b) rejection was overcome and it was rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871