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 .
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the 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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
dependent claims 2-15, “a control device” of the preamble should read “the control device”.
claim 12, “(PDLC) film” should read “PDLC film”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 20230284592 A1), hereafter referred to as “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a control device for an animal (figs. 1-12), comprising:
at least one cup member (100; fig. 3) configured to at least partially cover at least one eye of the animal (fig. 3);
an electrochromic member applied to the at least one cup member to extend at least partially over the cup member (paragraphs [0052]-[0054] and fig. 3, e.g., teaching a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal); and
an activation device (201) for controlling a state of the electrochromic member (paragraph [0050] disclosing that element 201 controls state changes of 100);
wherein, the activation device controls the state of the electrochromic member to be in either an opaque state or a transparent state (paragraphs [0053]-[0055]) such that when the electrochromic member is in the opaque state the cup member at least partially restricts the field of vision of the animal (paragraphs [0054] and [0065]) and when the electrochromic member is in the transparent state the cup member does not substantially restrict the field of vision of the animal (paragraphs [0054] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses a control device according to claim 1, further discloses a hood (fig. 3 and paragraph [0052]) adapted to be positioned over a head of the animal (fig. 3), the hood having a pair of eye openings to accommodate the animal's eyes (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a control device according to claim 2, and further discloses that the at least one cup member (100) is mounted to the hood to extend at least partially about the eye openings of the hood (fig. 3 and paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a control device according to claim 1, and further discloses that the electrochromic member is a film (paragraph [0053] discloses that PDLC is a lens, which is a thin layer of material).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses a control device according to claim 6, and further discloses that the electrochromic member is a Polymer-Dispersed Liquid Crystal (PDLC) film comprising liquid crystals dispersed in a polymer matrix (paragraph [0053] disclosing PDLC).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses a control device according to claim 11, and further discloses that the PDLC film (paragraphs [0053]-[0054]) is enclosed in an electrically conductive film (paragraph [0053] discloses that PDLC is used to configure 100 between the opaque and transparent states, which means that the PDLC used would necessarily include an electrically conductive film to operate between the two states) in communication with the activation device (201; paragraphs [0052]-[0054]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Brown (US 6311645 B1), hereafter referred to as “Brown”.
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a control device according to claim 1, and further appears to teach that the electrochromic member is applied to an inner or outer surface of the at least one cup member (100; paragraph [0053] and fig. 3 teaches that, e.g., PDLC is used in areas PX for the shifting abilities, implying that the PDLC is applied on an inner or outer surface of those regions PX), but does not explicitly teach the above limitation.
Brown teaches a control device (figs. 1-3) including an electrochromic member (26) applied to an inner or outer surface of a cup member (14, 16; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim, such that the electrochromic member is applied to an inner or outer surface of the at least one cup member, as taught by Brown, in order to improve maintenance, removal, and application of the electrochromic member onto the cup member.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches a control device according to claim 1, and it is implied that the activation device (201) requires a power supply to supply electrical stimulus to the electrochromic member to change the state of the electrochromic member (paragraph [0057]), but does not explicitly teach that the activation device includes a power supply for supplying electrical stimulus to the electrochromic member to change the state of the electrochromic member.
Brown teaches a control device (figs. 1-3) including an activation device (38) with a power supply (30) for supplying electrical stimulus to the electrochromic member to change the state of the electrochromic member (fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim, such that the activation device includes a power supply for supplying electrical stimulus to the electrochromic member to change the state of the electrochromic member, as taught by Brown, in order to enable wireless communication between the cup member and electrochromic member and to improve the portability of the device.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches a control device according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that the activation device is remotely activated to control the state of the electrochromic member.
Brown teaches a control device (figs. 1-3) including an activation device (38) that is remotely activated to control the state of an electrochromic member (26; col. 3, lines 2-9 and col. 3, lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim, such that is remotely activated to control the state of the electrochromic member, as taught by Brown, in order to allow a user to immediately intervene when needed to control the animal (col. 3, lines 37-47).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kron et al. (US 4283177 A), hereafter referred to as “Kron”.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches a control device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the at least one cup member comprises a base member and a cover member mounted over the base member and wherein the electrochromic member is positioned between the base member and the cover member of the at least one cup member.
Kron teaches a control device (figs. 1-3) including one cup member (12) with a base member (30; fig. 2) and a cover member (32; fig. 2) mounted over the base member (fig. 2) and wherein an electrochromic member (36) is positioned between the base member and the cover member of the at least one cup member (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim, such that the at least one cup member comprises a base member and a cover member mounted over the base member and wherein the electrochromic member is positioned between the base member and the cover member of the at least one cup member, as taught by Kron, in order to protect the electrochromic element from damage (fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 45-56).
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dijkgraaf (NL 1019842 C1), hereafter referred to as “Dijkgraaf”.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a control device according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach that wherein the activation device is mounted on the hood.
Dijkgraaf teaches a control device (fig. 2) including an activation device (3, 5; fig. 2) is mounted on a hood (8a, 8b; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim, such that the activation device is mounted on the hood, as taught by Dijkgraaf, in order to improve the sensing of element 201 due to its proximity to the electrochromic and cup members, and the communication between elements.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Dijkgraaf teaches a control device according to claim 8, but does not explicitly teach that the activation device is activated by a rider of the animal to control the state of the electrochromic member.
Dijkgraaf further teaches that the activation device (3, 5; fig. 2) is activated by a rider of the animal to control the state of an electrochromic member (2a, 2b; see attached machine translation, page 2, last paragraph through page 3, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim in view of Dijkgraaf, such that the activation device is activated by a rider of the animal to control the state of the electrochromic member, as further taught by Dijkgraaf, in order to allow a user to immediately intervene when needed to control the animal (machine translation, parges 4-5 of Dijkgraaf).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Dijkgraaf teaches a control device according to claim 9, and Dijkgraaf further teaches that the activation device (3, 5; fig. 2) comprises a switch (6; fig. 2) that is actuable by a rider of the animal to control delivery of electrical current to the electrochromic member (page 6, last paragraph through page 7).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Dijkgraaf teaches a control device according to claim 14, and Dijkgraaf further teaches that the activation device (3, 5) comprises an indicator to provide the rider with an indication of the state of the electrochromic member (fig. 2 showing that element 6 moved up or down indicates the state of the electrochromic member).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20120169987 A1), hereafter referred to as “Li”.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a control device according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach that the electrically conductive film is an Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film.
Li teaches a polymer dispersed liquid crystal film (fig. 2) including an electrically conductive film that is an Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (31, 311, 32, 321; paragraphs [0054] and [0056] and fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Kim, such that the electrically conductive film is an Indium Tin Oxide polyethylene terephthalate film, as taught by Li, in order to provide a flexible and light conductive layer that is capable of performing light transmitting state changes, and because it is well known in the art to utilize ITO as an electrically conductive film with PDLC (Li, paragraphs [0002]-[0004]).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The references have many of the elements in the applicant’s disclosure and claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643 /MARISA V CONLON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights