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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/10/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species A, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on 02/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “prior art relevant to the elected species is not similarly relevant to the non-elected species (if it was, then there would be no serious burden in examining all claims in a single application) and It is respectfully submitted that it should be no serious burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application”. This is not found persuasive because Group I and Group II are related as combination and subcombination. Species A and Species B are mutually exclusive embodiments to each other. Also, prior arts Wu US 2014/0355115 and Schadt US 2010/0118256 relevant to the elected Group I and Species A are not similarly relevant to the non-elected Group II and Species B. Therefore, these two Species A and B, and two Groups I and II require two different searching strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species/Subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/10/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations “the first alignment angle is from +20 degrees to +160 degrees or from +200 degrees to +340 degrees” should be “the first alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees” (see para.47 and fig.3); and
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations “the third alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees” should be “the third alignment angle is from +20 degrees to +160 degrees or from +200 degrees to +340 degrees” (see para.47 and fig.3).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu US 2014/0355115.
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an electronic device, in at least figs.1a-3d and (para.36 teach the patterned retarder formed with cured liquid crystal), comprising:
a first dimming device (A1 portion of 11 with B2 portion of 22 as shown in figs.2 and 3a), comprising:
a first dimming module (A1 portion of 11) having a first liquid-crystal layer (para.36); and
a second dimming module (B2 portion of 22) disposed opposite the first dimming module and having a second liquid-crystal layer (para.36)(see figs.2 and 3a); and
a second dimming device (A2 portion of 11 with B1 portion of 22 as shown in figs.2 and 3a) adjacent to the first dimming device (see figs.2 and 3a), comprising:
a third dimming module (A2 portion of 11) having a third liquid-crystal layer (para.36); and
a fourth dimming module (B1 portion of 22) disposed opposite the third dimming module and having a fourth liquid-crystal layer (para.36)(see figs.2 and 3a),
wherein liquid-crystal molecules of the first liquid-crystal layer have a first alignment angle (see fig.2), liquid-crystal molecules of the third liquid-crystal layer have a third alignment angle (see fig.2), and the first alignment angle is different from the third alignment angle (see fig.3a).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses liquid-crystal molecules of the second liquid-crystal layer have a second alignment angle (see figs.2 and 3a), and the first alignment angle is perpendicular to the second alignment angle (see fig.3a).
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses liquid-crystal molecules of the fourth liquid-crystal layer have a fourth alignment angle (see figs.2 and 3a), and the third alignment angle is perpendicular to the fourth alignment angle (see fig.3a).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2014/0355115 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Wu does not explicitly disclose the first alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the first alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, 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 first alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees in the electronic device of Wu for the purpose of aligning liquid crystal.
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses the third alignment angle is from +20 degrees to +160 degrees or from +200 degrees to +340 degrees (see figs.3a discloses 135 degrees or 315 degrees).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses liquid-crystal molecules of the fourth liquid-crystal layer have a fourth alignment angle, and the fourth alignment angle is +110 degrees to +250 degrees or −70 degrees to +70 degrees (see figs.3a discloses 45 degrees or 225 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses liquid-crystal molecules of the second liquid-crystal layer have a second alignment angle (see figs.2 and 3a), and the first alignment angle is perpendicular to the second alignment angle (see fig.3a).
Accordingly, 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 second alignment angle is +70 degrees to +110 degrees or from +250 degrees to +290 degrees in the electronic device of Wu because Wu discloses the first alignment angle is perpendicular to the second alignment angle for the purpose of aligning liquid crystal.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu US 2014/0355115 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schadt US 2010/0118256.
Regarding claim 4, Wu does not explicitly disclose the first alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees.
Schadt discloses an electronic device, in at least figs.7a-8b, the first alignment angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees when the transmission angle of the polarizer (35) is 45 degrees for the purpose forming a circularly polarizing light to display colored and colorless regions (para.55) and producing authentication elements with high information content (para.56).
Accordingly, 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 first alignment angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees when the transmission angle of the polarizer is 45 degrees as taught by Schadt in the electronic device of Wu because it’s obvious to have the first alignment angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees when the transmission angle of the polarizer is 45 degrees, instead of first alignment angle is 45 degrees when the transmission angle of the polarizer is degree or 180 degrees (shown in fig.1b of Wu) in order to have the first alignment angle is from −20 degrees to +20 degrees or from +160 degrees to +200 degrees for the purpose of forming a circularly polarizing light to display colored and colorless regions and producing authentication elements with high information content.
Regarding claim 5, Schadt discloses the third alignment angle is from +20 degrees to +160 degrees or from +200 degrees to +340 degrees (Schadt teaches the third alignment angle is 90 degrees or 270 degrees) for the purpose forming a circularly polarizing light to display colored and colorless regions (para.55) and producing authentication elements with high information content (para.56). The reason for combinig is the same as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Schadt discloses liquid-crystal molecules of the fourth liquid-crystal layer have a fourth alignment angle (see figs.2 and 3a), and the fourth alignment angle is +110 degrees to +250 degrees or −70 degrees to +70 degrees (Schadt teaches the third alignment angle is 90 degrees or 270 degrees, and Wu discloses the third alignment angle is perpendicular to the fourth alignment angle (see fig.3a), so that the fourth alignment angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees) for the purpose forming a circularly polarizing light to display colored and colorless regions (para.55) and producing authentication elements with high information content (para.56). The reason for combining is the same as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Schadt discloses liquid-crystal molecules of the second liquid-crystal layer have a second alignment angle (see figs.2 and 3a), and the second alignment angle is +70 degrees to +110 degrees or from +250 degrees to +290 degrees (Schadt teaches the first alignment angle is 0 degree or 180 degrees, and Wu discloses the second alignment angle is perpendicular to the first alignment angle (see fig.3a), so that the second alignment angle is 90 degrees or 270 degrees) for the purpose forming a circularly polarizing light to display colored and colorless regions (para.55) and producing authentication elements with high information content (para.56). The reason for combining is the same as claim 4.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tatzel US 20120169950 (at least figs.1A-4C and 7A-7E) can be a primary reference as well.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 H 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.
/JIA X PAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights