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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 9, the limitations, “a first polarizing plate” and “a second polarizing plate opposite to the first polarizing plate;” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is not clear if these are referring to the polarizing plates of claim 1. or are additional to the polarizing plates of claim 1. For examination purposes, it is presumed these are referring to the polarizing plates as set forth in claim 1.
Further regarding claim 9, the limitation, “a liquid crystal layer provided between the first transparent conductive layer and the second transparent conductive layer,” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear if this referring to the liquid crystal of claim 1 or if it is a new layer. For examination purposes, it is presumed the limitation refers to the liquid crystal layer of claim 1.
Claims 10-14 depend from claim 9.
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 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0082885 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2024/0176173 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a transmittance variable optical laminate 300 (denoted “variable transmissivity device”, see e.g. paragraph [0050]) comprising (see e.g. Figure 4):
a light control laminate comprising an electric field-driven liquid crystal 330 (denoted “liquid crystal layer, see e.g. paragraph [0050]) between polarizing plates 312, 322 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]).
Lee et al. fails to disclose
a louver film disposed on at least a portion of an indoor-side surface of the light control laminate,
wherein the louver film is composed of two or more laminated layers and comprising light-blocking patterns,
wherein the light-blocking patterns are disposed to face the indoor side.
However, Yoshida et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1, 19):
a louver film 20L1, 20L2 (denoted “first and second light-shielding portions”, see e.g. paragraph [0073] and Figure 1) disposed on at least a portion of an indoor-side surface (i.e. viewing surface of Figure 1) of the light control laminate 20 (denoted “liquid crystal panel”, see e.g. paragraph [0073]),
wherein the louver film 20L1, 20L2 is composed of two or more laminated layers 20L1, 20L2 and comprising light-blocking patterns 20L1, 20L2 (see e.g. paragraph [0073] and Figure 1),
wherein the light-blocking patterns 20L1, 20L2 are disposed to face the indoor side (i.e. viewing surface of Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Yoshida et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with a louver film disposed on at least a portion of an indoor-side surface of the light control laminate, wherein the louver film is composed of two or more laminated layers and comprising light-blocking patterns, wherein the light-blocking patterns are disposed to face the indoor side.
Providing the louver/light shielding films would allow the transmission of light through the panel to be controlled directionally.
In regard to claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the louver film comprises a second adherend surface at the indoor side and a first adherend surface positioned between the second adherend surface and the light control laminate, wherein a light-blocking pattern on the second adherend surface protrudes toward the indoor side.
However, Yoshida et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1 and 19):
wherein the louver film 20L1, 20L2 comprises a second adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L1, see e.g. Figures 1, 19) positioned at the indoor side (i.e. viewing surface of Figure 1) and a first adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L2, see e.g. Figures 1, 19) positioned between the second adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L1, see e.g. Figures 1, 19) and the light control laminate (i.e. including at least layer 230), wherein a light-blocking pattern 20L1, 20L2 on the second adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L1, see e.g. Figures 1, 19) protrudes toward the indoor side (i.e. viewing surface of Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Yoshida et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the louver film comprises a second adherend surface positioned at the indoor side and a first adherend surface positioned between the second adherend surface and the light control laminate, wherein a light-blocking pattern on the second adherend surface protrudes toward the indoor side.
Providing the louver/light shielding films would allow the transmission of light through the panel to be controlled directionally.
In regard to claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first adherend surface comprises a first light-blocking pattern, the second adherend surface comprises a second light-blocking pattern, and when viewed in a vertical cross-section, a straight line connecting an outermost point where the first light-blocking pattern contacts the first adherend surface with an outermost point where a corresponding second light-blocking pattern contacts the second adherend surface forms a predetermined inclination angle (θ) with the first adherend surface while forming an oblique line with respect to the first adherend surface.
However, Yoshida et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 19):
wherein the first adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L2, see e.g. Figure 19) comprises a first light-blocking pattern 20L2, the second adherend (i.e. surface contacting 20L1, see e.g. Figure 19) surface comprises a second light-blocking pattern 20L1, and when viewed in a vertical cross-section, a straight line connecting an outermost point where the first light-blocking pattern 20L2 contacts the first adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L2, see e.g. Figure 19) with an outermost point where a corresponding second light-blocking pattern 20L1 contacts the second adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L1, see e.g. Figure 19) forms a predetermined inclination angle (θ) with the first adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L2, see e.g. Figure 19) while forming an oblique line with respect to the first adherend surface (i.e. surface contacting 20L2, see e.g. Figure 19).
Given the teachings of Yoshida et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the first adherend surface comprises a first light-blocking pattern, the second adherend surface comprises a second light-blocking pattern, and when viewed in a vertical cross-section, a straight line connecting an outermost point where the first light-blocking pattern contacts the first adherend surface with an outermost point where a corresponding second light-blocking pattern contacts the second adherend surface forms a predetermined inclination angle (θ) with the first adherend surface while forming an oblique line with respect to the first adherend surface.
Providing the louver/light shielding films would allow the transmission of light through the panel to be controlled directionally.
In regard to claim 4, Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, when viewed in the vertical cross-section, a length (a) obtained by projecting an oblique line, which connects an outermost point where the first light-blocking pattern contacts the first adherend surface with an outermost point of the corresponding second light-blocking pattern, onto the first adherend surface, is 5 to 50% of a length (ω1) of the first light-blocking pattern.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein, when viewed in the vertical cross-section, a length (a) obtained by projecting an oblique line, which connects an outermost point where the first light-blocking pattern contacts the first adherend surface with an outermost point of the corresponding second light-blocking pattern, onto the first adherend surface, is 5 to 50% of a length (ω1) of the first light-blocking pattern, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., with wherein, when viewed in the vertical cross-section, a length (a) obtained by projecting an oblique line, which connects an outermost point where the first light-blocking pattern contacts the first adherend surface with an outermost point of the corresponding second light-blocking pattern, onto the first adherend surface, is 5 to 50% of a length (ω1) of the first light-blocking pattern.
Selecting the relative spacing of the light-blocking patterns would have predictable results and can be used to select from which direction light may enter the device.
In regard to claim 5, Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the transmittance variable optical laminate has a maximum viewing angle (θ1) ranging from 40° to 75° for reflected image, wherein the viewing angle for the reflected image is an angle of the reflected light with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the adherend surface toward the indoor side when viewed in a vertical cross-section of the transmittance variable optical laminate.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the transmittance variable optical laminate has a maximum viewing angle (θ1) ranging from 40° to 75° for reflected image, wherein the viewing angle for the reflected image is an angle of the reflected light with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the adherend surface toward the indoor side when viewed in a vertical cross-section of the transmittance variable optical laminate, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., with
wherein the transmittance variable optical laminate has a maximum viewing angle (θ1) ranging from 40° to 75° for reflected image, wherein the viewing angle for the reflected image is an angle of the reflected light with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the adherend surface toward the indoor side when viewed in a vertical cross-section of the transmittance variable optical laminate.
Selecting the relative spacing of the light-blocking patterns would have predictable results and can be used to select from which direction light may enter the device.
In regard to claim 6, Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the transmittance variable optical laminate has a maximum viewing angle (θ2) ranging from 60° to 85° for external light transmitted from an outside, wherein the viewing angle for the external light is an angle of the external light with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the adherend surface toward the indoor side when viewed in a vertical cross-section of the transmittance variable optical laminate.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the transmittance variable optical laminate has a maximum viewing angle (θ2) ranging from 60° to 85° for external light transmitted from an outside, wherein the viewing angle for the external light is an angle of the external light with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the adherend surface toward the indoor side when viewed in a vertical cross-section of the transmittance variable optical laminate, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., with
wherein the transmittance variable optical laminate has a maximum viewing angle (θ2) ranging from 60° to 85° for external light transmitted from an outside, wherein the viewing angle for the external light is an angle of the external light with respect to a straight line perpendicular to the adherend surface toward the indoor side when viewed in a vertical cross-section of the transmittance variable optical laminate.
Selecting the relative spacing of the light-blocking patterns would have predictable results and can be used to select from which direction light may enter the device.
In regard to claim 8, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applies to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the louver film comprises: an inter-pattern spacing (ω2) where the light-blocking pattern is not formed on the adherend surface; and a light-blocking portion where the light-blocking pattern is formed on the adherend surface, wherein, assuming that a height of the second light-blocking pattern is h2, a shortest straight-line distance between the adherend surfaces is h3, and a length of the first light-blocking pattern is ω1, a value of (h2+h3)/ω1 is 0.5 to 4.0, and an aperture ratio (p) defined as ω3/(ω2+ω1)×100(%) with respect to a direction perpendicular to a plane is 70% or more.
However, Yoshida et al. discloses wherein the louver film 20L1, 20L2 comprises: an inter-pattern spacing (ω2) (i.e. between 20L1, 20L2 ) where the light-blocking pattern 20L1, 20L2 is not formed on the adherend surface; and a light-blocking portion 20L1, 20L2 where the light-blocking pattern 20L1, 20L2 is formed on the adherend surface (see e.g. Figure 19).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein, assuming that a height of the second light-blocking pattern is h2, a shortest straight-line distance between the adherend surfaces is h3, and a length of the first light-blocking pattern is ω1, a value of (h2+h3)/ω1 is 0.5 to 4.0, and an aperture ratio (p) defined as ω3/(ω2+ω1)×100(%) with respect to a direction perpendicular to a plane is 70% or more, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Yoshida et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein the louver film comprises: an inter-pattern spacing (ω2) where the light-blocking pattern is not formed on the adherend surface; and a light-blocking portion where the light-blocking pattern is formed on the adherend surface, wherein, assuming that a height of the second light-blocking pattern is h2, a shortest straight-line distance between the adherend surfaces is h3, and a length of the first light-blocking pattern is ω1, a value of (h2+h3)/ω1 is 0.5 to 4.0, and an aperture ratio (p) defined as ω3/(ω2+ω1)×100(%) with respect to a direction perpendicular to a plane is 70% or more.
Selecting the relative spacing of the light-blocking patterns would have predictable results and can be used to select from which direction light may enter the device.
In regard to claim 9, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the light control laminate 300 comprises (see e.g. Figure 4):
a first polarizing plate 312 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]);
a first transparent conductive layer 351 formed on one surface of the first polarizing plate 312 (see e.g. paragraph [0055]);
a second polarizing plate 322 opposite to the first polarizing plate 312 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]);
a second transparent conductive layer 352 formed on one surface of the second polarizing plate 322 and opposite to the first transparent conductive layer 351 (see e.g. paragraph [0052]); and
a liquid crystal layer 330 provided between the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 (see e.g. paragraph [0053]),
wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 is formed in direct contact with any one of the first polarizing plate 312 and the second polarizing plate 322 (see e.g. Figure 4).
In regard to claim 10, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein at least one of the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a metal, a carbonaceous material, a conductive polymer, a conductive ink, and nanowires (see e.g. Figure 4 and paragraph [0055] for indium tin oxide (ITO)).
In regard to claim 11, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate 312 and the second polarizing plate 322 comprises at least one functional layer selected from the group consisting of a protective layer, a retardation matching layer, and a refractive index matching layer (see e.g. paragraph [0038] for a protective film).
In regard to claim 12, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 μm to 200 μm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 μm to 200 μm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 μm to 200 μm.
Selecting the thickness of the polarizing plates would have the advantage of balancing the polarization quality of the light with light loss and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 13, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the liquid crystal layer 331 comprises at least one spacer 322 selected from the group consisting of a ball spacer and a column spacer (see e.g. paragraph [0043]).
In regard to claim 14, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the light control laminate 300 further comprises an alignment film 341, 342 on both surfaces of the liquid crystal layer 331 (see e.g. paragraph [0045]).
In regard to claim 15, Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al. discloses a transmittance variable optical element (see e.g. rejection of claim 1). Lee et al. further discloses a variable optical element for use in a window of a vehicle (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al. with a sunroof.
Using the variable optical element as a sunroof would allow the user to have a dimmable window that maybe controlled to have a variable transmission.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0082885 A1) in view of Yoshida et al. (US 2024/0176173 A1) and further in view of Shiota et al. (US 2011/0085182 A1).
In regard to claim 7¸ Lee et al., in view of Yoshida et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the louver film comprises at least two adherend surfaces bonded to each other with a pressure-sensitive adhesive/adhesive interposed therebetween.
However, Shiota et al. discloses using pressure sensitive adhesive to attach a louver film 1 to a liquid crystal device (i.e. 9, 32, 16) (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraphs [0058], [0136]).
Given the teachings of Shiota et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lee et al., in view of Shiota et al., with wherein the louver film comprises at least two adherend surfaces bonded to each other with a pressure-sensitive adhesive/ adhesive interposed therebetween.
Using an adhesive to attach the components allows the device to be more easily constructed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights