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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adhesive layers". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 line 9 recites “at least one of the edge portions” is unclear refers back to line 3 “a plurality of edge portions” or line 8 “a plurality of edge portions”.
Claims 11, 13 have same issue.
Claims 2 – 10, 12, 14 – 20 have same issue because of claim dependency.
Claim 5 recites “the bonding layer” is unclear refers back to which “bonding layer” in claim 1 because claim 1 recites “at least two bonding layers”.
Claims 2, 7, 14, 15, 18 have same issue.
Claim 15 recites “the glass plate” is unclear refers back to which “glass plate” in claim 11 because claim 11 recites “two glass plates”.
Claims 4, 5, 14, 18 have same issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droge et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200061974 A1) in view of Mario et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20230302772 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Droge discloses A switchable glass, comprising:
two glass plates; ([0007] The present invention accordingly provides a laminated glazing panel comprising at least two glass sheets and at least one plastics sheet sandwiched between (i.e. extending between) and co-extensive with the two glass sheets characterised in that the plastics sheet comprises a substantially clear portion and a substantially opaque strip portion integral with the clear portion and extending along at least one edge of the periphery of the plastics sheet. [0027])
at least one switchable film, (Fig. 4, folded-around barrier film 4 [0115]) which has a plurality of edge portions;
at least two bonding layers (Fig. 4, 3a, 3b) sandwiched between two of the glass plates, ([0007] [0027]) wherein each of the bonding layers comprises at least one light-shielding portion and a light-transmitting portion which are connected to each other, ([0119] [0125]) and the switchable film is sandwiched between the light-transmitting portions of two of the adhesive layers; ([0124] [0130] - [0134]) and
a protective layer (Fig. 4, 3c) spliced with a plurality of edge portions of the switchable film and sandwiched between two of the bonding layers, ([0118] The windshield is equipped with an electrically controllable functional element 5 as a sun visor that is arranged in a region above the central field of vision B (as defined in ECE-R43). The sun visor is formed by a commercially available PDLC multilayer film as a functional element 5 that is embedded in the intermediate layers 3 a, 3 b. The height of the sun visor is, for example, 21 cm. The first intermediate layer 3 a is joined to the outer pane 1; the second intermediate layer 3 b is joined to the inner pane 2. A third intermediate layer 3 c positioned therebetween has a cutout, into which the PDLC multilayer cut to size is inserted with precise fit, in other words, flush on all sides. The third intermediate layer 3 c thus forms, so to speak, a sort of universal frame for the functional element 5, which is thus encapsulated all around in a thermoplastic material and is protected thereby. [0119]) wherein at least one of the edge portions of the switchable film is a visual edge portion, (Fig 3A, 1, 2, 3a, 3b) and a splicing position of the visual edge portion and the protective layer is sandwiched between ([0115] [0118])
Droge does not disclose “the light-shielding portions of two of the bonding layers.
Mario discloses “the light-shielding portions (Fig 4B, 102) of two of the bonding layers. (Fig 4B, [0131] The reinforcement 22 is inserted in this slit 36. The PVB-reinforcement is sandwiched between the two glass layers 201, 202. Index marks, printed with the black frit, are used to align the two offset 32 layers. The reinforcement 22 is comprised of 0.4 mm thick stainless-steel mesh cloth. [0079] [0080] [0130] [0162])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate black frit by Mario into device of Droge. The suggestion/motivation would have been to block light. (Mario: [0079])
Regarding claim 2, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the bonding layer comprises a first adhesive film, which has a transparent area constituting the light-transmitting portion and a colored area which constituting the light-shielding portion. (Droge [0007] [0027] [0124] [0130] - [0134])
Regarding claim 3, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the protective layer is a second adhesive film, which is transparent or colored. (Droge [0118] [0119])
Regarding claim 4, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the glass plate, the first adhesive film, the switchable film and the second adhesive film are integrated by hot pressing. (Droge [0112])
Regarding claims 5, 14, 15, 18, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the glass plate, the bonding layer and the switchable film are integrated by hot pressing; (Droge [0112])
the bonding layer has a plurality of fringe portions, and the fringe portions of two of the bonding layers are attached to each other during hot pressing to shield at the outside of the edge portion of the switchable film to form the protective layer. (Droge [0007] [0027] [0124] [0130] - [0134])
Regarding claims 6, 16, 19, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the switchable film has a thickness less than or equal to 0.2 mm. (Droge [0122])
Regarding claim 7, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the bonding layer and the protective layer are made of any one or combinations selected from polyvinyl alcohol, polycarbonate, ethylene vinyl acetate, thermoplastic polyurethane, polyoxymethylene, polybutylene terephthalate, polyethylene vinyl acetate, polyethylene naphthalate, polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, polyacrylate, polymethylmethacrylate and polyurethane. (Droge [0030] [0036] [0037])
Regarding claim 8, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the protective layer is mated to the switchable film through an adhesive layer. (Droge [0112])
Regarding claims 9, 17, 20, Droge and Mario disclose wherein a distance between a joint position of the light-shielding portion and the light-transmitting portion and the splicing position of the visible edge portion and the protective layer is not less than 3 mm. (Droge [0103] [0110] [0113])
Regarding claim 10, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the switchable film is fitted on a mounting body, at least one edge portion of the switchable film is a mounting edge portion, (Mario [0012] [0017] ) and a splicing position of the mounting edge portion and the protective layer is capable of being shielded by the mounting body. (Mario [0027] [0028] [0109])
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for same reason of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Droge and Mario disclose wherein the outer-layer glass plate is a tempered glass, and the inner-layer glass plate is a chemically tempered glass. (Mario [0005] [0012] [0014] [0017])
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for same reason of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN-NAN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 6pm.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 571-2722963. 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.
/CHUN-NAN LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights