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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/27/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0004136 A1) in view of Yang (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0208343 A1 and in further view of Lin (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0339563 A1).
Li teaches, as in claim 1, an electro-optic display device comprising an electro-optic material layer (10), the electro-optic material layer (10) comprising a plurality of microcells (11), the plurality of microcells (11) being separated from each other by partition walls (11a), the partition walls of each microcell (11a) having a surface area (¶0037 “wall area (11a) and bottom area”), each microcell of the plurality of microcells including electrophoretic medium (12), the electrophoretic medium comprising charged pigment particles in a non-polar fluid (¶0054 “electrophoretic fluid may be non-polar solvents”), Li fails to teach the microcell opening having a surface area and a Fill Factor. In a related art, Yang teaches an electro-optic display device comprising a plurality of microcells (Fig. 1-4) of the plurality of microcells having a microcell opening ), the microcell opening having a surface area and a Fill Factor (¶0040), the plurality of microcells comprising more than five types of microcells1, each microcell of a type of microcells having a Fill Factor that is different from the Fill Factors of all microcells of other types of microcells2 (¶0039 “the fill factor of the altered microcup-based film cannot be altered by more than 30% of that of the original microcup-based”). The equation is, the Fill Factor of a microcell being determined by Equation 1, Fill Factor = A1/(A1+A2) (¶0040)), microcells having a different Fill Factor microcells (the fill factor would change for each of the microcells because the Area A and Area W of each microcell in Figure 5 would be different because of the different dimensions of each microcell, also ¶0039 “the fill factor of the altered microcup-based film cannot be altered by more than 30% of that of the original microcup-based”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, with the microcells, as taught by Yang for the purpose of providing an electrophoretic display film comprises microcups wherein all microcups have individually different shapes (¶0024).
Li and Yang fail to teach the electro-optic display device having a viewing side, a side opposite to the viewing side, and a watermark being formed by halftone images from the plurality of microcells. In a related art, Lin teaches a display device having a viewing side (“viewing side”), a side opposite to the viewing side (opposite side of display), and a watermark being formed by halftone images from the plurality of microcells (¶0051 “a grey-scale-like image for the watermark”), wherein each type of microcell of the plurality of microcells (see annotated figure below) is characterized by a partition wall (layer in between two cells) having a width that is different from the partition walls width of all other types of microcells (See the width of the layers in between cells 1-6 labeled in the annotated figure below and ¶0050 and 0051).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
426
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li and Yang, with the microcells, as taught by Lin, for the purpose of providing a way to create a different optical effect in the watermark area to cause it to be distinguished from the non-watermark area (¶0052).
Li fails to teach, as in claim 2, wherein the plurality of microcells comprises more than six types of microcells, each microcell of a type of microcells having a Fill Factor that is different from the Fill Factors of all microcells of other types of microcells. In a related art, Yang teaches wherein the plurality of microcells comprises more than six types of microcells, each microcell of a type of microcells having a Fill Factor that is different from the Fill Factors of all microcells of other types of microcells (¶0041).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, with the microcells, as taught by Yang, for the purpose of providing an electrophoretic display film comprises microcups wherein all microcups have individually different shapes (¶0024).
Li teaches, as in claim 3, wherein the electro- optic display device comprises microcells of a type of microcells having the same Fill Factor, different partition wall heights (¶0039).
Li teaches, as in claim 4, wherein the electro- optic display device comprises microcells of a type of microcells having the same Fill Factor, but different microcell shapes (Fig. 5a “randomized shapes”).
Claims 5-9, 11, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0004136 A1) in view of Yang (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0208343 A1) and in further view of Lin (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0339563 A1), and even further view Liang (US Patent Publication Number 2004/0165252 A1).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as in claim 5, wherein the partition walls are transparent. In a related art, Laing teaches wherein the partition walls are transparent (¶0065).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin with the partition walls, as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing a way to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as in claim 6, wherein the partition walls are opaque. In a related art, Liang teaches wherein the partition walls are opaque (¶0065).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the partition walls, as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing a way to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as in claim 7, wherein the electro-optic display device comprises at least two types of partition walls, a first type and a second type of partition walls, wherein the first type and the second type of partition walls have different colors. In a related art, Liang teaches wherein the electro-optic display device comprises at least two types of partition walls, a first type and a second type of partition walls (transparent and opaque), wherein the first type and the second type of partition walls have different colors (¶0068).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the partition walls, as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing a way to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as in claim 8, further comprising a first light-transmissive electrode layer and a second electrode layer, wherein the electro-optic material layer is disposed between the first light-transmissive electrode layer and the second electrode layer. In a related art, Liang teaches further comprising a first light-transmissive electrode layer (10) and a second electrode layer (11), wherein the electro-optic material layer (12) is disposed between the first light-transmissive electrode layer and the second electrode layer.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the electrodes, as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing away to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as in claim 9, wherein the second electrode layer is light-transmissive. In a related art, Liang teaches wherein the second electrode layer is light-transmissive (¶0127).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the electrodes, as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing away to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li teaches, as claimed in claim 11, further comprising a sealing layer (13), the sealing layer spanning the opening of each microcell of the plurality of microcells, the sealing layer (13) being disposed between the electro-optic material layer (120) and the second electrode layer (18).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as in claim 13, wherein the sealing layer is colored. In a related art, Liang teaches wherein the sealing layer is colored (¶0079).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the sealing layer as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing away to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li teaches, as claimed in claim 14, wherein the electro-optic display device further comprises an adhesive layer (17) disposed between the sealing layer (13) and the second electrode layer (18).
Li, Yang and Lin fail to teach, as claimed in claim 16, wherein the adhesive layer is colored. In a related art, Liang teaches wherein the adhesive layer is colored (¶0118 “oligomers”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the adhesive, as taught by Liang, for the purpose of providing away to allow enough light or radiation to reach the bottom of the microcups to assure proper physicomechanical properties of the microcups and their adhesion to the substrate underneath (¶0066).
Li teaches, as claimed in claim 20, wherein the electro-optic display device is used as part of a product, a document, or a currency bill for anti-counterfeiting purpose (¶0033).
Claims 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0004136 A1) in view of Yang (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0208343 A1) and in further view of Lin (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0339563 A1), and even further view Gu (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0057348 A1).
Li, Yang and Lin, fail to teach as in claim 10, wherein the second electrode layer is colored. In a related art, Gu teaches wherein the second electrode layer is colored (¶0057)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the second electrode, as taught by Gu, for the purpose of providing movement of the pigments can cause change in optical state of the electrophoretic material (¶0054).
Li, Yang and Lin, fail to teach as in claim 17, further comprising a piezoelectric layer comprising piezoelectric material. In a related art, Gu teaches further comprising a piezoelectric layer comprising piezoelectric material (108).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the piezoelectric material, as taught by Gu, for the purpose of providing movement of the pigments can cause change in optical state of the electrophoretic material (¶0054).
Li, Yang and Lin, fail to teach as in claim 18, wherein the piezoelectric layer is located adjacent to the electro-optic material layer. In a related art, Gu teaches wherein the piezoelectric layer (108) is located adjacent to the electro-optic material layer (106).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the piezoelectric material, as taught by Gu, for the purpose of providing movement of the pigments can cause change in optical state of the electrophoretic material (¶0054).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0004136 A1) in view of Yang (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0208343 A1) and in further view of Lin (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0339563 A1), and even further view Akagawa (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0367661 A1).
Li, Yang and Lin, fail to teach as in claim 13, wherein the sealing layer is colored. In a related art, Akagawa teaches wherein the sealing layer is colored (¶0170).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the sealing, as taught by Akagawa, for the purpose of providing a way to strongly suppress the infiltration of moisture and oxygen into the light emitting element (¶0033).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0004136 A1) in view of Yang (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0208343 A1) and in further view of Lin (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0339563 A1), and even further view Telfer (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0160556 A1).
Li, Yang and Lin, fail to teach as in claim 15, wherein the adhesive layer is transparent. In a related art, Telfer teaches wherein the adhesive layer is transparent (¶0040).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the adhesive layer, as taught by Telfer, for the purpose of providing a way to for the modulating element (may be a separate sheet of electrophoretic material ) to be attached to the waveguide (¶0071).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0004136 A1) in view of Yang (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0208343 A1) and in further view of Lin (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0339563 A1), and even further view Telfer (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0295222 A1).
Li, Yang and Lin, fail to teach as in claim 19, further comprising a photovoltaic layer. In a related art, Telfer teaches further comprising a photovoltaic layer (150).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the electro-optic display device as taught by Li, Yang and Lin, with the photovoltaic layer, as taught by Telfer, for the purpose of providing a way to collect energy to, for example, charge a battery or capacitor that provides switching power for later state transitions (¶0071).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
17 November 2025
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1Yang teaches in ¶0041 that the sizes and the shapes of the microcups are randomized. In randomizing the shape, each of the apex points (P) of the hexagons may be independently shifted within a defined area. Fig. 5c shows more than 5 different types microcups based off the different sizes and shapes.
2 the fill factor would change for each of the microcells because the Area A and Area W of each microcell in Figure 5 would be different because of the different dimensions of each microcell