DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s response dated 04/08/2026 has been received and entered. Claims 18-33 are pending in the application.
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:
Claims 18-22 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (APA), Figures 1-3, in view of Applicant’s submitted prior art, Lo et al., US 2009/0169806 A1.
Regarding claims 18 and 29-31, APA discloses an electrowetting optical element configured for enabling powering of a first electrode layer 13 and a second electrode layer 11 for rearranging a polar liquid 21 relative to a non-polar liquid 20 on a hydrophobic first interface surface 15 of an insulating layer 14, the electrowetting optical element comprising:
. a first electrode layer stack comprising a substrate 12, the first electrode layer 13, and the insulating layer 14 having the hydrophobic first interface surface15
. a second electrode layer stack comprising a superstrate 10, and the second electrode layer 11 having a hydrophobic second interface surface having a lower hydrophobicity than the hydrophobic first interface surface ([0006])
. one or more cell walls 16
. a containment space formed between the hydrophobic first interface surface of the first electrode layer stack and the hydrophobic second interface surface of the second electrode layer stack, and the one or more cell walls defining sides of the containment space (figs 1-3)
. the containment space containing at least a polar liquid 21 and a non-polar liquid 20, wherein the polar liquid and the non-polar liquid are immiscible with each other,
. wherein each of the one or more cell walls are fixedly mounted on the hydrophobic second interface surface of the second electrode layer stack and extend towards the first electrode layer; and wherein an end face of each of the one or more cell walls, opposite and facing the first electrode layer stack (figs 1-3)
APA, however, does not disclose comprises the end face of each of the one or more cell walls, opposite and facing the first electrode layer stack comprising a hydrophilic surface. Lo et al. do disclose a cell wall 240a having one end that opposite and faced a first electrode layer stack (100/110/120/130) comprises a hydrophilic surface 140. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a hydrophilic surface over one end of the APA’s cell wall, as shown by Lo et al. to prevent overflow of a nonpolar liquid layer to neighboring pixel areas when a display is flexed ([0033]).
Re claim 19, wherein the one or more cell walls 16 are fixedly mounted on the hydrophobic second interface surface 17 and extend with a free end thereof towards the first electrode layer 19, and wherein the one or more cell walls have a height that at least extends beyond a maximum distance between the hydrophobic second interface surface and the interface between the polar and the non-polar liquid in a disabled powering modus of the first electrode layer and the second electrode layer (figs 1-3).
Re claim 20, wherein a height of the one or more cell walls extending from the hydrophobic second interface surface corresponds with a distance between the hydrophobic first and second interface surfaces (figs 1-3).
Re claim 21, wherein the end face of each of the one or more cell walls forming a top surface of a cell wall loosely contacts the hydrophobic first interface surface (figs 1-3).
Re claim 22, wherein the end face of each of the one or more cell walls forming a top surface of a cell wall contacts the hydrophobic first interface surface thereby forming a sealing contact between the top surface of the cell wall and the hydrophobic first interface surface for sealing the polar and the non-polar liquids within the containment space (figs 13).
Re claims 32-33, since the method of manufacturing the device is merely a list of forming each component and each component must be formed to make the device, the method of manufacturing would be inherent to the device.
Claims 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (APA), Figures 1-3, in view of Applicant’s submitted prior art, Lo et al., US 2009/0169806 A1, further in view of Kim et al., US 2013/0301105 A1.
Re claims 23-26 and 28, the modification to APA disclosed the claimed invention as described above except for one or more cell walls comprise a compressible compound or an expandable compound (e.g., porous structure) in a top part of the one or more cell walls. Kim et al. do disclose a cell wall including a porous material ([0015]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the APA’s cell wall comprising a compressible compound or an expandable compound, as shown by Kim et al., to obtain a hydrophilicity and elasticity property purposes.
Re claim 27, wherein the liquid is the polar liquid (APA’s polar liquid 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are as follow:
a. APA relies on a hydrophobic cell wall end face as a critical aspect of its operating principle. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the hydrophobicity of the cell wall end face is not incidental, but rather essential to achieving the intended liquid confinement mechanism of the APA
b. a proposed modification renders a prior art device inoperable for its intended purpose, such modification cannot support a conclusion of obviousness.
c. neither the APA nor Lo recognizes or addresses the problem that arises from employing a hydrophilic cell wall end face.
d. Lo does not provide a sufficient motivation to arrive at the claimed configuration.
The examiner’s responses are as follow:
a. the examiner agrees that the APA’s hydrophobic cell wall end face may a critical element/aspect but not exclusive a hydrophilic properties over the cell walls 16 (Applicant’s specification, page 13, ln 6). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be merely find a hydrophilic material for a separated wall as long as it can prevent overflow of a nonpolar liquid layer to neighboring pixel areas (see Lo et al. [0033]).
b. as stated in part a., both APA and Lo et al. disclose a cell wall with an end face(s) for preventing overflow of the nonpolar liquid layer to the neighboring pixel areas. Therefore, the modification to APA, in view of Lo et al. would be proper for its intended purpose.
c. the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. Particularly, both APA nor Lo do addresses the problem of preventing liquid from spreading from one cell to another, as so the combination of APA and Lo et al. would render obvious the claimed limitation of “hydrophilic surface”.
d. the Examiner, again, respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. Lo et al. do provide a motivation to arrive at the claimed configuration (e.g., the protruding spacer 240a is disposed overlying the part of the hydrophilic separator 140 corresponding to the corner 40a, overflow of the nonpolar drop 10b to the neighboring pixel areas or other regions can be prevented, see Lo et al., [0039]).
Accordingly, the rejection of the above claims stand.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights