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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 09/25/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. US PGPub 2025/0084227 A1 (hereinafter, “Park”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park discloses a system comprising:
a windshield (Fig. 1, variable transmittance glass laminate 106 that adjusts the level of transparency can be applied to a windshield of a vehicle 100, pars. [0028-29]) comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate that are optically transparent (Figs. 2A and 2B, variable transmittance laminate 106 includes inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 that are made of transparent polymers, par. [0035], equivalent to first and second optically transparent substrates); and
a liquid crystal (LC) layer encased between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figs. 2A and 2B, laminate 106 includes auto-shading film 202 between inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, par. [0031], where auto-shading film 202 includes substructures 214 that can be made of liquid crystal materials, par. [0037]), wherein a surface of at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate that is in contact with the LC layer has at least one optical feature that pertains to at least one optical property (Figs. 2A and 2B, laminate 106 with auto-shading film 202 is in contact with outer lens layer 210, and because outer lens layer 210 is a lens, has an optical property in the form of dioptric power, and auto-shading film 202 has substructures 214 that can change optical properties by varying alignment, par. [0037]), wherein the at least one optical property comprises at least one of: optical power (Figs. 2A and 2B, inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 have optical power, where Examiner understand optical power to refer to dioptric or focusing power of a lens), diffraction, refraction, transmittance (Figs. 2A and 2B, substructures 214 include materials that change in color and/or opacity, par. [0038], where opacity is equivalent to transmittance), reflectance, polarization; and at least one processor configured to selectively adjust a refractive index of an LC material in at least a given portion of the LC layer, to modulate the at least one optical property in a corresponding portion of the windshield (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040], where Examiner understands an electronic control unit is equivalent to a processor).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Park discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical feature comprises at least one of: a shape of said surface, a layer formed on said surface, said layer being disposed between said surface and the LC layer (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film 202 with substructures 214 of liquid crystal materials is a layer formed on a surface of outer lens layer 210, par. [0037]).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Park discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one optical property comprises polarization (Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals in variable transmittance laminate 106, and it is known in the art that liquid crystals are birefringent, therefore have different refractive indices along different axes, causing phase shifts between polarization components of incident light, therefore the auto-shading film 202 with liquid crystal substructures 214 are equivalent to an optical element providing an optical property of polarization), wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), wherein the at least one optical feature is a layer of a surface function based polarizer on the user-facing surface (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film 202 par. [0037]), and wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to match a refractive index of the second substrate, thereby switching off the surface function based polarizer (substructures 214 include liquid crystal molecules that can change their alignment and/or optical properties when subjected to an electric field, and by applying a voltage, the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules can be controlled, allowing the auto-shading film 202 to transition between transparent and opaque states by changing the applied voltage or current, par. [0039], where two materials with the same refractive index transmit light without refraction at their interface).
Regarding independent claim 12, Park discloses a method implemented by a system comprising a windshield (Figs. 2A and 2B, variable transmittance glass laminates that adjust their level of transparency can be applied to a windshield, par. [0029]) comprising a first substrate and a second substrate that are optically transparent (Figs. 2A and 2B, variable transmittance laminate 106 includes inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 that are made of transparent polymers, par. [0035]), and a liquid crystal (LC) layer encased between the first substrate and the second substrate (Figs. 2A and 2B, laminate 206 includes auto-shading film 202, par. [0031], where auto-shading film 202 with substructures 214 that can be made of liquid crystal materials, par. [0037]), the method comprising: employing at least one optical feature of a surface of at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate that is in contact with the LC layer to produce at least one optical property (Figs. 2A and 2B, laminate 106 with auto-shading film 202 is in contact with outer lens layer 210, and because outer lens layer 210 is a lens, has an optical property in the form of dioptric power, and auto-shading film 202 has substructures 214 that can change optical properties by varying alignment, par. [0037]), wherein the at least one optical property (Figs. 2A and 2B, substructures 214 include materials that change in color and/or opacity, par. [0038]) comprises at least one of: optical power (Figs. 2A and 2B, inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 have optical power, where Examiner understand optical power to refer to dioptric or focusing power of a lens), diffraction, refraction, transmittance (Figs. 2A and 2B, substructures 214 include materials that change in color and/or opacity, par. [0038], where opacity is equivalent to transmittance), reflectance, polarization; and selectively adjusting a refractive index of an LC material in at least a given portion of the LC layer, to modulate the at least one optical property in a corresponding portion of the windshield (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one optical property comprises polarization (Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals in variable transmittance laminate 106, and it is known in the art that liquid crystals are birefringent, therefore have different refractive indices along different axes, causing phase shifts between polarization components of incident light, therefore the auto-shading film 202 with liquid crystal substructures 214 are equivalent to an optical element providing an optical property of polarization), wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), wherein the at least one optical feature is a layer of a surface function based polarizer on the user-facing surface (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film 202 par. [0037]), and wherein the step of selectively adjusting comprises: adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to match a refractive index of the second substrate, thereby switching off the surface function based polarizer (substructures 214 include liquid crystal molecules that can change their alignment and/or optical properties when subjected to an electric field, and by applying a voltage, the orientation of the liquid crystal molecules can be controlled, allowing the auto-shading film 202 to transition between transparent and opaque states by changing the applied voltage or current, par. [0039], where two materials with the same refractive index transmit light without refraction at their interface).
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lind et al. US PGPub 2008/0068296 A1 (hereinafter, “Lind“), Li, Jun, et al. "Refractive indices of liquid crystals for display applications." Journal of Display Technology 1.1 (2005): 51 (hereinafter, “Li”), and Sultanova, Nina, S. Kasarova, and Ivan Nikolov. "Dispersion properties of optical polymers." Acta Physica Polonica A 116.4 (2009): 585-587 (hereinafter, “Sultanova”).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Park discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one optical property comprises optical power (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film 202 is covered by inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, and Park teaches lenses are optical elements designed to modify the behavior of light emitted from the light source, par. [0022], therefore the variable transmittance laminate 106 has optical power by the inclusion of lens layers 208 and 210), wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to:
adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]) to produce an optical power at the corresponding portion Figs. 2A and 2B, inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 have optical power, par. [0022]).
Park does not disclose a diffractive element, nor does Park explicitly teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate, (inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, such as those listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106 for comparison of refractive indices to be explicitly understood to be different from one another).
In a related field of invention, Lind discloses an image generating apparatus 1, shown in at least Fig. 1, with liquid crystal display 2 and diffractive optical element 4 for displaying virtual images on windshield WS (par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lind to the disclosure of Park and included a diffractive optical element on variable transmittance laminate 106, because Lind teaches diffractive optical elements can be used to shorten the beam path and achieve a compact design (Lind, par. [0007]), and Lind further teaches the inclusion of a diffractive optical element allows for an undistorted display of a virtual image P by adjustment of the diffractive optical element (Lind, par. [0016]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate (Lind is silent as to value or ranges for the index of refraction of elements comprising the device disclosed therein).
However, Park teaches polycarbonate as a suitable material for inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 (par. [0035]), and as noted above, Park teaches substructures 214 of auto-shading film 202 may be liquid crystal materials (par. [0037]).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind and Li does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate (Li does not teach or suggest refractive indices for substrate materials such as thermoplastics that Park teaches are suitable for substrates of laminate 106).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
As such, the prior art combination of Park in view of Lind, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation of adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power at the corresponding portion of the windshield, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of the first substrate or the second substrate.
Regarding dependent claim 13, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one optical property comprises optical power (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film 202 is covered by inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, and Park teaches lenses are optical elements designed to modify the behavior of light emitted from the light source, par. [0022], therefore the variable transmittance laminate 106 has optical power by the inclusion of lens layers 208 and 210), wherein the step of selectively adjusting comprises: adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]) to produce an optical power at the corresponding portion of the windshield (Figs. 2A and 2B, inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 have optical power, par. [0022]).
Park does not disclose a diffractive element, nor does Park explicitly teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate, (inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, such as those listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106 for comparison of refractive indices to be explicitly understood to be different from one another).
In a related field of invention, Lind discloses an image generating apparatus 1, shown in at least Fig. 1, with liquid crystal display 2 and diffractive optical element 4 for displaying virtual images on windshield WS (par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lind to the disclosure of Park and included a diffractive optical element on variable transmittance laminate 106, because Lind teaches diffractive optical elements can be used to shorten the beam path and achieve a compact design (Lind, par. [0007]), and Lind further teaches the inclusion of a diffractive optical element allows for an undistorted display of a virtual image P by adjustment of the diffractive optical element (Lind, par. [0016]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate (Lind is silent as to value or ranges for the index of refraction of elements comprising the device disclosed therein).
However, Park teaches polycarbonate as a suitable material for inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 (par. [0035]), and as noted above, Park teaches substructures 214 of auto-shading film 202 may be liquid crystal materials (par. [0037]).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind and Li does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate (Li does not teach or suggest refractive indices for substrate materials such as thermoplastics that Park teaches are suitable for substrates of laminate 106).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
As such, the prior art combination of Park in view of Lind, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation of adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power at the corresponding portion of the windshield, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of the first substrate or the second substrate.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected as unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lind, Chen US PGPub 2023/0418056 A1 (hereinafter, “Chen”), Li, and Sultanova.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Park discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one optical property comprises optical power (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film is covered by inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, and Park teaches lenses are optical elements designed to modify the behavior of light emitted from the light source, par. [0022], therefore the variable transmittance laminate 106 has optical power, i.e., dioptric or focusing power, by the inclusion of lens layers 208 and 210),
wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102, see Fig. 1, includes laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface when installed in vehicle 100 as a windshield, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a real-world facing surface of the first substrate (Figs. 2A and 2B, outer lens layer 210 has a surface that is real-world facing), while a user-facing surface of the second substrate is reflective (Figs. 2A and 2B, Park teaches that, depending on the voltage applied, the substructures 214 either absorb or reflect light, altering the transparency of the auto-shading film 202, par. [0038]), and
adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layerFigs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]).
Park does not disclose a diffractive element, nor does Park teach a user-facing surface of the second substrate is semi-reflective (Park teaches positioning the substructures 214 randomly results in a low transmittance state, as light from a light source 222 will be wholly or partially deflected, absorbed, and reflected from the substructures 214, par. [0042], but does not teach a semi-reflective state for variable transmittance laminate 106), and Park does not explicitly teach the windshield is curved (Fig. 1 shows a vehicle 100 with body 102 including a windshield, par. [0028], but Park does not specify or teach a curved windshield, though the depiction of vehicle 100 does suggest the windshield is curved), nor does Park disclose the limitation wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to determine an optical power being produced due to a curvature of the corresponding portion of the windshield (Park teaches transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040], but does not teach or suggest determining an optical power being produced due to curvature of the windshield), and Park does not teach or suggest adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106).
In a related field of invention, Lind discloses an image generating apparatus 1, shown in at least Fig. 1, with liquid crystal display 2 and diffractive optical element 4 for displaying virtual images on windshield WS (par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lind to the disclosure of Park and included a diffractive optical element on variable transmittance laminate 106, because Lind teaches diffractive optical elements can be used to shorten the beam path and achieve a compact design (Lind, par. [0007]), and Lind further teaches the inclusion of a diffractive optical element allows for an undistorted display of a virtual image P by adjustment of the diffractive optical element (Lind, par. [0016]).
Lind also teaches windshield WS is curved as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lind to the disclosure of Park and noted a curved windshield is feasible for vehicle 100, and that a windshield, as an example of a freeform surface, can have an undistorted image projected on it by appropriate choice and placement of optical elements, such as a diffractive optical element (Lind, pars. [0001-2], [0016]).
As a consequence, the prior art combination of Park in view of Lind teaches and renders obvious the limitation wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to determine an optical power being produced due to a curvature of the corresponding portion of the windshield, because Lind teaches the ability of the diffractive optical element 4 to be adjusted to achieve an undistorted display of the virtual image P on or through windshield WS (Lind, par. [0016]), and Park teaches controller 216 for controlling the transmittance of auto-shading film 202 of variable transmittance laminate 106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified variable transmittance laminate 106 with a diffractive optical element controlled by controller 106 to adjust an optical power produced by the windshield of vehicle 100 and adjust the optical properties of laminate 106 accordingly to produce an undistorted image through the windshield (Lind, par. [0016]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind does not teach a user-facing surface of the second substrate is semi-reflective (Lind teaches beams S pass through diffractive optical element 4 and are reflected by windshield WS to the observer, par. [0016], but does not explicitly teach a semi-reflective substrate), and Park in view of Lind does not teach or suggest adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106, and Lind is silent as to value or ranges for the index of refraction of elements comprising the device disclosed therein).
In a related field of invention, Chen discloses a multi-viewing angle floating projection device (par. [0050]) for a vehicle head-up display (par. [0002], see at least Fig. 7A). Chen teaches paraxial reflector 6, shown in Fig. 12, may be semi-reflective and semi-transmissive, such as semi-reflector 61 shown in Fig. 13B (par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Chen to the disclosure of Park and modified variable transmittance laminate 106 to be semi-reflective, because Chen teaches such a design is favorable for reducing the demand space of the device (Chen, par. [0082]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind and Chen does not teach or suggest adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106, and Lind and Chen are silent as to value or ranges for the index of refraction of elements comprising the devices disclosed therein).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind, Chen, and Li does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate (Li does not teach or suggest refractive indices for substrate materials such as thermoplastics that Park teaches are suitable for substrates of laminate 106).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
As such, the prior art combination of Park in view of Lind, Chen, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, and the variable transmittance laminate 106 with controller 216 to control the diffractive optical element as taught by Lind leads to the control of optical power to be opposite of the determined optical power.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one optical property comprises optical power (Figs. 2A and 2B, auto-shading film is covered by inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, and Park teaches lenses are optical elements designed to modify the behavior of light emitted from the light source, par. [0022], therefore the variable transmittance laminate 106 has optical power, i.e., dioptric or focusing power, by the inclusion of lens layers 208 and 210), wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102, see Fig. 1, includes laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface when installed in vehicle 100 as a windshield, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a real-world facing surface of the first substrate (Figs. 2A and 2B, outer lens layer 210 has a surface that is real-world facing) while a user-facing surface of the second substrate is reflective (Figs. 2A and 2B, Park teaches that, depending on the voltage applied, the substructures 214 either absorb or reflect light, altering the transparency of the auto-shading film 202, par. [0038]); and adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]).
Park does not disclose a diffractive element, nor does Park teach a user-facing surface of the second substrate is semi-reflective (Park teaches positioning the substructures 214 randomly results in a low transmittance state, as light from a light source 222 will be wholly or partially deflected, absorbed, and reflected from the substructures 214, par. [0042], but does not teach a semi-reflective state for variable transmittance laminate 106), and Park does not explicitly teach the windshield is curved (Fig. 1 shows a vehicle 100 with body 102 including a windshield, par. [0028], but Park does not specify or teach a curved windshield, though the depiction of vehicle 100 does suggest the windshield is curved), nor does Park disclose the limitation wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to determine an optical power being produced due to a curvature of the corresponding portion of the windshield (Park teaches transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040], but does not teach or suggest determining an optical power being produced due to curvature of the windshield), and Park does not teach or suggest adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106).
In a related field of invention, Lind discloses an image generating apparatus 1, shown in at least Fig. 1, with liquid crystal display 2 and diffractive optical element 4 for displaying virtual images on windshield WS (par. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lind to the disclosure of Park and included a diffractive optical element on variable transmittance laminate 106, because Lind teaches diffractive optical elements can be used to shorten the beam path and achieve a compact design (Lind, par. [0007]), and Lind further teaches the inclusion of a diffractive optical element allows for an undistorted display of a virtual image P by adjustment of the diffractive optical element (Lind, par. [0016]).
Lind also teaches windshield WS is curved as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lind to the disclosure of Park and noted a curved windshield is feasible for vehicle 100, and that a windshield, as an example of a freeform surface, can have an undistorted image projected on it by appropriate choice and placement of optical elements, such as a diffractive optical element (Lind, pars. [0001-2], [0016]).
As a consequence, the prior art combination of Park in view of Lind teaches and renders obvious the limitation wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to determine an optical power being produced due to a curvature of the corresponding portion of the windshield, because Lind teaches the ability of the diffractive optical element 4 to be adjusted to achieve an undistorted display of the virtual image P on or through windshield WS (Lind, par. [0016]), and Park teaches controller 216 for controlling the transmittance of auto-shading film 202 of variable transmittance laminate 106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified variable transmittance laminate 106 with a diffractive optical element controlled by controller 106 to adjust an optical power produced by the windshield of vehicle 100 and adjust the optical properties of laminate 106 accordingly to produce an undistorted image through the windshield (Lind, par. [0016]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind does not teach a user-facing surface of the second substrate is semi-reflective (Lind teaches beams S pass through diffractive optical element 4 and are reflected by windshield WS to the observer, par. [0016], but does not explicitly teach a semi-reflective substrate), and Park in view of Lind does not teach or suggest adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106, and Lind is silent as to value or ranges for the index of refraction of elements comprising the device disclosed therein).
In a related field of invention, Chen discloses a multi-viewing angle floating projection device (par. [0050]) for a vehicle head-up display (par. [0002], see at least Fig. 7A). Chen teaches paraxial reflector 6, shown in Fig. 12, may be semi-reflective and semi-transmissive, such as semi-reflector 61 shown in Fig. 13B (par. [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Chen to the disclosure of Park and modified variable transmittance laminate 106 to be semi-reflective, because Chen teaches such a design is favorable for reducing the demand space of the device (Chen, par. [0082]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind and Chen does not teach or suggest adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106, and Lind and Chen are silent as to value or ranges for the index of refraction of elements comprising the devices disclosed therein).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lind, Chen, and Li does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the at least one of: the first substrate, the second substrate (Li does not teach or suggest refractive indices for substrate materials such as thermoplastics that Park teaches are suitable for substrates of laminate 106).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
As such, the prior art combination of Park in view of Lind, Chen, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, thereby allowing the diffractive element to produce an optical power that is opposite to the determined optical power, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the first substrate, and the variable transmittance laminate 106 with controller 216 to control the diffractive optical element as taught by Lind leads to the control of optical power to be opposite of the determined optical power.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lewi et al. US PGPub 2025/0020950 A1 (hereinafter, “Lewi”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Park discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the at least one optical property comprises reflectance, wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment, said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), and wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to match a refractive index of the second substrate, thereby reducing a reflectivity of said surface (Park teaches that depending on the voltage applied, the substructures 214 either absorb or reflect light, altering the transparency of the auto-shading film 202, par. [0038], refer to Figs. 2A and 2B).
Park does not disclose a sub-wavelength grating.
In a related field of invention, Lewi discloses an optical element with a metasurface for use in photonic devices (abstract). Specifically, Lewi discloses photonic device 10, shown in Fig. 1, with substrate structure 12 and metasurface structure 14 (par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lewi to the disclosure of Park and included a metasurface structure, equivalent to a sub-wavelength grating, to variable transmittance laminate 106 to optimize and maintain the desired optical properties of the optical element (Lewi, pars. [0045-46]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one optical property comprises reflectance, wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment, said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), and wherein the step of selectively adjusting comprises: adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to match a refractive index of the second substrate, thereby reducing a reflectivity of said surface (Park teaches that depending on the voltage applied, the substructures 214 either absorb or reflect light, altering the transparency of the auto-shading film 202, par. [0038], refer to Figs. 2A and 2B).
Park does not disclose a sub-wavelength grating.
In a related field of invention, Lewi discloses an optical element with a metasurface for use in photonic devices (abstract). Specifically, Lewi discloses photonic device 10, shown in Fig. 1, with substrate structure 12 and metasurface structure 14 (par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lewi to the disclosure of Park and included a metasurface structure, equivalent to a sub-wavelength grating, to variable transmittance laminate 106 to optimize and maintain the desired optical properties of the optical element (Lewi, pars. [0045-46]).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected as unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Upatnieks US Patent 4,711,512 (hereinafter, “Upatnieks”), Li, and Sultanova.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Park discloses the system of claim 1 wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment).
Park does not disclose wherein the at least one optical property comprises diffraction (Park does not teach or suggest the inclusion of an optical element in variable transmittance laminate 106 that can cause diffraction), and therefore Park does not teach or suggest a surface has a diffraction grating thereby allowing the diffraction grating to bend light, and Park does not disclose wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, such as those listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106 for comparison of refractive indices to be explicitly understood to be different from one another), and consequently Park does not teach allowing the diffraction grating to bend light.
In a related field of invention, Upatnieks discloses a head-up display 100, shown in at least Fig. 1, comprised of cathode ray tube (CRT) 108, glass plate 114, diffraction grating 112, and windshield 104 (col. 2, lines 20-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Upatnieks to the disclosure of Park and modified variable transmittance laminate 106 to include a diffraction grating, because Upatnieks teaches the achromaticity of diffraction gratings assures that all parallel light input rays remain parallel regardless of the color (Upatnieks, col. 5, lines 2-5).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Upatnieks does not disclose wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Upatnieks teaches the index of refraction of glass is greater than that of air, col. 2, lines 28-34, but Upatnieks is silent as to specific values of refractive index for elements of the device disclosed therein).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Upatnieks and Li does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Li does not teach or suggest refractive indices for substrate materials such as thermoplastics that Park teaches are suitable for substrates of laminate 106).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
As such, the prior art combination of Park in view of Upatnieks, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate, thereby allowing the diffraction grating to bend light, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate, and the variable transmittance laminate 106 with a diffraction grating, as taught by Upatnieks, will bend light.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment).
Park does not disclose wherein the at least one optical property comprises diffraction (Park does not teach or suggest the inclusion of an optical element in variable transmittance laminate 106 that can cause diffraction), and therefore Park does not teach or suggest a surface has a diffraction grating thereby allowing the diffraction grating to bend light, and Park does not disclose wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, such as those listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106 for comparison of refractive indices to be explicitly understood to be different from one another), and consequently Park does not teach allowing the diffraction grating to bend light.
In a related field of invention, Upatnieks discloses a head-up display 100, shown in at least Fig. 1, comprised of cathode ray tube (CRT) 108, glass plate 114, diffraction grating 112, and windshield 104 (col. 2, lines 20-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Upatnieks to the disclosure of Park and modified variable transmittance laminate 106 to include a diffraction grating, because Upatnieks teaches the achromaticity of diffraction gratings assures that all parallel light input rays remain parallel regardless of the color (Upatnieks, col. 5, lines 2-5).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Upatnieks does not disclose wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer, to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Upatnieks teaches the index of refraction of glass is greater than that of air, col. 2, lines 28-34, but Upatnieks is silent as to specific values of refractive index for elements of the device disclosed therein).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Upatnieks and Li does not teach the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Li does not teach or suggest refractive indices for substrate materials such as thermoplastics that Park teaches are suitable for substrates of laminate 106).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
As such, the prior art combination of Park in view of Upatnieks, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate, thereby allowing the diffraction grating to bend light, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate, and the variable transmittance laminate 106 with a diffraction grating, as taught by Upatnieks, will bend light.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected as unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lewi, Li, and Sultanova.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Park discloses the system claim 1, wherein the at least one optical property comprises reflection and phase shift (Figs. 2A and 2B, laminate 106 includes auto-shading film 202 between inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, par. [0031], where auto-shading film 202 includes substructures 214 that can be made of liquid crystal materials, par. [0037], and it is known in the art that liquid crystals are birefringent, therefore have different refractive indices along different axes, causing phase shifts between polarization components of incident light), wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), and wherein when selectively adjusting, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]).
Park does not disclose meta elements, nor does Park disclose the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, such as those listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106 for comparison of refractive indices to be explicitly understood to be different from one another), consequently Park does not disclose allowing the meta elements to bend light.
In a related field of invention, Lewi discloses an optical element with a metasurface for use in photonic devices (abstract). Specifically, Lewi discloses photonic device 10, shown in Fig. 1, with substrate structure 12 and metasurface structure 14 (par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lewi to the disclosure of Park and included a metasurface structure, equivalent to a sub-wavelength grating, to variable transmittance laminate 106 to optimize and maintain the desired optical properties of the optical element (Lewi, pars. [0045-46]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lewi does not disclose the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Lewi is silent as to value of the refractive index of materials in the device disclosed therein).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lewi and Li does not disclose the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Li is silent as to value of the refractive index of materials in the device disclosed therein).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lewi, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation of regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate and as a result, allowing the meta elements to bend light, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Park discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one optical property comprises reflection and phase shift ( Figs. 2A and 2B, laminate 106 includes auto-shading film 202 between inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210, par. [0031], where auto-shading film 202 includes substructures 214 that can be made of liquid crystal materials, par. [0037], and it is known in the art that liquid crystals are birefringent, therefore have different refractive indices along different axes, causing phase shifts between polarization components of incident light), wherein in use, the first substrate is on a side of a user, and the second substrate is on a side of a real-world environment (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), said surface being a user-facing surface of the second substrate (Park teaches vehicle 100 with body 102 including laminate assemblies such as a windshield, par. [0028], therefore the laminate 106 disclosed by Park has a user side surface and a real-world environment side surface, and Park labels lens layer 208 as inner and lens layer 210 as outer, and as a consequence, Park teaches an inner surface of laminate 106 inside vehicle 100 is on a side of a user, and an outer surface that is on a side of a real-world environment), and wherein the step of selectively adjusting comprises: adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer (Figs. 2A and 2B, transmittance or opacity of the auto-shading film 202 is controlled by an external control mechanism which includes a controller 216, wires 218, and a switch 220, where controller 216 can include an electronic control unit, par. [0040]).
Park does not disclose meta elements, nor does Park disclose the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Park teaches inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 can be made of suitable transparent polymers, such as those listed in par. [0035], and the liquid crystal substructure 214 of auto-shading film 202, being birefringent, has at least two indices of refraction for different orientations of the molecules, but Park does not specify values for the refractive indices of the elements of laminate 106 for comparison of refractive indices to be explicitly understood to be different from one another), consequently Park does not disclose allowing the meta elements to bend light.
In a related field of invention, Lewi discloses an optical element with a metasurface for use in photonic devices (abstract). Specifically, Lewi discloses photonic device 10, shown in Fig. 1, with substrate structure 12 and metasurface structure 14 (par. [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lewi to the disclosure of Park and included a metasurface structure, equivalent to a sub-wavelength grating, to variable transmittance laminate 106 to optimize and maintain the desired optical properties of the optical element (Lewi, pars. [0045-46]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lewi does not disclose the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Lewi is silent as to value of the refractive index of materials in the device disclosed therein).
In the general field of optical display technologies, Li teaches the refractive indices of commercial liquid crystals (refer to abstract), where in Tables I through IV the measured indices of refraction range from 1.4631 (for liquid crystal composition MLC-6608 at wavelength of 656 nm at 55 °C) to 1.8652 (for liquid crystal composition E44 at 450 nm at 15 °C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Park and noted the range of refractive indices for liquid crystal materials as taught by Li is from at least 1.46 to 1.87, and selected a liquid crystal composition to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park (Li, page 51, first column, last sentence).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lewi and Li does not disclose the limitation regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate (Li is silent as to value of the refractive index of materials in the device disclosed therein).
In the general field of photonics, Sultanova teaches the refractive index of optical polymers, such as polycarbonate, which has an index of refraction ranging from 1.575 at 703 nm to 1.612 at 436.8 nm (see Table 1 on page 586).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sultanova to the disclosure of Park and noted that polycarbonate has an index of refraction in the range of 1.575 to 1.612, and selected a thermoplastic such as polycarbonate for the transparent inner lens layer 208 and outer lens layer 210 of laminate 106 to optimize the performance of the laminate 106 disclosed by Park, because Sultanova teaches physical and thermal properties of the optical plastics directly relate to the index of refraction (Sultanova, page 585, column 1, second paragraph in 1. Introduction), which would influence the optical properties of the transparent laminate.
The prior art combination of Park in view of Lewi, Li, and Sultanova teaches and renders obvious the limitation of regarding adjusting the refractive index of the LC material in at least the given portion of the LC layer to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate and as a result, allowing the meta elements to bend light, because Park teaches the inclusion of liquid crystals and polycarbonate in the laminate 106 disclosed therein, and Li and Sultanova teach values for available liquid crystals and polycarbonates that allow for these materials to be different from a refractive index of the second substrate.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected as unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hartshorn et al. US PGPub 2019/0137794 A1 (hereinafter, “Hartshorn”).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Park discloses the system of claim 8 but Park does not disclose the system wherein a real-world facing surface of the first substrate also has a layer of another surface function based polarizer (Park teaches auto-shading film 202 as a single element, see Figs. 2A and 2B), therefore Park does not disclose wherein a polarization orientation of the another surface function based polarizer of the real-world facing surface is orthogonal to a polarization orientation of the surface function based polarizer of the user-facing surface.
In a related field of invention, Hartshorn discloses a dimmable window apparatus with gaze detection feature (refer to abstract and par. [0008], and see Figs. 1-3), where window 202 includes a first linear polarizing film 204 and a second polarizing film 206 where the polarization axis of film 204 can be orthogonal to the polarization axis of film 206 (pars. [0035-37]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hartshorn to the disclosure of Park and included a second polarizing element, arranged orthogonally to the first polarizing element (i.e., auto-shading film 202 of Park), because Hartshorn teaches such an arrangement advantageously reduces power usage, such that the dimmable window apparatus, or variable transmittance laminate, may not utilize power unless the user's gaze is detected on the window, and at least partially reduce intensity of light outside of the user's gaze, to reduce eye strain (Hartshorn, par. [0055]).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Park discloses the method of claim 18, but Park does not disclose wherein a real-world facing surface of the first substrate also has a layer of another surface function based polarizer (Park teaches auto-shading film 202 as a single element, see Figs. 2A and 2B), therefore Park does not disclose wherein a polarization orientation of the another surface function based polarizer of the real-world facing surface is orthogonal to a polarization orientation of the surface function based polarizer of the user-facing surface.
In a related field of invention, Hartshorn discloses a dimmable window apparatus with gaze detection feature (refer to abstract and par. [0008], and see Figs. 1-3), where window 202 includes a first linear polarizing film 204 and a second polarizing film 206 where the polarization axis of film 204 can be orthogonal to the polarization axis of film 206 (pars. [0035-37]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hartshorn to the disclosure of Park and included a second polarizing element, arranged orthogonally to the first polarizing element (i.e., auto-shading film 202 of Park), because Hartshorn teaches such an arrangement advantageously reduces power usage, such that the dimmable window apparatus, or variable transmittance laminate, may not utilize power unless the user's gaze is detected on the window, and at least partially reduce intensity of light outside of the user's gaze, to reduce eye strain (Hartshorn, par. [0055]).
Claims 10-11 and 20 are rejected as unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ahn et al. US PGPub 2021/0001697 A1 (hereinafter, “Ahn”).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Park discloses the system of claim 1, but Park does not disclose the system further comprising tracking means (Park is silent as to the presence or inclusion of a means for tracking), therefore Park does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: utilise the tracking means to determine gaze directions of eyes of at least one user; and select the given portion of the LC layer, based on the gaze directions of the eyes of the at least one user.
In a related field of invention, Ahn discloses a system for controlling transparency of a vehicle window by gaze recognition (refer to abstract). Ahn discloses tracking means in the form of gaze detector 100 and gaze determiner 200 to determine the gaze of a driver (par. [0043]), shown in at least Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B, so as to determine whether controller 300 transmits a transparency control signal to an electrochromic film 400 (pars. [0036-37]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ahn to the disclosure of Park and included a gaze detection or eye tracking means to control the transmittance state, or other optical properties, of variable transmittance laminate 106, because Ahn teaches such a system to provide information without obstructing the visibility of the driver while operating the vehicle (Ahn, par. [0057]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Park discloses the system of claim 1, but Park does not disclose the system further comprising:
a light field display unit (Figs. 2A and 2B, variable transmittance laminate 106 includes light source 222 with light emitting diodes 224 on substrate 226, par. [0043]).
Park does not disclose tracking means (Park is silent as to the presence or inclusion of a means for tracking), nor does Park disclose wherein at least a part of the windshield is implemented as an optical combiner (Park teaches when light source 222 is needed, switch 220 can be closed to transition the auto-shading film 202 to a maximum transmittance state to allow as much light as possible to exit the variable transmittance laminate 106, enabling efficient emission of bright light to surrounding drivers and pedestrians, par. [0044], but does not teach or suggest the windshield of vehicle 100 is an optical combiner), and because Park does not disclose tracking means, Park does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to utilise the tracking means to determine a relative location of a first eye and of a second eye of at least one user with respect to the optical combiner, nor generate an input to be employed by the light field display unit for producing a synthetic light field, based on the relative location of the first eye and of the second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner, and employ the input at the light field display unit to produce the synthetic light field, wherein the optical combiner is employed to reflect a first part and a second part of the synthetic light field towards the first eye and the second eye of the at least one user, respectively, whilst optically combining the first part and the second part of the synthetic light field with a real-world light field of a real-world environment.
In a related field of invention, Ahn discloses a system for controlling transparency of a vehicle window by gaze recognition (refer to abstract). Ahn discloses tracking means in the form of gaze detector 100 and gaze determiner 200 to determine the gaze of a driver (par. [0043]), shown in at least Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B, so as to determine whether controller 300 transmits a transparency control signal to an electrochromic film 400 (pars. [0036-37]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ahn to the disclosure of Park and included a gaze detection or eye tracking means to control the transmittance state, or other optical properties, of variable transmittance laminate 106, because Ahn teaches such a system to provide information without obstructing the visibility of the driver while operating the vehicle (Ahn, par. [0057]).
The prior art combination of Park in view of Ahn therefore teaches the limitation regarding the use of the tracking means to determine a relative location of a first eye and of a second eye of at least one user with respect to the optical combiner (Ahn teaches gaze determination, therefore necessarily determines relative location of a first and a second eye of at least one user relative to a windshield with an electrochromic film or liquid crystal layer as taught by Park), generate an input to be employed by the light field display unit for producing a synthetic light field (Park discloses light source 222 that produces a synthetic light field or the equivalent), based on the relative location of the first eye and of the second eye of the at least one user with respect to the optical combiner (Ahn teaches gaze detection for determining which window the driver is looking at, so as to provide a transparency control signal to electrochromic film, par. [0020]), and employ the input at the light field display unit to produce the synthetic light field (Park light source 222 produces the synthetic light field, par. [0042]), wherein the optical combiner is employed to reflect a first part and a second part of the synthetic light field towards the first eye and the second eye of the at least one user, respectively, whilst optically combining the first part and the second part of the synthetic light field with a real-world light field of a real-world environment (Park teaches light from source 222 can be reflected from substructures 214 of variable transmittance laminate 106, par. [0042], and Ahn teaches a transparency control signal to provide transparency of the windshield when the driver’s gaze is directed towards it as determined by the gaze detector 100 and/or gaze determiner 200, so that vehicle 100 with laminate 100 on the windshield will function as an optical combiner to provide the first part and the second part of the synthetic light field with a real-world light field of a real-world environment, i.e., the combination will function as a head-up display system).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Park discloses the method of claim 12, but Park does not disclose the method further comprising: utilising tracking means to determine gaze directions of eyes of at least one user (Park is silent as to the presence or inclusion of a means for tracking), therefore Park does not disclose selecting the given portion of the LC layer, based on the gaze directions of the eyes of the at least one user.
In a related field of invention, Ahn discloses a system for controlling transparency of a vehicle window by gaze recognition (refer to abstract). Ahn discloses tracking means in the form of gaze detector 100 and gaze determiner 200 to determine the gaze of a driver (par. [0043]), shown in at least Figs. 1, 2A, and 2B, so as to determine whether controller 300 transmits a transparency control signal to an electrochromic film 400 (pars. [0036-37]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Ahn to the disclosure of Park and included a gaze detection or eye tracking means to control the transmittance state, or other optical properties, of variable transmittance laminate 106, because Ahn teaches such a system to provide information without obstructing the visibility of the driver while operating the vehicle (Ahn, par. [0057]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights