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 .
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)(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, 4-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2025/0084227).
As to claims 1 and 8, Park discloses in figures 2A and 2B: a glass system 106; a controller 216 configured to: cause modulation of an input voltage supply to generate a pair of differential bias voltage signals (paragraphs [0040]-[0041], pair of differential bias voltage signals are applied to wires 218); and cause one or more adjustments to an opacity of the glass system using the pair of differential bias voltage signals, wherein the one or more adjustments correspond to different levels of opacity (glass laminate 106 is described as having a variable transmittance, see for example paragraph [0031]) between an opaque state (paragraph [0042], low transmittance state) and a transparent state (paragraph [0042], high transmittance state) of the glass system.
As to claims 4 and 11, Park discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8. Park further discloses wherein the controller configured to cause one or more adjustments to the opacity of the glass system is further configured to cause driving a transition from the opaque state to the transparent state of the glass system based on the pair of differential bias voltage signals having a nonzero differential output voltage (paragraphs [0041]-[0042], when switch 220 is closed, the glass system transitions from the opaque state to the transparent state based on nonzero differential output voltage applied to wires 218).
As to claims 5 and 12, Park discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8. Park further discloses wherein the controller configured to cause one or more adjustments to the opacity of the glass system is further configured to cause driving a transition from the transparent state to the opaque state of the glass system based on the pair of differential bias voltage signals having a zero differential output voltage (paragraphs [0041]-[0042], when switch 220 is open, the glass system transitions from the transparent state to the opaque state based on zero differential output voltage applied to wires 218).
As to claims 6 and 14, Park discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8. Park further discloses in paragraph [0026], wherein the glass system comprises polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) glass.
As to claims 7 and 13, Park discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8. Park further discloses wherein the one or more adjustments to the opacity of the glass system corresponds to a fading effect based on a number of voltage steps in each of the pair of differential bias voltage signals (fading effect is implied based on the variable transmittance of the glass laminate 106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2025/0084227) in view of Song et al. (US 2020/0244109).
Park discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8, but does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause one or more adjustments to a duty cycle of at least one input pulse width modulation signal to modulate the input voltage supply. However, this was conventional as evidenced by the disclosure of Song (paragraph [0081], “The control module 102 may adjust the magnitude of the power output from the power storage module 104 by controlling a duty cycle or a frequency of the power output from the power storage module 104”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause one or more adjustments to a duty cycle of at least one input pulse width modulation signal to modulate the input voltage supply, because conventional structures and methods were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
Claims 3, 10, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2025/0084227) in view of Brown et al. (US 2019/0243206).
As to claims 3 and 10, Park discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 1 and 8, but does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause a conversion of the input voltage supply from a first voltage to a second voltage greater than the first voltage. However, this was conventional as evidenced by the disclosure of Brown (paragraph [0149], “Controller 220 includes a power converter configured to convert a low voltage to the power requirements of an EC device of an EC lite of an IGU”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park wherein the controller is further configured to cause a conversion of the input voltage supply from a first voltage to a second voltage greater than the first voltage, because conventional structures and methods were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
As to claim 15, Park a vehicle (figure 1), comprising: a battery (paragraph [0041], external power source); a glass system 106 (figures 2A and 2B); an inverter (paragraph [0040], electronic control unit) configured to generate a pair of differential bias voltage signals (paragraphs [0040]-[0041], pair of differential bias voltage signals are applied to wires 218); and a controller 216 configured to cause one or more adjustments to an opacity of the glass system with the pair of differential bias voltage signals, wherein the one or more adjustments correspond to different levels of opacity (glass laminate 106 is described as having a variable transmittance, see for example paragraph [0031]) between an opaque state (paragraph [0042], low transmittance state) and a transparent state (paragraph [0042], high transmittance state) of the glass system.
Park does not disclose a power converter configured to receive an input voltage supply from the battery and convert the input voltage supply from a first voltage to a second voltage greater than the first voltage. However, this was conventional as evidenced by the disclosure of Brown (paragraph [0149], “Controller 220 includes a power converter configured to convert a low voltage to the power requirements of an EC device of an EC lite of an IGU”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park by providing a power converter configured to receive an input voltage supply from the battery and convert the input voltage supply from a first voltage to a second voltage greater than the first voltage, because conventional structures were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
As to claim 17, Park in view of Brown discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 15. Park further discloses wherein the controller configured to cause one or more adjustments to the opacity of the glass system is further configured to cause driving a transition from the opaque state to the transparent state of the glass system based on the pair of differential bias voltage signals having a nonzero differential output voltage (paragraphs [0041]-[0042], when switch 220 is closed, the glass system transitions from the opaque state to the transparent state based on nonzero differential output voltage applied to wires 218).
As to claim 18, Park in view of Brown discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 15. Park further discloses wherein the controller configured to cause one or more adjustments to the opacity of the glass system is further configured to cause driving a transition from the transparent state to the opaque state of the glass system based on the pair of differential bias voltage signals having a zero differential output voltage (paragraphs [0041]-[0042], when switch 220 is open, the glass system transitions from the transparent state to the opaque state based on zero differential output voltage applied to wires 218).
As to claim 19, Park in view of Brown discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 15. Park further discloses wherein the one or more adjustments to the opacity of the glass system corresponds to a fading effect based on a number of voltage steps in each of the pair of differential bias voltage signals (fading effect is implied based on the variable transmittance of the glass laminate 106).
As to claim 20, Park in view of Brown discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 15. Park further discloses in paragraph [0026], wherein the glass system comprises polymer-dispersed liquid crystal (PDLC) glass.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2025/0084227) in view of Brown et al. (US 2019/0243206) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Song et al. (US 2020/0244109).
Park in view of Brown discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause one or more adjustments to a duty cycle of at least one of the plurality of input pulse width modulation signals to modulate the input voltage supply. However, this was conventional as evidenced by the disclosure of Song (paragraph [0081], “The control module 102 may adjust the magnitude of the power output from the power storage module 104 by controlling a duty cycle or a frequency of the power output from the power storage module 104”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park disclose wherein the controller is further configured to cause one or more adjustments to a duty cycle of at least one of the plurality of input pulse width modulation signals to modulate the input voltage supply, because conventional structures were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights