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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 1/17/2025. Applicant amended claims 3, 5, 7, 11-14, 16, 22, 23, 26, 28, 35, 43 and 45; and canceled claims 6, 8-10, 15, 17-21, 24, 27, 29-33, 36-42 and 44. Claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16, 22-23, 25-26, 28, 34-35, 43 and 45 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to CN202310436591.6, filed on 4/21/2023.
DRAWINGS
The drawings are objected to because: FIG. 12 is blurry and difficult to read. To avoid abandonment of the application, the reply to the Office Action requires corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office Action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
SPECIFICATION
From here on, reference to Applicant’s specification will use the paragraph numbers of the PGPUB.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0203]: “step S540” – no S540 exists in the rest of the disclosure. The likely term is S520.
[0217], [0260]: “step S1130 … regulating the electrical signal” – S1130 is acquiring light information per [0204]. Step S1140 is the regulating step per [0205]. Hence, step S1130 is improperly labeled.
[0097]: “liquid crystal layer 3” – conflicts with liquid crystal layer 31 in [0256]. Also, numeral 3 is used for the “switchable assembly.”
[0200]: “V1” is used for both the voltage and the voltage switching rate. Elsewhere the fixed switching rate is “VK1” ([0168], [0182])
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim(s) 5, 7, 16 and 28 is/are objected to because of claim informalities.
As a preliminary note, Examiner respectfully requests Applicant to review the claims in their entirety for potential clarity enhancements. The claims contain a large number of informalities, several meriting rejection under § 112(b), which impede a clear understanding of the claimed subject matter and therefore impede compact prosecution of the application.
As to claims 5 and 16, “second mapping relationship” is an ordinal without a “first” instance. Note that claim 5 depends on claim 3, not claim 2.
As to claim 7, “second predetermined light intensity difference threshold” is an ordinal without a “first” instance. Note that claim 7 depends on claim 1, not claim 5.
As to claim 16, “the determining the electrical signal regulation information” lacks antecedent basis. Note that the determining step appears in claim 5 but claim 16 depends on claim 3.
As to claim 28:
“third[/fourth] switching rates” are incorrect ordinals. Claim 28 depends on claim 25, not claim 26
“side windshield glass” – term is contrary to its ordinary meaning. The specification and figures use it consistently for side windows.
“the adjusting the light transmittance” lacks antecedent basis. The step first appears in claim 3 but is not part of this claim tree.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16, 22-23, 25-26, 28, 34-35, 43 and 45 is/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.
As to claims 1, 34, 35 and 43, the recitation “transmittance adjustment information” comprises the step of “adjusting.” Confusion arises from the claim defining “information” as an action – it is unclear whether the limitation constitutes data or a step. The specification does not appear to clarify this matter. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
For the purposes of examination, this claim limitation is interpreted as information indicating an adjustment.
As to claim 4, the recitation “electrical signal regulation information” comprises the step of “regulating.” Confusion arises from the claim defining “information” as an action – it is unclear whether the limitation constitutes data or a step. The specification does not appear to clarify this matter. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
For the purposes of examination, this claim limitation is interpreted as information indicating a regulation.
As to claim 7, two definitions are provided for meeting the predetermined condition. The two “wherein … comprises” clauses read as cumulative: that the condition should include both tests. However, the claim does not say whether meeting the condition requires both tests or either one. Indeed, the specification treats the predetermined conditions as alternatives: “at least one of” at ¶ 156. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
For the purposes of examination, the condition is interpreted as including both tests.
Continuing with claim 7, it is unclear how the rise and drop information can meet the same condition. Indeed, the rate test (“change rate being greater than a … threshold”) uses no absolute value. For a light intensity drop, the rate is negative. A negative rate cannot exceed a positive threshold, so the “drop” prong may never be met through the rate test. The specification does not appear to clarify this matter. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
As to claim 16, it is unclear how many conditions must be met. The claim stacks two clauses of each type:
acquiring comprises …
acquiring during entrance
acquiring during exit
condition comprises:
entrance condition
outside > 1st threshold and/or inside < 2nd threshold
exit condition
inside <3rd threshold and/or outside >4th threshold
Read literally, “comprises” is open-ended and the clauses are cumulative. That suggests the method requires acquiring at both the entrance and the exit, and that the single condition includes all four tests. The claim does not say whether meeting the condition requires:
both the entrance and exit tests,
either pair, or
any single test.
The and/or within each pair adds more uncertainty. Summarizing, one predetermined condition is used to achieve different outcomes, which is vague and confusing. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
As to claims 22 and 23, the claim elements “pre-regulating” and “pre-adjust” are vague and confusing. Claim 22 does not say what these steps precede. The spec suggests two different reference points:
before the vehicle reaches the entrance or exit of an enclosed space (¶¶ 195, 196, 201)
before the light-based adjustment, as a “coarse” step ahead of the “fine” one (¶¶ 203, 248).
Claim 22 recites neither. It is also unclear whether the pre-adjustment is:
separate from claim 1’s adjusting step, or
part of it, and whether it must be “based on” claim 1’s transmittance adjustment information.
The specification does not appear to clarify this matter. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 23 exacerbates the confusion. It recites pre-regulating “in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance or an exit.” That reads as during passage, while the specification describes pre-adjustment as happening before reaching the entrance or exit. The claim therefore sits in tension with the ordinary meaning of “pre.” The specification does not appear to clarify this matter. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
For the purposes of examination, pre-regulating and pre-adjust are being read as processes performed before a light change at a point.
As to claim 28:
familiar/unfamiliar environment – the foregoing constitutes a subjective term without a frame of reference. The specification gives examples (e.g., a residential area or company vs. a roadside or supermarket; see ¶¶ 215-216). However, no standard is provided and it is unclear how the system decides familiarity
It is unclear whether the “wherein regulating” clauses are separate steps to the “regulating” clauses. Claim 25 sets the switching rate by position, while claim 28 sets it by speed and by region. It is unclear whether the switching rate is one rate driven by several inputs or separate regulating steps.
It is unclear whether the “or” joins only the side-glass and sunroof clauses, or also the speed and region clauses before them. It is also unclear whether the final “; and” group clause falls inside the sunroof alternative or stands alone.
The switchable glass comprising several components is vague and indefinite. The claim recites “a switchable glass,” and claim 28 elsewhere uses “a same switchable glass” to mean one pane. But the claim goes on to claim that one glass “comprises” windshields, sunroof, sun visor and all side glasses. It is unclear whether “switchable glass” is one pane or a set of panes.
Regarding the above items, the specification does not appear to clarify the respective matters. Accordingly, the claim is vague and indefinite, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claims 2-3, 5, 11-14, 22-23, 25, 26 and 45 depend on claim 1.
Claim 35 depends on claim 34.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7, 11-14, 16, 22-23, 25-26, 28, 34-35, 43 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C § 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 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 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura et al. (US20210158765A1; “Nishimura”).
As to independent claim 1, Nishimura discloses a method of controlling a switchable glass system for a vehicle, the switchable glass system comprising a switchable glass installed on the vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring a light intensity change information, the light intensity change information comprising at least one of a light intensity value change or a light intensity change rate (“[T]he server 30 generates information regarding a point at which a change amount of the illuminance acquired by the first vehicle 10 exceeds a prescribed value (also referred to as a sudden-change point hereinafter), and provides it to the second vehicle 20” ¶ 47; see also ¶¶ 28, 76 and 82. “the illuminance adjustment unit 203 determines whether or not the information regarding the sudden-change point has been received from the server 30” ¶ 101 and FIG. 14; see also ¶¶ 39, 47 and 56.); and
adjusting a light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a transmittance adjustment information in response to the light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition (“The sudden-change point corresponding to the information regarding the traveling environment of the second vehicle is the point at which the change amount of the illuminance of the light incident on the second vehicle exceeds the prescribed value when the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point” ¶ 29; see also ¶ 90. “in step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14.),
wherein the transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of a magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or a change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass (“[I]n step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point … the decrease amount of the transmittance per unit time may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point … the transmittance of the light-control glass 29 may simply be decreased by a prescribed value, for example. The prescribed value may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14; see also ¶ 69.).
As to independent claim 43, Nishimura discloses a method of controlling a switchable glass system for a vehicle, the switchable glass system comprising a switchable glass installed on the vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring a light intensity by a detector installed on the vehicle (N: “a same vehicle may have functions of both the first vehicle 10 and the second vehicle 20” ¶ 48. “The illuminance sensor 16 acquires the illuminance inside or outside the first vehicle 10” ¶ 55. ;
determining a light intensity change information by using the acquired light intensity as an input, and comparing the light intensity change information with a predetermined light intensity change threshold, wherein the light intensity change information comprises at least one of a light intensity value change or a light intensity change rate (“[T]he server 30 generates information regarding a point at which a change amount of the illuminance acquired by the first vehicle 10 exceeds a prescribed value (also referred to as a sudden-change point hereinafter), and provides it to the second vehicle 20” ¶ 47; see also ¶¶ 28, 76 and 82. “the illuminance adjustment unit 203 determines whether or not the information regarding the sudden-change point has been received from the server 30” ¶ 101 and FIG. 14; see also ¶¶ 39, 47 and 56.); and
outputting a control instruction in response to the light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition, wherein the control instruction is used to adjust a light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a transmittance adjustment information (“The sudden-change point corresponding to the information regarding the traveling environment of the second vehicle is the point at which the change amount of the illuminance of the light incident on the second vehicle exceeds the prescribed value when the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point” ¶ 29; see also ¶ 90. “in step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14.),
wherein the transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of a magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or a change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass (“[I]n step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point … the decrease amount of the transmittance per unit time may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point … the transmittance of the light-control glass 29 may simply be decreased by a prescribed value, for example. The prescribed value may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14; see also ¶ 69.);
the method further comprising:
acquiring a position information of the vehicle, wherein the input further comprises the acquired position information (“The vehicle information transmission unit 101 transmits the location information acquired from the location information sensor 15 and the illuminance information acquired from the illuminance sensor 16” ¶ 63. “The information transmission unit 303 generates the information regarding the sudden-change point based on the information stored in the illuminance information DB 312. For example, by referring to the illuminance information DB 312, a point at which the change amount of the illuminance is equal to or more than a prescribed value within a prescribed distance on a same road is extracted as a sudden-change point” ¶ 76.).
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 22 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi et al. (US20230221610A1; “Shi”).
As to claim 2, Nishimura discloses: determining the transmittance adjustment information according to a first mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and a light transmittance adjustment information, in response to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the determined transmittance adjustment information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the first mapping relationship (N: “[I]n step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point … the decrease amount of the transmittance per unit time may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point … the transmittance of the light-control glass 29 may simply be decreased by a prescribed value, for example. The prescribed value may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14; see also ¶ 69.).
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: performing the above according to a predetermined first mapping relationship.
Nevertheless, Shi teaches: determining the transmittance adjustment information according to a predetermined first mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and a light transmittance adjustment information (“A correspondence relationship between the illuminance and the transmittance of electrochromic layer is pre-stored in a processor module, and the processor module can determine a value of the first transmittance matched with the detected first illuminance” ¶ 61.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the feature of: determining the transmittance adjustment information according to a predetermined first mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and a light transmittance adjustment information, as taught by Shi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for enabling a processor to determine a value of transmittance matched with a detected illuminance (See Shi, ¶ 61). Nishimura already sets the transmittance adjustment based on the illuminance change amount at a sudden-change point (See Nishimura, ¶ 104). Hence, modifying Nishimura with Shi would constitute applying a known control technique to a known relationship, yielding predictable results.
As to claim 3, Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass by regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, wherein the electrical signal is regulated based on an electrical signal regulation information.
Nevertheless, Shi teaches: adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass by regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, wherein the electrical signal is regulated based on an electrical signal regulation information (“A voltage applied to the electrochromic layer is controlled by the control signal” ¶ 53. “the processor module 13 adjusts a voltage applied to the electrochromic layer 14, and adjusts the transmittance of the electrochromic layer 14” ¶ 117.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the feature of: adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass by regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, wherein the electrical signal is regulated based on an electrical signal regulation information, as taught by Shi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for producing a stable and reversible change in the transmittance of electrochromic glass (see, e.g., Shi, ¶ 53). Hence, driving Nishimura’s electrochromic glass (disclosed in Nishimura, ¶ 58) by the known technique of regulating the applied voltage according to a control signal yields predictable results.
As to claim 22, Nishimura discloses:
acquiring a position information of the vehicle (“The vehicle information transmission unit 101 transmits the location information acquired from the location information sensor 15 and the illuminance information acquired from the illuminance sensor 16” ¶ 63. “The information transmission unit 303 generates the information regarding the sudden-change point based on the information stored in the illuminance information DB 312. For example, by referring to the illuminance information DB 312, a point at which the change amount of the illuminance is equal to or more than a prescribed value within a prescribed distance on a same road is extracted as a sudden-change point” ¶ 76.); and
controlling the switchable glass according to the acquired position information, so as to pre-adjust the light transmittance of the switchable glass (“[T]he adjuster may decrease the transmittance of the light-control glass before the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point to be smaller than the transmittance after the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point” ¶ 40. “In a case where the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls … the light-control glass 29, the control may be started at the point where the distance from the second vehicle 20 to the sudden-change point reaches a prescribed distance” ¶ 70.).
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: pre-regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the acquired position information.
Nevertheless, Shi teaches: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass (“A voltage applied to the electrochromic layer is controlled by the control signal” ¶ 53. “the processor module 13 adjusts a voltage applied to the electrochromic layer 14, and adjusts the transmittance of the electrochromic layer 14” ¶ 117.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the feature of: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, as taught by Shi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for producing a stable and reversible change in the transmittance of electrochromic glass (see, e.g., Shi, ¶ 53). Hence, driving Nishimura’s electrochromic glass (disclosed in Nishimura, ¶ 58) by the known technique of regulating the applied voltage according to a control signal yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi as applied to claim 3 — further in view of Wang et al. (US20210208436A1; “Wang”)
As to claim 4, the combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the electrical signal regulation information comprises regulating at least one of an amplitude of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass or a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: wherein the electrical signal regulation information comprises regulating at least one of an amplitude of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass (“The drive circuit for the dimming glass provided by the above embodiments of the present disclosure can generate an alternating current signal with an adjustable amplitude according to needs, and control the degree of deflection of liquid crystal molecules in the dimming glass by the alternating current signal to adjust the light transmittance of the dimming glass, so that the brightness of the dimming glass can be adjusted, and the market competitiveness of the dimming glass is improved” ¶ 44.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the feature of: wherein the electrical signal regulation information comprises regulating at least one of an amplitude of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for setting transmittance of a switching glass through a drive signal’s amplitude (See Wang, ¶ 44). Using a known amplitude-based drive to set transmittance of Nishimura-Shi’s switching glass yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi as applied to claim 3 — further in view of Katsura et al. (US20200298678A1; “Katsura”)
As to claim 5, Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: determining the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition comprises: an absolute value of a difference between an actual light intensity value detected and a predetermined light intensity value being greater than a first predetermined light intensity difference threshold.
Nevertheless, Shi teaches: determining the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition comprises: an absolute value of a difference between an actual light intensity value detected and a predetermined light intensity value being greater than a first predetermined light intensity difference threshold (“An automatic adjustment mechanism of the transmittance of the electrochromic glass is as follows: a preset value of illuminance is set, the detected illuminance is compared with the preset value of illuminance, and the transmittance of the electrochromic glass is adjusted according to a preset automatic adjustment rule … When the detected second illuminance is greater than a maximum value of the preset range, the second illuminance of light entering the interior space through the electrochromic layer is greater than an expected target, indicating that the current transmittance of the electrochromic layer is too high. In this case, the processor module generates a corresponding feedback control signal to control the electrochromic layer to reduce the transmittance,” and below the minimum, transmittance is increased — ¶ 56. Note: Shi’s comparison of the detected value with a preset range is equivalent to the claimed condition: for any range, a value falls outside it exactly when its absolute difference from the range’s midpoint exceeds half the range’s width, which corresponds to the claimed predetermined value and threshold, respectively.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the feature of: determining the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition comprises: an absolute value of a difference between an actual light intensity value detected and a predetermined light intensity value being greater than a first predetermined light intensity difference threshold, as taught by Shi, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for accurately adjusting transmittance against a preset light level (see Shi, ¶ 58). Comparing a detected value with a preset value is a known control test, and its use yield predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: determining the electrical signal regulation information according to a predetermined second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the electrical signal regulation information, wherein the determined electrical signal regulation information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the second mapping relationship.
Nevertheless, Katsura teaches: determining the electrical signal regulation information according to a predetermined second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the electrical signal regulation information, wherein the determined electrical signal regulation information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the second mapping relationship (“[T]he data analyzer 610 determines one or more example dimming adjustment(s) associated with changing (e.g., increasing and/or decreasing) the transparency of the first panel 204. … [T]he data analyzer 610 calculates a change (e.g., an increase and/or a decrease) for the first voltage applied to the first panel 204 by the panel interface 602 based on the criteria 620. … [T]he criteria 620 includes … one or more data maps, one or more plots, one or more tables, etc. that correlate a change in the first voltage and a change in light intensity transmitted by the first panel 204” ¶ 68. “the data analyzer 610 calculates such voltage changes based on a detected light intensity associated with the light portion 408 and/or the cabin space 410” ¶ 70. “at least a portion of the criteria 620 is predetermined and/or preprogrammed into the database 612” ¶ 72.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi to include the feature of: determining the electrical signal regulation information according to a predetermined second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the electrical signal regulation information, wherein the determined electrical signal regulation information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the second mapping relationship, as taught by Katsura, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for setting the drive voltage needed to maintain the light experienced by the occupant (see Katsura, ¶ 42). Using a stored light-to-voltage correlation to set the drive signal yields predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to perform Katsura’s teaching in response to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition. Recall from above that Shi teaches determining whether the light intensity change information meets the predetermined condition. Now, Katsura determines the voltage change in response to a comparison of the detected light intensity with a threshold (¶ 70), so applying Katsura’s mapping when Shi’s condition is met (¶ 56) uses the mapping in the same threshold-gated manner Katsura already teaches. This yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi and in view of Romig et al. (US20080048101A1; “Romig”)
As to claim 7, Nishimura disclose: wherein the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition comprises: an absolute value of a difference between actual light intensity values detected at two time instants being greater than a second predetermined light intensity difference threshold (“[T]he change amount may be expressed as an absolute value of the value acquired by subtracting the illuminance before passing through the sudden-change point from the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point” ¶ 28. “the information transmission unit 303 extracts, from the illuminance information DB 312, the point at which the absolute value of the change amount of the illuminance exceeds a prescribed value as the sudden-change point” ¶ 90. The before and after values are taken as the vehicle travels, at two different times – see ¶ 47.).
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the adjusting a light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a transmittance adjustment information in response to the light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition comprises:
reducing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity rise information meeting the predetermined condition; and
wherein the adjusting a light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a transmittance adjustment information in response to the light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition comprises:
increasing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity drop information meeting the predetermined condition.
Nevertheless, Shi teaches:
wherein the adjusting a light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a transmittance adjustment information in response to the light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition comprises:
reducing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity rise information meeting the predetermined condition (“When the illuminance of the ambient light is changed, the transmittance of the electrochromic layer is adjusted (for example, when the illuminance of the ambient light is enhanced, the transmittance of the electrochromic layer is adjusted to be lower; and when the illuminance of the ambient light is reduced, the transmittance of the electrochromic layer is adjusted to be higher)” ¶ 53.); and
wherein the adjusting a light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a transmittance adjustment information in response to the light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition comprises:
increasing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity drop information meeting the predetermined condition (“When the illuminance of the ambient light is changed, the transmittance of the electrochromic layer is adjusted (for example, when the illuminance of the ambient light is enhanced, the transmittance of the electrochromic layer is adjusted to be lower; and when the illuminance of the ambient light is reduced, the transmittance of the electrochromic layer is adjusted to be higher)” ¶ 53.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the above features as taught by Shi with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for blocking glare in bright conditions and admitting light in dim conditions (see Shi, ¶ 57). Applying Shi’s known direction of adjustment to Nishimura’s rise and drop information yields predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition comprises: the light intensity change rate being greater than a predetermined light intensity change rate threshold.
Nevertheless, Romig teaches: wherein a light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition comprises: a light intensity change rate being greater than a predetermined light intensity change rate threshold (“[T]he control system adjusts the transmissivity of a variable transmissivity area so that the light intensity is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold value and less than or equal to a maximum threshold value. The control system also evaluates the rate of change of light intensity, and adjusts the transmissivity as needed to keep the rate within an acceptable range” ¶ 12.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi with the feature of: wherein a light intensity change information meeting a predetermined condition comprises: a light intensity change rate being greater than a predetermined light intensity change rate threshold, as taught by Romig, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for protecting a driver from rapid changes in light intensity (see Romig, ¶¶ 5, 12). Adding Romig’s rate check to Nishimura’s change-amount check yields predictable results.
As to claim 12, the combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the light intensity change rate is greater than a predetermined light intensity change rate threshold in a continuous time period, the continuous time period comprises a start time instant and an end time instant, a maximum light intensity change rate time instant is between the start time instant and the end time instant, and a light intensity change rate at the maximum light intensity change rate time instant is a maximum light intensity change rate in the continuous time period; and
wherein a start regulation time instant of regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass is one of the start time instant, the maximum light intensity change rate time instant, or the end time instant.
Nevertheless, Romig teaches:
wherein the light intensity change rate is greater than a predetermined light intensity change rate threshold in a continuous time period, the continuous time period comprises a start time instant and an end time instant, a maximum light intensity change rate time instant is between the start time instant and the end time instant, and a light intensity change rate at the maximum light intensity change rate time instant is a maximum light intensity change rate in the continuous time period (“[T]he control system adjusts the transmissivity of a variable transmissivity area so that the light intensity is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold value and less than or equal to a maximum threshold value. The control system also evaluates the rate of change of light intensity, and adjusts the transmissivity as needed to keep the rate within an acceptable range” ¶ 12. Note: When Ronig’s light intensity change rate exceeds the acceptable range, it does so over a continuous time period that necessarily begins and ends at instants where the rate exceeds the upper limit of the acceptable range and comes back within the acceptable range (the start and end time instants), and the rate reaches its maximum for that period at an instant between them (the maximum light intensity change rate time instant).); and
wherein a start regulation time instant of regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass is one of the start time instant, the maximum light intensity change rate time instant, or the end time instant (“[T]he control system adjusts the transmissivity of a variable transmissivity area so that the light intensity is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold value and less than or equal to a maximum threshold value. The control system also evaluates the rate of change of light intensity, and adjusts the transmissivity as needed to keep the rate within an acceptable range” ¶ 12. Note: Keeping the rate with the acceptable range requires adjusting when the rate crosses the upper limit, consistent with Romig’s adjustment upon a threshold being crossed (see ¶ 42), so regulation starts at the start time instant.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi with the above features taught by Romig with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful responding toa rapid change in light intensity as soon as it occurs (see ¶ 5). Romig keeps the rate “within an acceptable range” (¶ 12) and adjusts when a threshold is crossed (¶ 42), so starting regulation at the threshold crossing yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 and 34 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Katayama (JP2004182006A; “Katayama”).
As to claim 11, Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: increasing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity rise information meeting a predetermined condition.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches: increasing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity rise information meeting a predetermined condition (“[W]hen the control circuit 29 detects an exit from the tunnel, it lowers the transparency of the variable transparency window glass 15 and gradually increases the transparency” ¶ 36.).
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 invention of Nishimura with the feature of: increasing the light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to a light intensity rise information meeting a predetermined condition, as taught by Katayama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for letting the driver gradually adapt to the brighter surroundings (see Katayama, ¶ 37). Applying Katayama’s post-rise increase to Nishimura’s rise information yields predictable results.
As to independent claim 34, Nishimura discloses a method of controlling a switchable glass system for a vehicle, the switchable glass system comprising a switchable glass installed on the vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring at least one of a light intensity change information or a vehicle position change information, wherein the light intensity change information comprises at least one of a light intensity value change or a light intensity change rate (“[T]he server 30 generates information regarding a point at which a change amount of the illuminance acquired by the first vehicle 10 exceeds a prescribed value (also referred to as a sudden-change point hereinafter), and provides it to the second vehicle 20” ¶ 47; see also ¶¶ 28, 76 and 82. “the illuminance adjustment unit 203 determines whether or not the information regarding the sudden-change point has been received from the server 30” ¶ 101 and FIG. 14; see also ¶¶ 39, 47 and 56.);
performing a first adjustment on a light transmittance of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a first predetermined condition and/or the vehicle position change information meeting a first position condition, wherein the first adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a first transmittance adjustment information (“The sudden-change point corresponding to the information regarding the traveling environment of the second vehicle is the point at which the change amount of the illuminance of the light incident on the second vehicle exceeds the prescribed value when the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point” ¶ 29; see also ¶ 90. “in step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14.),
wherein each of the first transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of a magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or a change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass (“[I]n step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point … the decrease amount of the transmittance per unit time may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point … the transmittance of the light-control glass 29 may simply be decreased by a prescribed value, for example. The prescribed value may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14; see also ¶ 69.).
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: performing a second adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a second predetermined condition, after performing the first adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass, wherein the second adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a second transmittance adjustment information.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches: performing a second adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a second predetermined condition, after performing the first adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass, wherein the second adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a second transmittance adjustment information (“[T]he transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 is gradually reduced so that the brightness becomes closer to that inside the tunnel as the distance to the tunnel decreases. In other words, the variable-transparency window glass 15 gradually becomes darker, as if covered with a light-blocking curtain. Then, when it detects that the vehicle has entered a tunnel, it increases its transparency” ¶ 33. “Figure 2 shows an example of the amount of control for controlling the transparency of the variable transparency window glass 15 by this control circuit 29. Figure 2 shows the transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 on the vertical axis and the distance on the horizontal axis. … [F]rom point A, where the time required to reach the tunnel reaches a predetermined time (the predetermined escape time determined in S500 in Figure 5) (for example, 5 minutes), the transmittance is gradually reduced according to the distance to the tunnel, as shown in Figure 2, and controlled so that the transmittance is approximately 50% when the distance to the tunnel becomes 0. Then, when it is detected that the vehicle has entered the tunnel (point B in Figure 2), control is performed to return the transparency to 100%” ¶ 34; see also FIG. 2.).
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 invention of Nishimura with the feature of: performing a second adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a second predetermined condition, after performing the first adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass, wherein the second adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a second transmittance adjustment information, as taught by Katayama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for controlling how quickly the transmittance changes as the vehicle approaches and passes the tunnel (see Katayama, ¶ 12). Katayama sets the transmittance as a function of the vehicle’s distance to the tunnel (see ¶¶ 32-37; FIG. 2), so regulating the rate by position yields predictable results. Additionally, Katayama returns the transmittance quickly upon entering the tunnel, rather than gradually, so that a driver’s vision is allowed to adapt to the darkness inside the tunnel in advance (see ¶ 35).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi as applied to claim 3 — further in view of Smit et al. (US20200207187A1; “Smit”)
As to claim 13, the combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a fixed switching rate.
Nevertheless, Smit teaches: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a fixed switching rate (“When applying the voltage as a square waveform, there is a large voltage step. In one embodiment, the voltage is increased more gradually by using either a triangular or sinusoidal waveform. Using a voltage step creates a relatively high capacitive current compared to using a voltage ramp” ¶ 131 and FIG. 15.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi with the feature of: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a fixed switching rate, as taught by Smit, with a reasonable expectation success because doing so would be useful for limiting the charging current and extending the life of the switching layer (see ¶ 131). Applying Smit’s known constant-slope voltage ramp to drive the glass would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 and 23 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi and in view of Smit as applied to claim 13 — further in view of Katayama.
As to claim 14, Nishimura discloses:
controlling illuminance in response to a light intensity rise information meeting the predetermined condition (“In a case where the change amount at the sudden-change point is a change amount on an increasing side, the adjuster may control the changer such that the illuminance inside the second vehicle before the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point in the prescribed area becomes higher than the illuminance before the second vehicle enters the prescribed area” ¶ 32.);
controlling a switchable glass in response to a light intensity drop information meeting the predetermined condition (“In a case where the change amount at the sudden-change point is a change amount on a decreasing side, the adjuster may control the changer such that the illuminance inside the second vehicle before the second vehicle passes through the sudden-change point in the prescribed area becomes lower than the illuminance before the second vehicle enters the prescribed area” ¶ 37. “[I]n step S507[, entered after determining that the illuminance decreases], the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point” ¶ 104; see also ¶ 102.).
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass.
Nevertheless, Shi teaches: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass (“A voltage applied to the electrochromic layer is controlled by the control signal” ¶ 53. “the processor module 13 adjusts a voltage applied to the electrochromic layer 14, and adjusts the transmittance of the electrochromic layer 14” ¶ 117.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the feature of: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, as taught by Shi, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for producing a stable and reversible change in the transmittance of electrochromic glass (see, e.g., Shi, ¶ 53). Hence, driving Nishimura’s electrochromic glass (disclosed in Nishimura, ¶ 58) by the known technique of regulating the applied voltage according to a control signal yields predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first fixed switching rate.
Nevertheless, Smit teaches: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first fixed switching rate (“When applying the voltage as a square waveform, there is a large voltage step. In one embodiment, the voltage is increased more gradually by using either a triangular or sinusoidal waveform. Using a voltage step creates a relatively high capacitive current compared to using a voltage ramp” ¶ 131 and FIG. 15.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi with the feature of: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first fixed switching rate, as taught by Smit, with a reasonable expectation success because doing so would be useful for limiting the charging current and extending the life of the switching layer (see ¶ 131). Applying Smit’s known constant-slope voltage ramp to drive the glass would yield predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura, Shi and Smit fails to explicitly disclose:
regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first fixed switching rate in response to a light intensity rise information meeting the predetermined condition;
regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a second fixed switching rate in response to a light intensity drop information meeting the predetermined condition,
wherein the second fixed switching rate is less than the first fixed switching rate.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first rate in response to a light intensity rise information meeting the predetermined condition; regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a second rate in response to a light intensity drop information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the second fixed rate is less than the first rate (“[T]he transmittance is reduced during a predetermined time before entering the tunnel (S200), the transmittance is set to 100% inside the tunnel (S170), the transmittance is set to 50% when exiting the tunnel (S160), the transmittance is adjusted if the tunnels are continuous (S180), and the transmittance is increased for a predetermined time after exiting the tunnel (S190)” ¶ 43. “Therefore, visual adaptation can be facilitated immediately after entering or exiting the tunnel, reducing the driver's anxiety. As a result, the driver themselves will be able to drive safely. Generally speaking, while adaptation to a change from a dark place to a bright place, i.e., exiting a tunnel, can be completed in a few minutes, adaptation to a change from a bright place to a dark place, i.e., entering a tunnel, is said to take several tens of minutes. Therefore, the predetermined time required for light adaptation and dark adaptation may be changed” ¶ 44. See also FIG. 2.).
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 combination of Nishimura, Shi and Smit with the feature of: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first rate in response to a light intensity rise information meeting the predetermined condition; regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a second rate in response to a light intensity drop information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the second fixed rate is less than the first rate, as taught by Katayama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for matching each adjustment to the eyes’ slower adaptation to darkness than to brightness (see Katayama, ¶ 44). Giving the drop adjustment more time than the rise adjustment in the combination of prior art, as Katayama suggests, results in a slower drop rate, and doing so yields predictable results.
As to claim 23, the combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: pre-regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a fixed switching rate.
Nevertheless, Smit teaches: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first fixed switching rate (“When applying the voltage as a square waveform, there is a large voltage step. In one embodiment, the voltage is increased more gradually by using either a triangular or sinusoidal waveform. Using a voltage step creates a relatively high capacitive current compared to using a voltage ramp” ¶ 131 and FIG. 15.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi with the feature of: regulating an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a first fixed switching rate, as taught by Smit, with a reasonable expectation success because doing so would be useful for limiting the charging current and extending the life of the switching layer (see ¶ 131). Applying Smit’s known constant-slope voltage ramp to drive the glass would yield predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura, Shi and Smit fails to explicitly disclose: pre-regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a fixed switching rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance or an exit of an enclosed space.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches: pre-regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance or an exit of an enclosed space (“[F]rom the point when the time required to reach the tunnel reaches a predetermined time (the predetermined time to enter determined in S500 in Figure 5) (for example, 10 minutes before), the transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 is gradually reduced so that the brightness becomes closer to that inside the tunnel as the distance to the tunnel decreases” ¶ 33. See also ¶ 36 for the case when a vehicle is exiting a tunnel.).
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 combination of Nishimura, Shi and Smit with the feature of: pre-regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass at a rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance or an exit of an enclosed space, as taught by Katayama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for adapting the driver’s vision before the light changes before the light changes at a tunnel (see Katayama, ¶ 10). Applying Nishimura’s pre-adjustment at Katayama’s tunnel entrance and exit yields predictable results.
Claims 25-26 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Shi as applied to claim 22 – further in view of Katayama
As to claim 25, the combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the acquired position information.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches: wherein regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the acquired position information (“[T]he transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 is gradually reduced so that the brightness becomes closer to that inside the tunnel as the distance to the tunnel decreases. In other words, the variable-transparency window glass 15 gradually becomes darker, as if covered with a light-blocking curtain. Then, when it detects that the vehicle has entered a tunnel, it increases its transparency” ¶ 33. “Figure 2 shows an example of the amount of control for controlling the transparency of the variable transparency window glass 15 by this control circuit 29. Figure 2 shows the transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 on the vertical axis and the distance on the horizontal axis. … [F]rom point A, where the time required to reach the tunnel reaches a predetermined time (the predetermined escape time determined in S500 in Figure 5) (for example, 5 minutes), the transmittance is gradually reduced according to the distance to the tunnel, as shown in Figure 2, and controlled so that the transmittance is approximately 50% when the distance to the tunnel becomes 0. Then, when it is detected that the vehicle has entered the tunnel (point B in Figure 2), control is performed to return the transparency to 100%” ¶ 34; see also FIG. 2.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi to include the feature of: wherein regulating the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass comprises: regulating a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the acquired position information, as taught by Katayama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for controlling how quickly the transmittance changes as the vehicle approaches and passes the tunnel (see Katayama, ¶ 12). Katayama sets the transmittance as a function of the vehicle’s distance to the tunnel (see ¶¶ 32-37; FIG. 2), so regulating the rate by position yields predictable results.
As to claim 26, the combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the regulating a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the acquired position information comprises:
regulating the switching rate of the electrical signal to a first switching rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance of an enclosed space, wherein the first switching rate is greater than a predetermined switching rate; or
wherein the regulating a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to the acquired position information comprises:
regulating the switching rate of the electrical signal to a second switching rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an exit of an enclosed space, wherein the second switching rate is less than a predetermined switching rate.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches: regulating the switching rate of the electrical signal to a first switching rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance of an enclosed space, wherein the first switching rate is greater than a predetermined switching rate (“[T]he transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 is gradually reduced so that the brightness becomes closer to that inside the tunnel as the distance to the tunnel decreases. In other words, the variable-transparency window glass 15 gradually becomes darker, as if covered with a light-blocking curtain. Then, when it detects that the vehicle has entered a tunnel, it increases its transparency” ¶ 33. “Figure 2 shows an example of the amount of control for controlling the transparency of the variable transparency window glass 15 by this control circuit 29. Figure 2 shows the transmittance of the variable transmittance window glass 15 on the vertical axis and the distance on the horizontal axis. … [F]rom point A, where the time required to reach the tunnel reaches a predetermined time (the predetermined escape time determined in S500 in Figure 5) (for example, 5 minutes), the transmittance is gradually reduced according to the distance to the tunnel, as shown in Figure 2, and controlled so that the transmittance is approximately 50% when the distance to the tunnel becomes 0. Then, when it is detected that the vehicle has entered the tunnel (point B in Figure 2), control is performed to return the transparency to 100%” ¶ 34; see also FIG. 2.)
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi to include the feature of: regulating the switching rate of the electrical signal to a first switching rate in a process of the vehicle passing through an entrance of an enclosed space, wherein the first switching rate is greater than a predetermined switching rate, as taught by Katayama, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for controlling how quickly the transmittance changes as the vehicle approaches and passes the tunnel (see Katayama, ¶ 12). Katayama sets the transmittance as a function of the vehicle’s distance to the tunnel (see ¶¶ 32-37; FIG. 2), so regulating the rate by position yields predictable results. Additionally, Katayama returns the transmittance quickly upon entering the tunnel, rather than gradually, so that a driver’s vision is allowed to adapt to the darkness inside the tunnel in advance (see ¶ 35).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Katayama as applied to claim 34 – further in view of Shi, in view of Katsura and in view of Wang.
As to claim 35, Nishimura discloses: determining the transmittance adjustment information according to a first mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and a light transmittance adjustment information, in response to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition, wherein the determined transmittance adjustment information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the first mapping relationship (N: “[I]n step S507, the illuminance adjustment unit 203 controls the light-control glass 29. For example, by gradually decreasing the transmittance of the light-control glass 29, the driver becomes not likely to feel dimness at the sudden-change point … the decrease amount of the transmittance per unit time may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point … the transmittance of the light-control glass 29 may simply be decreased by a prescribed value, for example. The prescribed value may be set based on the change amount of the illuminance at the sudden-change point or the illuminance after passing through the sudden-change point” ¶ 104 and FIG. 14; see also ¶ 69.).
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose: performing the above according
to a predetermined first mapping relationship; and
wherein the performing a first adjustment on a light transmittance of the switchable glass comprises: performing the first adjustment on the light transmittance of the switchable glass by performing a first regulation on an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, wherein the first regulation comprises regulating the electrical signal based on a first electrical signal regulation information
Nevertheless, Shi teaches:
determining the transmittance adjustment information according to a predetermined first mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and a light transmittance adjustment information (“A correspondence relationship between the illuminance and the transmittance of electrochromic layer is pre-stored in a processor module, and the processor module can determine a value of the first transmittance matched with the detected first illuminance” ¶ 61.); and
performing the first adjustment on the light transmittance of the switchable glass by performing a first regulation on an electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, wherein the first regulation comprises regulating the electrical signal based on a first electrical signal regulation information (“A voltage applied to the electrochromic layer is controlled by the control signal” ¶ 53. “the processor module 13 adjusts a voltage applied to the electrochromic layer 14, and adjusts the transmittance of the electrochromic layer 14” ¶ 117.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the above features as taught by Shi with a reasonable expectation of success because:
The first feature is useful for enabling a processor to determine a value of transmittance matched with a detected illuminance (See Shi, ¶ 61). Nishimura already sets the transmittance adjustment based on the illuminance change amount at a sudden-change point (See Nishimura, ¶ 104). Hence, modifying Nishimura with Shi would constitute applying a known control technique to a known relationship, yielding predictable results.
The second feature is useful for producing a stable and reversible change in the transmittance of electrochromic glass (see, e.g., Shi, ¶ 53). Hence, driving Nishimura’s electrochromic glass (disclosed in Nishimura, ¶ 58) by the known technique of regulating the applied voltage according to a control signal yields predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose:
after performing the second adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass,
performing a third adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a third predetermined condition and/or the vehicle position change information meeting a second position condition, wherein the third adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a third transmittance adjustment information,
wherein the third transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of the magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or the change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass;
the method further comprising: after performing the third adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass,
performing a fourth adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a fourth predetermined condition, wherein the fourth adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a fourth transmittance adjustment information,
wherein the fourth transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of the magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or the change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass;
the method further comprising:
determining the first transmittance adjustment information according to a predetermined third mapping relationship between the vehicle position change information and the light transmittance adjustment information in response to the vehicle position change information meeting the first position condition, wherein the first transmittance adjustment information corresponds to the vehicle position change information meeting the first position condition in the third mapping relationship
wherein the vehicle position change information meeting the second position condition comprises: the vehicle being located inside an enclosed space and a distance from the vehicle to an exit of the enclosed space being less than or equal to a second predetermined distance.
Nevertheless, Katayama teaches:
after performing the second adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass, performing a third adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a third predetermined condition and/or the vehicle position change information meeting a second position condition, wherein the third adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a third transmittance adjustment information, wherein the third transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of the magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or the change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass (“Exit from the tunnel can be detected, for example, when the time required to reach the end of the tunnel becomes zero, when the current position calculated by the current position calculation process falls within a predetermined range from the tunnel end position stored in the map data (for example, when they match), or when the average brightness of the image obtained from the on-board camera 11 calculated by the brightness calculation process increases, or a combination thereof” ¶ 36. “[A]t point C in Figure 2, exit from the tunnel is detected, and the transparency is reduced to approximately 50%” ¶ 37.);
after performing the third adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass, performing a fourth adjustment on the light transmittance information of the switchable glass in response to the light intensity change information meeting a fourth predetermined condition, wherein the fourth adjustment comprises adjusting the light transmittance of the switchable glass based on a fourth transmittance adjustment information, wherein the fourth transmittance adjustment information comprises adjusting at least one of the magnitude of the light transmittance of the switchable glass or the change rate of the light transmittance of the switchable glass (“[T]he brightness of the external environment is calculated using the average brightness of the screen of the in-vehicle camera 11. For example, if the brightness of the viewing environment is higher than a preset standard value, the transmittance is lowered accordingly, and if the brightness of the viewing environment is lower than a preset standard value, the transmittance is increased accordingly. In this way, by changing the transmittance according to the brightness of the viewing environment” ¶ 49.);
determining the first transmittance adjustment information according to a predetermined third mapping relationship between the vehicle position change information and the light transmittance adjustment information in response to the vehicle position change information meeting the first position condition, wherein the first transmittance adjustment information corresponds to the vehicle position change information meeting the first position condition in the third mapping relationship (“Exit from the tunnel can be detected, for example, when the time required to reach the end of the tunnel becomes zero, when the current position calculated by the current position calculation process falls within a predetermined range from the tunnel end position stored in the map data (for example, when they match), or when the average brightness of the image obtained from the on-board camera 11 calculated by the brightness calculation process increases, or a combination thereof” ¶ 36. “[A]t point C in Figure 2, exit from the tunnel is detected, and the transparency is reduced to approximately 50%” ¶ 37.),
wherein the vehicle position change information meeting the second position condition comprises: the vehicle being located inside an enclosed space and a distance from the vehicle to an exit of the enclosed space being less than or equal to a second predetermined distance (“Exit from the tunnel can be detected, for example, when the time required to reach the end of the tunnel becomes zero, when the current position calculated by the current position calculation process falls within a predetermined range from the tunnel end position stored in the map data (for example, when they match), or when the average brightness of the image obtained from the on-board camera 11 calculated by the brightness calculation process increases, or a combination thereof” ¶ 36. “[A]t point C in Figure 2, exit from the tunnel is detected, and the transparency is reduced to approximately 50%” ¶ 37.).
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 combination of Nishimura and Shi to include the above features taught by Katayama with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for controlling how quickly the transmittance changes as the vehicle approaches and passes the tunnel (see Katayama, ¶ 12). Katayama sets the transmittance as a function of the vehicle’s distance to the tunnel (see ¶¶ 32-37; FIG. 2), so regulating the rate by position yields predictable results. Additionally, Katayama returns the transmittance quickly upon entering the tunnel, rather than gradually, so that a driver’s vision is allowed to adapt to the darkness inside the tunnel in advance (see ¶ 35).
The combination of Nishimura and Shi fails to explicitly disclose: wherein each of the first electrical signal regulation information, the second electrical signal regulation information, the third electrical signal regulation information and the fourth electrical signal regulation information comprises regulating at least one of an amplitude of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass or a switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: wherein each of the first electrical signal regulation information, the second electrical signal regulation information, the third electrical signal regulation information and the fourth electrical signal regulation information comprises regulating at least one of an amplitude of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass (“The drive circuit for the dimming glass provided by the above embodiments of the present disclosure can generate an alternating current signal with an adjustable amplitude according to needs, and control the degree of deflection of liquid crystal molecules in the dimming glass by the alternating current signal to adjust the light transmittance of the dimming glass, so that the brightness of the dimming glass can be adjusted, and the market competitiveness of the dimming glass is improved” ¶ 44.).
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 combination of Nishimura, Shi and Katayama to include the feature of: wherein each of the first electrical signal regulation information, the second electrical signal regulation information, the third electrical signal regulation information and the fourth electrical signal regulation information comprises regulating at least one of an amplitude of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass, as taught by Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for setting transmittance of a switching glass through a drive signal’s amplitude (See Wang, ¶ 44). Using a known amplitude-based drive to set transmittance of Nishimura-Shi’s switching glass yield predictable results.
The combination of Nishimura, Shi, Katayama and Wang fails to explicitly disclose: determining the first electrical signal regulation information according to a predetermined second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and an electrical signal regulation information in response to the light intensity change information meeting the first predetermined condition, wherein the first electrical signal regulation information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the first predetermined condition in the second mapping relationship.
Nevertheless, Katsura teaches: determining the electrical signal regulation information according to a predetermined second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the electrical signal regulation information, wherein the determined electrical signal regulation information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the second mapping relationship (“[T]he data analyzer 610 determines one or more example dimming adjustment(s) associated with changing (e.g., increasing and/or decreasing) the transparency of the first panel 204. … [T]he data analyzer 610 calculates a change (e.g., an increase and/or a decrease) for the first voltage applied to the first panel 204 by the panel interface 602 based on the criteria 620. … [T]he criteria 620 includes … one or more data maps, one or more plots, one or more tables, etc. that correlate a change in the first voltage and a change in light intensity transmitted by the first panel 204” ¶ 68. “the data analyzer 610 calculates such voltage changes based on a detected light intensity associated with the light portion 408 and/or the cabin space 410” ¶ 70. “at least a portion of the criteria 620 is predetermined and/or preprogrammed into the database 612” ¶ 72.).
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 combination of Nishimura, Shi, Katayama and Wang to include the feature of: determining the electrical signal regulation information according to a predetermined second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the electrical signal regulation information, wherein the determined electrical signal regulation information corresponds to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition in the second mapping relationship, as taught by Katsura, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for setting the drive voltage needed to maintain the light experienced by the occupant (see Katsura, ¶ 42). Using a stored light-to-voltage correlation to set the drive signal yields predictable results.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to perform Katsura’s teaching in response to the light intensity change information meeting the predetermined condition. Recall from above that Shi teaches determining whether the light intensity change information meets the predetermined condition. Now, Katsura determines the voltage change in response to a comparison of the detected light intensity with a threshold (¶ 70), so applying Katsura’s mapping when Shi’s condition is met (¶ 56) uses the mapping in the same threshold-gated manner Katsura already teaches. This yields predictable results.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura in view of Li (US20200409208A1; “Li”)
As to claim 45, Nishimura discloses a switchable glass system for a vehicle, comprising:
a switchable glass installed on a vehicle (“light-control glass” – see ¶ 39.); and
a controller configured to implement the method according to claim 1 (“processor 31,” labeled as an example of a “controller” - ¶ 59. See also rejection of claim 1 above.)
Nishimura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the switchable glass comprises:
a first base substrate and a second base substrate opposite to each other;
a first electrode on the first base substrate; a second electrode on the second base substrate;
a switchable assembly sandwiched between the first base substrate and the second base substrate; and
a controller electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode of the switchable glass.
Nevertheless, Li teaches:
a first base substrate and a second base substrate opposite to each other (Li: “As shown in FIG. 2A, liquid crystal cell 200 includes a first substrate 202, a first polyamide (PI) layer 204, sealant 206, spacers 208, second PI layer 210, a second substrate 212, and a liquid crystal 214” ¶ 76 and FIG. 2A.);
a first electrode on the first base substrate; a second electrode on the second base substrate (“First substrate 202 and second substrate 212 are also coated with an electrical conductive material (e.g., Indium tin oxide (ITO)) to conduct a voltage” ¶ 77 and FIG. 2A.); and
a switchable assembly sandwiched between the first base substrate and the second base substrate (“Sealant 206 can define a base area liquid crystal cell, with the cell space between first substrate 202 and second substrate 212 to be filled up by liquid crystal 214 to form the liquid crystal cell” ¶ 76 and FIG. 2A. Note: The liquid crystal 214 constitutes the switchable assembly – such matches Applicant’s description that “the switchable assembly 3 may include a liquid crystal layer” (PGPUB, ¶ 90).); and
a controller electrically connected to the first electrode and the second electrode of the switchable glass (“The driver circuits are configured to generate, based on the sensor data, signals to generate an electric field across the liquid crystal cell to adjust the light transmittance of the dimmable liquid crystal film based on the ambient light intensity” ¶ 43.).
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 invention of Nishimura to include the features taught by Li with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would be useful for providing vehicle glass with low haze and fast switching (see Li, ¶ 60). Using Li’s known liquid crystal cell structure for Nishimura’s light-control glass yields predictable results.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 16 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if (1) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and intervening claims; and (2) the § 112(b) issues are resolved.
As to claim 16, the prior art fails to disclose at least acquiring a light intensity change rate and subsequently determining a switching rate of an electrical signal to apply to a switchable glass at a variable rate, wherein the determined switching rate of the electrical signal corresponds to the light intensity change rate in a second mapping relationship between the light intensity change information and the electrical signal regulation information.
As to claim 28, the prior art fails to disclose at least regulating a switching rate of an electrical signal in a process of a vehicle being located in an environment and a user of the vehicle leaving the vehicle, wherein the switching rate is less than a predetermined switching rate and the environment is familiar to the user of the vehicle, or the switching rate is higher than a predetermined switching rate and the environment is unfamiliar to the user of the vehicle. Furthermore, the prior art fails to disclose at least regulating the switching rate of the electrical signal applied to the switchable glass according to a speed of the vehicle in a travelling process of the vehicle, wherein the switching rate of the electrical signal is inversely proportional to the speed of the vehicle.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights