DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashibe et al. (JP 2019138939 A, hereinafter referred as “Hayashibe”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashibi discloses a light control sheet (¶0002 discloses a a light control sheet), comprising:
a first transparent electrode layer having a surface resistance of 150Ω/□ or less (¶0032 discloses first of two transparent electrode films whose sheet resistance is preferably set to 1000 / □ or more and 1300 / □ or less);
a second transparent electrode layer having a surface resistance of 150Ω/□ or less (¶0032 discloses second of two transparent electrode films whose sheet resistance is preferably set to 1000 / □ or more and 1300 / □ or less); and
a light control layer sandwiched between the first transparent electrode layer and the second transparent electrode layer and including a liquid crystal composition (¶0032 discloses the PNLC (light control layer) is sandwiched with the vertical liquid crystal alignment films (formed on the !TO) sides formed on the two transparent electrode films facing each other),
wherein the first transparent electrode layer has a first connection region configured to connect a wiring (¶0018 discloses power feeding unit having a structure in which a conductive paste and a conductive tape are laminated in the surface area, solder is formed, and the wiring (lead wire) is connected is also adopted as a modification), the second transparent electrode layer has a second connection region configured to connect a wiring (¶0018-¶0022 disclose a feeding electrode portion formed in a strip-like connection region connected to the opposing transparent conductive film (front side of the paper) is illustrated by a dotted line) such that the first connection region of the first transparent electrode layer and the second connection region of the second transparent electrode layer are formed along one side of the light control sheet (Fig. 3b and ¶0021 disclose each band-like connection region may be formed on opposite sides of the light control body as shown in FIG. 3A, and even if the same side does not overlap on the front and back sides as shown in FIG. 3B).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashibi discloses the light control sheet according to claim 1, comprising: a pair of insulating layers (¶0013 discloses an organic film made of a polyimide polymer is formed as a liquid crystal alignment layer) formed between the light control layer and the first and second transparent electrode layers (¶0031 discloses aligning an orientation film between the transparent conductive films (a) on the upper side of the light control layer 33 in FIG. An alignment film is also laminated between the lower transparent conductive films (b) (not shown). The polymer network and the liquid crystal molecules are disposed between the pair of alignment films).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 of this title, 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.
5. Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Cho et al. (US 2004/0140198 A1, hereinafter referred as “Cho”).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashibi doesn’t disclose the light control sheet according to claim 1, wherein a maximum peak height Rp of a surface of the first transparent electrode layer is 200 nm or less, and a maximum peak height Rp of a surface of the second transparent electrode layer is 200 nm or less.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cho discloses wherein a maximum peak height Rp of a surface of the first transparent electrode layer is 200 nm or less (¶0017 discloses a method of forming an ITO having an ultra-planarized surface, by which a surface roughness ≦ 2 nm and peak to valley roughness (Rp-v) ≦ 10 nm are achieved), and a maximum peak height Rp of a surface of the second transparent electrode layer is 200 nm or less (¶0017 discloses a method of forming an ITO having an ultra-planarized surface, by which a surface roughness ≦ 2 nm and peak to valley roughness (Rp-v) ≦ 10 nm are achieved).
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 Hayashibe in order to improve electrical performance and reduce defects caused by electrode projections (¶0008-¶0009).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashibi discloses the light control sheet according to claim 2, comprising: a pair of insulating layers formed between the light control layer (¶0031 discloses the polymer network and the liquid crystal molecules are disposed between the pair of alignment films) and the first and second transparent electrode layers (¶0013 discloses an organic film made of a polyimide polymer is formed as a liquid crystal alignment layer (vertical liquid crystal alignment layer) for vertically aligning liquid crystals between ITO and the light control layer).
6. Claim(s) 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2013/0050797 A1, hereinafter referred as “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashibi discloses the light control sheet according to claim 1, …the first connection region of the first transparent electrode layer and the second connection region of the second transparent electrode layer is formed (¶0018-¶0022 disclose power feeding unit having a structure in which a conductive paste and a conductive tape are laminated in the surface area, solder is formed, and the wiring (lead wire) is connected is also adopted as a modification; and the second transparent electrode layer has a second connection region configured to connect a wiring (a feeding electrode portion formed in a strip-like connection region connected to the opposing transparent conductive film)).
Hayabashi doesn’t disclose wherein the light control sheet has a shape configured to be applied to an automotive door glass such that each of the first connection region… and the second connection region … is formed at a position corresponding to a corner of the automotive door glass along a side corresponding to a bottom side of the automotive door glass.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takahashi discloses wherein the light control sheet has a shape configured to be applied to an automotive door glass (¶0025 discloses vehicle light control glass device of the present invention, preferably the light control glass is provided in a swing door) such that each of the first connection region… and the second connection region … is formed at a position corresponding to a corner of the automotive door glass along a side corresponding to a bottom side of the automotive door glass (¶0010 the inverter being provided in a lower portion of the light control glass; and ¶0021 discloses preferably the inverter is provided on a width direction end side of the light control glass).
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 Hayashibe so that a gravity center of the light control glass can be lowered (abstract).
Regarding claim(s) 9, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as apparatus claim(s) 4, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
7. Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Harada et al. (US 2003/0174257 A1, hereinafter referred as “Harada”).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashibi discloses the light control sheet according to claim 1, the first transparent electrode layer and the second transparent electrode layer (¶0032 discloses two transparent electrode films).
Hayashibe doesn’t disclose wherein the light control sheet comprises a transparent functional layer such that an absorption band of the transparent functional layer in a visible region is different from respective absorption bands of the …transparent electrode layer in the visible region, the… transparent electrode [layer] has positive chromaticity b*, and the transparent functional layer has negative chromaticity b* in a CIE 1976 (L*a*b*) color system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Harada discloses wherein the light control sheet comprises a transparent functional layer such that an absorption band of the transparent functional layer in a visible region is different from respective absorption bands of the …transparent electrode layer in the visible region (¶0044 discloses showing a light yellow color means that the ITO thin layer absorbs blue, and transmits or reflects light with wavelengths of green and red… When the transparent hard coat film 11… blue light is transmitted or reflected but light having at wavelengths of green and red is absorbed.), the… transparent electrode [layer] has positive chromaticity b* (¶0043 discloses as a material for a transparent conductive thin layer formed on a transparent hard coat film, generally used is indium tin oxide (ITO), whose thin film has a tendency to show a light yellow color; and ¶0022 discloses the b* value with a positive sign indicates a yellow hue, and the b* value with a negative sign indicates a blue hue), and the transparent functional layer has negative chromaticity b* in a CIE 1976 (L*a*b*) color system (¶0022 discloses the b* value with a positive sign indicates a yellow hue, and the b* value with a negative sign indicates a blue hue; Table 2 discloses Examples 3-7 and 9 reporting negative b* values of transparent hardcoat film).
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 Hayashibe so that the transparent hard coat film 11 of the present invention is constructed so as to have a hue that is a color complementary to the hue of a film formed thereon (here, the transparent conductive film 32). Consequently, since a gray tone is generated as a whole, a phenomenon that light with particular wavelengths has strong interference can be prevented (¶0045).
Regarding claim(s) 10, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as apparatus claim(s) 5, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
8. Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Cho and in further view of Takahashi.
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 12, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as apparatus claim(s) 4, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
9. Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Cho, and in further view of Harada.
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 13, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as apparatus claim(s) 5, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
10. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Takahashi, and in further view of Harada.
Regarding claim(s) 11, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as apparatus claim(s) 4, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
11. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashibe in view of Cho, in further view of Takahashi, and in further view of Harada.
Regarding claim(s) 14, this/these apparatus claim(s) has/have similar limitations as apparatus claim(s) 5, and therefore rejected on similar grounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYANK J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 - 6:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ghebretinsae, Temesghen can be reached on (571) 272-3017. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRIYANK J SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights