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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 8/2/2024 and 12/27/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 16 (and corresponding dependent claims) 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.
Specifically, in line 13, applicant discloses “a second lamination layer comprising a second lamination material different selected,” but does not specifically disclose what said second lamination material is different from, rendering the claim vague and indefinite. For purpose of examination, it was presumed applicant intended to disclose wherein --a second lamination material different than the first lamination material--. The dependent claims inherit the rejection from their parent claim.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cammenga et al (US 2017/0100991 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Cammenga et al discloses a variable transmission element (page 4, sections [0035]-[0040], Figure 6) comprising: a first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Figure 6, “52,” re: bottom first surface & top second surface); a second substrate having a third surface and a fourth surface opposite the third surface (Figure 6, “32,” re: bottom third surface & top fourth surface), the first and second substrates disposed in a spaced apart relationship so as to define a space therebetween (Figure 6, “32, 52”), the second and third surfaces facing each other (Figure 6, re: top surface of “52” & bottom surface of “32”); a first lamination layer comprising a first lamination material coupled to the second surface (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: bottom “36” & lamination layer material “58” comprising EVA) ; a second lamination layer comprising a second lamination material different from the first lamination material, and coupled to the second substrate (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: top “36” & lamination layer material “54” comprising mPE); and an electro-optic device disposed between the first lamination layer and the second lamination layer (Figure 6, “8”).
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) 1-8 and 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cammenga et al (US 2017/0100991 A1) in view of Danner et al (US 2017/0097525 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Cammenga et al discloses a variable transmission element (page 4, sections [0035]-[0040], Figure 6) comprising: a first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Figure 6, “52,” re: bottom first surface & top second surface); a second substrate having a third surface and a fourth surface opposite the third surface (Figure 6, “32,” re: bottom third surface & top fourth surface), the first and second substrates disposed in a spaced apart relationship so as to define a space therebetween (Figure 6, “32, 52”), the second and third surfaces facing each other (Figure 6, re: top surface of “52” & bottom surface of “32”); a first lamination layer comprising a first lamination material (page 3, section [0026], Figure 6, re: bottom “36,” re: one or more of polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), thermoset EVA, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and various other materials), and coupled to the second surface (Figure 6, re: bottom “36” and “52”); a second lamination layer comprising a second lamination material (Figure 6, re: upper “36”), and coupled to the second substrate (Figure 6, re: upper “36” and “32”); and an electro-optic device disposed between the first lamination layer and the second lamination layer (Figure 6, “8”), but does not specifically disclose a seal formed of a sealing material, different from the first and second lamination material, extending along a perimeter of the first and second substrates.
Within the same field of endeavor, Danner et al teaches that it is desirable for electro-optic devices to comprise seals extending along a perimeter of first and second substrates (i.e. edge seals), of different material than laminates, for the purpose of preventing the ingress of moisture and other contaminants around the edges of the device (page 5, section [0034] & page 9, sections [0135]-[0136], Figure 1, “112,” re: metallized foil or other barrier foil adhered over the edge of the FPL (front plane laminate), dispensed sealants (thermal, chemical, and/or radiation cured), polyisobutylene or acrylate-based sealants, hybrid radiation and thermal cure sealants (i.e. UV curable with thermal post-bake), or Threebond 30Y-491 material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a seal formed of a sealing material, different from the first and second lamination material of Cammenga et al, to extend along a perimeter of the first and second substrates since Danner et al teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of preventing the ingress of moisture and other contaminants around the edges of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Cammenga et al discloses wherein the first lamination material is different than the second lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: upper and lower lamination layers “36” comprise several layers of lamination material (i.e. “56” of EVA, “54” of mPE, and “58” of EVA), so first bottom lamination layer “58” comprising EVA is different from upper lamination layer “54” comprising mPE).
Regarding claim 3, Cammenga et al discloses said variable transmission element further including a third lamination layer comprising a third lamination material different from at least one of the first lamination material and the second lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: third upper lamination layer “56” comprising EVA, which is different from second upper lamination layer “54” comprising mPE), and disposed between the second substrate (Figure 6, “32”) and the electro-optic device (Figure 6, “8”).
Regarding claim 4, Cammenga et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the third lamination material is different than the first lamination material.
However, Danner et al teaches wherein the lamination material may correspond to one or more of polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), thermoset EVA, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and various other materials (page 3, section [0026]) and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the third lamination material to be different than the first lamination material, since applicant has not disclosed that different materials solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with similar materials since applicant discloses said lamination layers being chosen from the same pool of materials.
Regarding claim 5, Danner et al teaches wherein the sealing material includes an adhesive (page 9, section [0136], re: the material used to form the edge seal… may be any material that has sufficient flexibility, adhesion and barrier properties).
Regarding claim 6, Danner et al teaches wherein the sealing material comprises one of a thermoplastic material, a thermosetting or vulcanized material, epoxy, a liquid form, or at least two distinct materials (page 5, section [0034], Figure 1, “112,” re: dispensed sealants (thermal, chemical, and/or radiation cured), polyisobutylene or acrylate-based sealants, hybrid radiation and thermal cure sealants (i.e. UV curable with thermal post-bake), or Threebond 30Y-491 material).
Regarding claim 7, Danner et al teaches wherein the sealing material extends between the second and third surfaces (i.e. top surface of bottom substrate & bottom surface of top substrate), substantially within the perimeter of the first and second substrates (Figure 1, “112, 110, 102”).
Regarding claim 8, Danner et al teaches wherein the sealing material extends substantially outside of the perimeter of the first and second substrates (page 11, section [0156], Figure 12, “1230, 108, 102”).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Cammenga et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose said variable transmission element including a seal comprising a sealing material different from the first and second lamination material, extending along a perimeter of the first and second substrates.
Within the same field of endeavor, Danner et al teaches that it is desirable for electro-optic devices to comprise seals extending along a perimeter of first and second substrates (i.e. edge seals), of different material than laminates, for the purpose of preventing the ingress of moisture and other contaminants around the edges of the device (page 5, section [0034] & page 9, sections [0135]-[0136], Figure 1, “112,” re: metallized foil or other barrier foil adhered over the edge of the FPL (front plane laminate), dispensed sealants (thermal, chemical, and/or radiation cured), polyisobutylene or acrylate-based sealants, hybrid radiation and thermal cure sealants (i.e. UV curable with thermal post-bake), or Threebond 30Y-491 material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a seal formed of a sealing material, different from the first and second lamination material of Cammenga et al, to extend along a perimeter of the first and second substrates since Danner et al teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of preventing the ingress of moisture and other contaminants around the edges of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Cammenga et al discloses said variable transmission element further including a third lamination layer comprising a third lamination material different from at least one of the first lamination material and the second lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: third upper lamination layer “56” comprising EVA, which is different from second upper lamination layer “54” comprising mPE), and disposed between the second substrate (Figure 6, “32”) and the electro-optic device (Figure 6, “8”).
Regarding claim 12, Cammenga et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the third lamination material is different than the first lamination material.
However, Danner et al teaches wherein the lamination material may correspond to one or more of polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), thermoset EVA, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and various other materials (page 3, section [0026]) and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the third lamination material to be different than the first lamination material, since applicant has not disclosed that different materials solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with similar materials since applicant discloses said lamination layers being chosen from the same pool of materials.
Regarding claim 13, Cammenga et al discloses wherein the third lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: third upper lamination layer “56” comprising EVA) is different than the second lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: second upper lamination layer “54” comprising mPE).
Regarding claim 14, Cammenga et al discloses wherein at least one of the lamination materials comprises ethylene vinyl acetate with a peroxide (page 3, section [0026]).
In regard to claim 16, Cammenga et al discloses a variable transmission element (page 4, sections [0035]-[0040], Figure 6) comprising: a first substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (Figure 6, “52,” re: bottom first surface & top second surface); a second substrate having a third surface and a fourth surface opposite the third surface (Figure 6, “32,” re: bottom third surface & top fourth surface), the first and second substrates disposed in a spaced apart relationship so as to define a space therebetween (Figure 6, “32, 52”), the second and third surfaces facing each other (Figure 6, re: top surface of “52” & bottom surface of “32”); an electro-optic device disposed between the first and second substrates (Figure 6, “8”); a first lamination layer comprising a first lamination material selected from a group comprising TPU, PVB, and EVA (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, bottom “58,” re: EVA) that is located between the second surface (Figure 6, “52”) and the electro-optic device (Figure 6, “8”); a second lamination layer comprising a second lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: top “36” & lamination layer material “54” comprising mPE) that is located between the third surface (Figure 6, “32”) and the electro-optic device (Figure 6, “8”), but does not specifically disclose said second lamination material different than the first lamination material selected from a group comprising TPU, PVB, and EVA and a seal formed of a sealing material that does not include thermoplastic polyurethane (“TPU”), polyvinyl butyral (“PVB”), ethylene vinyl acetate (“EVA”) and that extends along a perimeter of the first and second substrates.
However, Cammenga et al teaches wherein the material of the lamination layer may correspond to one or more of polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), thermoset EVA, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and various other materials (page 3, section [0026]) and within the same field of endeavor, Danner et al teaches that it is desirable for electro-optic devices to comprise seals extending along a perimeter of first and second substrates (i.e. edge seals) that does not include thermoplastic polyurethane (“TPU”), polyvinyl butyral (“PVB”), ethylene vinyl acetate (“EVA”), for the purpose of preventing the ingress of moisture and other contaminants around the edges of the device (page 5, section [0034] & page 9, sections [0135]-[0136], Figure 1, “112,” re: metallized foil or other barrier foil adhered over the edge of the FPL (front plane laminate), dispensed sealants (thermal, chemical, and/or radiation cured), polyisobutylene or acrylate-based sealants, hybrid radiation and thermal cure sealants (i.e. UV curable with thermal post-bake), or Threebond 30Y-491 material). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for said second lamination material different than the first lamination material selected from a group comprising TPU, PVB, and EVA since Cammenga et al teaches wherein the material of the lamination layer may correspond to one or more of polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), thermoset EVA, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), and various other materials and for a seal to be formed of a sealing material as claimed since Danner et al teaches that it is desirable for the purpose of preventing the ingress of moisture and other contaminants around the edges of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Cammenga et al discloses said variable transmission element including a third lamination layer comprising a third lamination material selected from a group comprising TPU, PVB, and EVA (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: third upper lamination layer “56” comprising EVA) that is located between the third surface (Figure 6, “32”) and the second lamination material (Figure 6, re: top “54”).
Regarding claim 18, Cammenga et al discloses wherein the third lamination material is different than at least one of the first lamination material and the second lamination material (page 4, section [0039], Figure 6, re: third upper lamination layer “56” comprising EVA, which is different from second upper lamination layer “54” comprising mPE).
Regarding claim 19, Cammenga et al discloses wherein a solar control layer is located between the second lamination layer and the third lamination layer (page 2, section [0021], Figure 6, “8,” re: configured to vary a transmission of light at least through the substrates).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, taking into account the presumption(s) made in the examination of the claim(s).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 20: an electro-optic device as claimed, specifically including an electro-optic medium located between a first storage layer and a second storage layer, the first storage layer located between the first lamination layer and the electro-optic medium and the second storage layer located between the second lamination material and the electro-optic medium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights