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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 03 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03 April 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morito et al. (WO 2021045083 A1; translation attached herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Morito discloses a light control device (see figures 1-6, for instance), comprising: a plurality of light control sheets (20, 40) configured to reversibly change between a transparent state (fig. 3) and an opaque state (fig. 4) and comprising a first light control sheet (20) and a second light control sheet (40) such that the first light control sheet is overlapping the second light control sheet (see figure 1) and that the first and second light control sheets are configured to have the opaque state simultaneously (see figures 1 and 5, for instance), wherein each of the first and second light control sheets includes a transparent polymer layer having voids (35, see figures 2-3), and a liquid crystal composition (32, 33) comprising a liquid crystal compound (32) and a dichroic dye (33) such that the voids (35) are filled with the liquid crystal composition, an absorbance difference obtained by subtracting an average absorbance of the liquid crystal composition from an absorbance of the light control sheets in the opaque state is 0.4 or greater (since the haze values of 20 and 40 are at least 90% when the units are in opaque mode, i.e. horizontally aligned, see page 3, ¶ 4, and the haze value in transmissive mode are 10%, i.e. vertically aligned, see page 3, ¶ 4; yielding a total difference of absorption of 90% - (90% + 10%)/2 = 40% or at least 0.4), the average absorbance is an average value of the absorbance of the liquid crystal composition when horizontally aligned and the absorbance of the liquid crystal composition when vertically aligned, the absorbance of the liquid crystal composition when horizontally aligned is obtained by placing the liquid crystal composition in a cell for horizontal alignment having a thickness of 6 μm, and the absorbance of the liquid crystal composition when vertically aligned is obtained by placing the liquid crystal composition in a cell for vertical alignment having a thickness of 6 μm (in the present case, since the structure of the device of Morito anticipates the claimed structure, and exhibits the claimed functional illumination, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the device of Morito to anticipate the properties of the liquid crystal layer in relationship to the light control layers, see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 2, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1, wherein a diffuse transmittance of each of the first and second light control sheets in the opaque state is 16% or less (see page 3, ¶ 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1, wherein a haze of each of the first and second light control sheets in the opaque state is 79% or greater (page 3, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 6, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1, wherein a total light transmittance of each of the first and second light control sheets in the opaque state is 25% or less (page 3, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 7, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1, wherein a clarity of each of the first and second light control sheets in the opaque state is 95% or less (page 3, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 8, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1, wherein each of the first and second light control sheets (20, 40) includes a first transparent electrode layer (23, 43), a second transparent electrode layer (24, 44), a first alignment layer formed between the first transparent electrode layer and the transparent polymer layer (page 6, ¶ 3), and a second alignment layer formed between the second transparent electrode layer and the transparent polymer layer (page 6, ¶ 3), and a light control layer comprising the transparent polymer layer and the liquid crystal composition has a thickness of 10 μm or less (since the total thickness of 20 / 40 is 100 µm < T20/40 < 500 µm and the thickness of substrates 21 / 22 and 41 / 42 are between 30 µm < Tsub < 250 µm; yielding a range of liquid crystal layer thicknesses overlapping the claimed range of 10 µm or less).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morito in view of Uchiya et al. (JP 2020148808 A; translation attached herewith).
Regarding claim 3, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1. However, Morito does not expressly disclose wherein a parallel light transmittance of each of the first and second light control sheets in the opaque state is 5% or less.
Uchiya discloses a light control device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein a parallel light transmittance of each of the first and second light control sheets (100) in the opaque state is 5% or less (see page 11, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the parallel transmittance in the opaque state through routine experimentation as Uchiya in the device of Morito. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a sufficient light shielding property of the light control film, as taught by Uchiya (page 11, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 4, Morito discloses the light control device according to claim 1. However, Morito does not expressly disclose wherein a parallel light transmittance of each of the first and second light control sheets in the opaque state is 2% or less.
Uchiya discloses a light control device (see figure 1, for instance), wherein a parallel light transmittance of each of the first and second light control sheets (100) in the opaque state is 2% or less (see page 11, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the parallel transmittance in the opaque state through routine experimentation as Uchiya in the device of Morito. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a sufficient light shielding property of the light control film, as taught by Uchiya (page 11, ¶ 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 5/19/2026
Prosecution Insights