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
Receipt of the Amendment, filed on August 22, 2024, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-19 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims are required to end in a period, the equation stated in claim 1 is provided after the period, as such, it is not considered to be part of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 and 3 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 2, the recitation “the number (A) of ball spacers per unit area (1 mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of each ball spacer satisfies following relationships: ...”, which renders the claim indefinite, since it raises the issue of ambiguity. The stated relationships appear to be part of a Markush group which has not been properly stated. As currently recited, each ball is required to satisfy each stated relationships, which is not conceivable since each ball has a single diameter. It is suggested to recite the Markush group in a proper format “the number (A) of ball spacers per unit area (1 mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of each ball spacer satisfies at least one of the following relationships:”
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “the number (A) of ball spacers per unit area (1 mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of each ball spacer and Vickers hardness (B) of each functional coating layer satisfy following relationships: ...”, which renders the claim indefinite, since it raises the issue of ambiguity. The stated relationships appear to be part of a Markush group which has not been properly stated. As currently recited, each ball is required to satisfy each stated relationships, which is not conceivable since each ball has a single diameter. It is suggested to recite the Markush group in a proper format “the number (A) of ball spacers per unit area (1 mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of each ball spacer and Vickers hardness (B) of each functional coating layer satisfy at least one of the following relationships:”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 states “A method for manufacturing the variable transmittance optical stack of claim 1” but fails to set forth the particular steps in which the optical stack is manufactured. Accordingly, claim 14 fails to further limit the claimed subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2020/0004088 A1) in view of Okada et al. (CN 106802443 B), and further in view of Yon et al. (KR 20200051268 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack comprising: a first stack in which a first polarizing plate comprising a first functional coating layer (21B, ¶[0029]), a first transparent conductive layer (22B), and a first alignment film (23B) are stacked in order; a second stack opposed to the first stack, and in which a second polarizing plate comprising a second functional coating layer (21A, ¶[0029]), a second transparent conductive layer (22A), and a second alignment film (23A) are stacked in order; and a liquid crystal layer (14A) disposed between the first stack and the second stack, wherein the liquid crystal layer (14A) comprises a ball spacer (24) provided to form a depression part on at least one of the first alignment film (23B) and the second alignment film, the ball spacer has a diameter ranging from 4 to 10 µm (Table 1), at least one of the first transparent conductive layer (22B) and the second transparent conductive layer (22A) is formed in direct contact with one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate (Fig. 1).
Nakamura fails to state wherein each of the first functional coating layer and the second functional coating layer has Vickers hardness ranging from 18 to 41, and the number of ball spacers (A) per unit area (1mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of the ball spacer satisfies following equation 1, [Equation 1] -0.1667d3 + 4.0595d2 - 33.488d + 102.69 ≤ A ≤ -14.111d3 + 341.81d2 - 2801.8d + 8588.
Okada discloses a variable transmittance optical stack comprising: a first stack (10’) in which a first polarizing plate comprising a first functional coating layer (2’) is provided, a second stack (10) opposed to the first stack, and in which a second polarizing plate comprising a second functional coating layer (2) is provided, and a liquid crystal layer (5) disposed between the first stack (10’) and the second stack (10), each of the first functional coating layer and the second functional coating layer has Vickers hardness ranging from 18 to 41 (¶[0034]) in order protect the optical stack from scratches and surface damage. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate the functional layers having a Vickers hardness ranging from 18 to 41 as disclosed by Okada in the optical stack of Nakamura in order to protect the optical stack from scratches and surface damage.
Yon discloses a variable transmittance optical stack comprising a liquid crystal layer (200) disposed between a first stack (102) and a second stack (101), wherein the liquid crystal layer (200) comprises a ball spacer (302), the ball spacer has a diameter ranging from 4 to 10 µm (Table 2), wherein the number of ball spacers (A) per unit area (1mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of the ball spacer satisfies following equation 1, [Equation 1] -0.1667d3 + 4.0595d2 - 33.488d + 102.69 ≤ A ≤ -14.111d3 + 341.81d2 - 2801.8d + 8588 (Table 2, see Examples 6, 7, 10 & 11, ball spacer diameter 6 µm) in order to control the number of ball spacers per unit area to adjust their dispersion and distribution ratio, thus, decreasing haze, and reduce cluster stain or cell gap non-uniformity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate the number of ball spacers per unit area as disclosed by Yon in the optical stack of Nakamura in order to control the number of ball spacers per unit area to adjust their dispersion and distribution ratio, decreasing haze, and reduce cluster stain or cell gap non-uniformity.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura in view of Okada and Yon discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein, the number (A) of ball spacers per unit area (1 mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of each ball spacer satisfies the following relationship: iii) in 5.5 s d < 6.5, A ranges from 13 to 1,032 (Table 2, see Examples 6, 7, 10 & 11, ball spacer diameter 6 µm of Yon). Same reasons for combining stated in claim 1 applies.
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura in view of Okada and Yon discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein, the number (A) of ball spacers per unit area (1 mm2) with respect to a diameter (d; µm) of each ball spacer and Vickers hardness (B) of each functional coating layer satisfy the following relationship: iii) in 5.5 s d < 6.5, A x B2 ranges from 3,500 to 900,000 (Table 2, see Examples 6, 7, 10 & 11, ball spacer diameter 6 µm of Yon; Vickers hardness ranging from 15 to 35 of Okada). Same reasons for combining stated in claim 1 applies.
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein the depression part has a shape substantially identical to a contact interface with the ball spacer (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein an occupancy area of the ball spacer in the liquid crystal layer ranges from 0.01% to 10% of the area of the liquid crystal layer (¶[0044]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein each of the first and second functional coating layers comprises at least one of a hard coating layer and a low refractive index layer (¶[0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein the low refractive index layer comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of SiO2, A12O3, MgF2, CaF2, and cryolite. It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art the selection of a material based on its known suitability for an intended application as an obvious matter of design engineering. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to have the low refractive index layer comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of SiO2, A12O3, MgF2, CaF2, and cryolite, since the selection of known materials for a known purpose is within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer (22A) and the second transparent conductive layer (22B) is formed in direct contact with one of the first polarizing plate (21A) and the second polarizing plate (21B) without an additional substrate between the transparent conductive layer and the polarizing plate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer is formed in direct contact with one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate but fails to exemplify a highly adhesive layer between the transparent conductive layer and the polarizing plate. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate providing an adhesive layer between the transparent conductive layer and the polarizing plate in order to increase bonding between the transparent conductive layer and the polarizing plate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate an adhesive layer between the transparent conductive layer and the polarizing plate in order to increase bonding between them.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer (22a) and the second transparent conductive layer (22B) comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, metal, carbonaceous material, conductive polymer, conductive ink, and nanowires (¶[0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate further comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of a protective layer, a retardation matching layer, and a refractive index-matching layer (¶[0032]).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness ranging from 30 to 200 µm. One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate optimizing the thickness of the polarizing plates within the claimed ranges in order to provide flexibility of the optical stack, as an obvious matter of design engineering. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to provide at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness ranging from 30 to 200 µm in order to provide flexibility of the optical stack, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura discloses a variable transmittance optical stack further comprising: one or more selected from a group consisting of an overcoat layer, a pressure-sensitive adhesive/adhesive layer, and an ultraviolet ray absorption layer (¶[0029])
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura discloses a method for manufacturing the variable transmittance optical stack.
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura discloses a smart window comprising the variable transmittance optical stack (¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura discloses a transportation means comprising the smart window (¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura discloses a vehicle in which the smart window is applied to at least one of a front window, a rear window, a side window, a sunroof window, and an inner partition thereof (¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura discloses a wearable device comprising the smart window (¶[0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura discloses windows and doors for a building, the windows and doors comprising the smart window (¶[0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. (US 7,811,482 B2) discloses a curved optical device including at least one cell having opposed flexible substrates with a controlled distance therebetween to form a gap adapted to receive a fluid and ball spacers between the flexible substrates.
Kim et al. (KR 20230000225 A) discloses a variable transmittance optical laminate comprising: a first polarizing plate; a first transparent conductive layer formed on one surface of the first polarizing plate; a second polarizing plate facing the first polarizing plate; a second transparent conductive layer formed on one surface of the second polarizing plate and facing the first transparent conductive layer; and a liquid crystal layer provided between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer.
Miura et al. (WO 2019/039573 A1) discloses a light control cell arranged between a first substrate including a first resin base material, a second substrate including a second resin base material, and between the first substrate and the second substrate, a plurality of spacers arranged in the liquid crystal layer, and a plurality of seal columns arranged in the liquid crystal layer, each of which is attached to the first substrate and the second substrate.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights