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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 10/20/2025.
Cancellation of claims 16 and 19-20, filed 10/20/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendment to the abstract, specification, and claims 11 and 14-15, filed 10/20/2025, are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claims 1-10, filed 7/18/2025, remains in effect.
Due to the amendments, all previous objections to the abstract and specification are now withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In Applicant’s most recent filing, claim 11 was amended to recite “after sealing [of microcells], patterning the film of polyvinylidene fluoride [PVDF]…”, incorporating aspects of the previous claims 16 and 19-20 (now cancelled). Applicant then argues, on pgs. 3-4 of the Remarks, that “This feature is neither disclosed nor suggested in any of the cited references” and that “amended claim 11 is non-obvious over the art of record”. Examiner disagrees for reasons provided as follows
As established in the previous Non-Final Rejection, filed 7/18/2025, both the sealing of microcells and the patterning of PVDF are materially supported by the cited references – i.e. of Moran, Gu, and Hu (see previous rejections of claims 1, 16, 19-20). Applicant’s latest amendment thus serves only to distinguish the claimed invention over the cited combination of references by establishing an order for operations already known at the time of filing.
Although Examiner acknowledges that the precise order of the newly amended claim 11 is not explicitly disclosed in the cited references, Examiner will note that such order is not particularly critical to the viability or to the basic structural and functional aspects of the final product resulting from the claimed method. Whether patterning of the PVDF layer is done before or after coupling to, and sealing of, the microcell layer does not affect device performance in any materially relevant manner; the recited order of operations is of little functional significance, and neither does it solve any technically significant problem nor does it achieve any distinct or unexpected result.
Instead, the newly claimed order relates, at most, to manufacturing convenience, process logistics, or quality-control aspects within the production workflow. Applicant even suggests as much in their recently filed Remarks (“this feature allows the final customer more control…”, “the claimed method simplifies the supply chain… to meet the needs of multiple customers”). These are all standard considerations to make, however, and it would have been an obvious matter of routine design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art to simply select or adjust an order of operations in order to optimize business, production, or quality-control considerations. Examiner thus finds the newly amended claim 11 remains obvious and will again apply a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
Before proceeding, Examiner acknowledges an additional concern raised by Applicant on pg. 4 of the recent Remarks, regarding the stated rationale to combine teachings of Hu (patterning of PVDF) with those of Moran in view of Gu and LeCain. Applicant argues “There is no reason to further modify the combination of Moran, Gu, and LeCain if the needs [i.e. the patterned PVDF layer] are already met [disclosed in Gu]”. While Applicant's arguments here are again framed in the context of claim 11’s newly amended order of operations (pg. 4: “Office has provided no reasoned explanation for why one of skill in the art would pattern the filed [sic, “film”] of PVDF after”) – Examiner disagrees with this and the general sentiment that “There is no further need” to consider/implement Hu for reasons given as follows.
One can review Gu’s disclosure and find that they are silent regarding many technical aspects of PVDF patterning. In fact, part of Applicant’s pg. 4 argument states that “Gu only discloses to create patterned electrophoretic display films by assembling disparate piezo layers that were poled before the film was fabricated. See Gu at [0086].” However, this assertion is flatly unsupported, as a basic review of ¶ 86 and associated/nearby paragraphs will show that Gu makes no mention of “assembling disparate” layers or even of when the PVDF patterning is done – just that “piezo [PVDF] films with opposite poling directions” may be incorporated.
Besides the above assembly details, Gu is also silent regarding other physical aspects relevant to PVDF patterning (e.g. pattern length scales, domain formation and robustness/ dynamics, characterization techniques, etc.) – details which are explicitly provided in Hu’s research article. As such, it is certainly conceivable that a practitioner of ordinary skill may find Gu leaving more to be desired, and may turn to other resources (e.g. Hu as cited) in order to learn and incorporate more practically relevant teachings. Applicant is reminded that they are not in a position to limit the creativity or thought-process of said practitioner, nor may Applicant unnecessarily restrict what particular features the practitioner may borrow when provided with an appropriate collection of teachings (even including those that may overlap in subject matter) or any further considerations made therefrom. Doing so amounts to an improper limitation of the practitioner to arbitrarily selected details, imposed solely for argumentative convenience.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, line 16 of claim 1 and line 2 of claim 14 each recite “a patterned electrophoretic display film”, However, lines 1-2 of claim 1 already introduced “a patterned electrophoretic display film”. It is therefore unclear why Applicant creates new instances of this claim element following the initial introduction. For examination purposes, the subsequent recitations of “a patterned electrophoretic display film” shall be read as “the patterned electrophoretic display film”.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
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 11-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moran (US 20190016922 A1) in view of Gu et al (US 20190353973 A1, hereinafter “Gu”), LeCain et al (US 20040027327 A1, hereinafter “LeCain”), and Hu et al (NPL entitled Universal Ferroelectric Switching Dynamics…, hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 11, Moran discloses a method of making an electrophoretic display film (electrophoretic display or EPID) comprising:
a polymer film comprising acrylates, vinyl ethers, or epoxides to create a precursor film (“thermoplastic or thermoset precursor layer”);
coupling (i.e. by coating) the precursor film (“thermoplastic or thermoset precursor layer”) onto an electrode layer (“conductor film”)
embossing the piezo-microcell precursor film (“thermoplastic or thermoset precursor layer”) to create an array of microcells (microcell array (labeled 60 in FIGs. 6(A-D), as discussed further below)), wherein the microcells have a bottom, walls, and a top opening;
(see ¶s 48-59 detailing different methods for forming microcell arrays in electrophoretic displays, including both photo-patterning and embossing – note particularly the following excerpts:
¶ 50 regarding embossing: “the microcell array may be prepared by a process including embossing a thermoplastic or thermoset precursor layer coated on a conductor film...”;
¶ 49 regarding photo-patterning: “The conductor film is coated with a radiation curable polymer precursor layer. The film and precursor layer are then exposed imagewise to radiation to form the microcell wall structure. Following exposure, the precursor material is removed from the unexposed areas, leaving the cured microcell walls bonded to the conductor film...”;
¶s 56-59, and associated FIGs. 4(A,B), further illustrating the photo-patterning, where the precursor film (radiation curable material 41a) is coated onto conductor electrode film 42, then formed to have walls, bottoms, and top openings for each microcell. Examiner thus finds both photo-patterning and embossing, which are disclosed as alternatives (¶s 49-50, 53, 57), will generally produce the structure as claimed.
See also ¶41: “an embossed set of containers may be constructed from acrylates… vinylethers, … epoxides, … each small container may be part of a network, e.g. a microcell, as shown in FIG. 2”; thus Moran’s precursor layer comprises the claimed materials)
filling the microcells with an electrophoretic medium (medium 64 with charged pigment particles 65) through the top opening;
sealing off the top opening of the filled microcells with a water-soluble polymer (“second polymer”, or second mixture 36 in FIGs. 3, 6(C-D)) to create an electrophoretic medium layer of an electrophoretic display film (electrophoretic display or EPID).
(see ¶s 41-44 with FIGs. 2-3 and also ¶s 65-68 with FIGs. 6(A-D);
note particularly ¶ 43: “the microcells are filled, and the filled microcell structure is over-coated with a second polymer, such as a hydroxymethylcellulose solution, which creates a robust seal”; Examiner notes hydroxymethyl cellulose is water-soluble)
Moran does not disclose the method comprising:
coupling a film of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) to the polymer film to create a piezo-microcell precursor film;
a flexible, light-transmissive electrode layer;
coupling the light-transmissive electrode layer to a first release film with a first adhesive layer;
after sealing, patterning the film of polyvinylidene fluoride of the electrophoretic display film with an electric field to create areas of differing polarization in the film of polyvinylidene fluoride, thereby creating a patterned electrophoretic display film.
Moran and Gu are related as being directed towards microcell electrophoretic displays.
Gu discloses (see FIGs. (12-13)(A,B), ¶s 84-87; see also FIGs. 9-11(A,B) and ¶s 79-81 describing microcell manufacturing methods) the method comprising:
coupling a film (piezoelectric material layer, or piezo film, 1202/902) of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) to the polymer film (EPD film/layer, or display medium layer, 1204/900) to create a piezo-microcell precursor film. (Note per ¶ 81: “the EPD layer 900 may be manufactured by pattern micro-cell structures… once the patterns have been defined, and after an embossing step, …”. Gu’s EPD film 1204/900 (with piezo film 1202/902) thus corresponds to Applicant’s/Moran’s precursor film/layer, which is to be patterned/embossed with microcells. See also ¶ 63 reciting suitable piezo materials including PVDF.)
a flexible, light-transmissive electrode layer (electrode 1 1206; note the following – ¶ 86: “all the layers… including the electrode 1 and electrode 2 layers may be transparent”, ¶ 80: “flexible and transparent conductive coatings [i.e. for the electrodes] may be used”);
patterning the film (piezoelectric material layer 1202) of polyvinylidene fluoride of the electrophoretic display film (electrophoretic display 1200) to create areas of differing polarization in the film (piezoelectric material layer 1202) of polyvinylidene fluoride, thereby creating a patterned electrophoretic display film (electrophoretic display 1200). (Note ¶ 86 and FIGs. 13(A,B), with differing polarization PZ1 and PZ2 in the completed electrophoretic display film. Note Gu also recites, in ¶ 63, PVDF as a suitable piezo material.)
Moran and LeCain are related as being directed towards electrophoretic displays.
LeCain discloses (see FIG. 18, ¶s 160-162) the method comprising: coupling the light-transmissive electrode layer (substrate 12 with conductive layer 14) to a first release film (auxiliary release sheet 704) with a first adhesive layer (auxiliary adhesive layer 702).
Moran and Hu are related as being directed towards electrooptic polymers for electronic devices.
Hu discloses patterning the film of polyvinylidene fluoride with an electric field. (Hu investigates polarization switching dynamics and pattern/domain-formation in PVDF-trifluoroethylene films using applied voltages/fields; see FIG. 7(a,c) and pg. 6: “switching voltage pulses were applied… Figure 7a and c show OP PFM images of the domains formed by different voltage pulses”.)
Moran in view of Gu, LeCain, and Hu thus disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but does not explicitly disclose that patterning is done after sealing. However, as elaborated on in the Response to Arguments above, this single distinction is of little functional significance and relates, at most, to standard considerations including manufacturing convenience, process logistics, and quality-control.
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Moran with the suitable piezo materials of Gu, in order to eliminate the need for a power supply and simplify the electrophoretic assembly (Gu ¶ 62).
It would have also been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Moran with material/design aspects of LeCain, in order better adapt the display for quality testing and mass production (LeCain ¶s 20-21).
It would have then been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to also modify Moran by patterning the PVDF as taught by Hu, as such ferroelectric patterns drastically affect switching and properties that are commonly for microscopic control in various electrooptic devices, while PVDF offers a switchable material that is low-cost, lightweight, environmentally friendly, and easily processable (Hu pg. 1).
It would have lastly been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to then modify the combined teaching of Moran, Gu, and LeCain by simply selecting/adjusting an order of operations (patterning, sealing) in order to optimize business, production, or quality-control considerations.
Regarding claim 12, modified Moran discloses the method of claim 11.
Gu also discloses (see FIG. 9-11(A,B), ¶s 79-81) the method further comprising applying a primer to the polymer film (EPD film 900) before coupling the polymer film (EPD film 900) to the film (piezoelectric material layer 902) of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). (FIG. 11A shows a primer applied to contact portions 1100 where EPD layer 900 meets the piezoelectric material 902.)
Moran further discloses the polymer film comprising acrylates, vinyl ethers, or epoxides (as established in regards to claim 1 above; see ¶41: “an embossed set of containers may be constructed from acrylates… vinylethers, … epoxides, …)
Regarding claim 13, modified Moran discloses the method of claim 11.
LeCain further discloses (see FIG. 18, ¶s 160-162) the method further comprising coupling the electrophoretic medium layer (electro-optic medium layer 16) to a second release film (release layer 28) with a second adhesive layer (adhesive layer 26).
And as established previously in regards to claim 11, Moran had disclosed sealing off the top opening of the filled microcells with the water-soluble polymer (“second polymer”, or second mixture 36 in FIGs. 3, 6(C-D)) to create the electrophoretic medium layer (see ¶s 41-44 with FIGs. 2-3 and also ¶s 65-68 with FIGs. 6(A-D)).
Modified Moran thus discloses the method further comprising coupling the water-soluble polymer (of the electrophoretic medium layer) to a second release film with a second adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 14, modified Moran discloses the method of claim 11.
LeCain further discloses (see FIG. 18, ¶s 160-162) the method further comprising removing the first release film (auxiliary release sheet 704) to produce an electrophoretic display film (comprising adhesive layer 26, electro-optic medium layer 16, and substrate 12 with conductive layer 14). (See also ¶ 164: “To manufacture the display 800, the auxiliary release sheet 704 is removed…”)
Gu further discloses (see FIGs. (12-13)(A,B), ¶s 84-87) a patterned electrophoretic display film (electrophoretic display 1200) that is less than 100 µm thick (¶ 87: “The embodiments shown… reduces the overall device thickness to be less than 50 μm”. Note ¶ 86 and FIGs. 13(A,B), with differing polarization PZ1 and PZ2 in the completed electrophoretic display film).
Regarding claim 15, modified Moran discloses the method of claim 11.
Gu further discloses (see FIGs. (12-13)(A,B), ¶s 84-87; see also FIGs. 9-11(A,B) and ¶s 79-81 describing microcell manufacturing methods) wherein the electrophoretic medium layer (EPD layer 1204/900) comprises a plurality of microcells (906) containing a non-polar fluid and charged pigment particles (see also ¶ 51: “In a microcell electrophoretic display, the charge particles and the fluid… are retained within the plurality of cavities [i.e. microcells]”) that move toward or away from the film (piezoelectric material layer 1202) of polyvinylidene fluoride when the patterned electrophoretic display film (electrophoretic display 1200) is flexed (per FIGs. (12-13)B and ¶ 85, charge separation occurs when force is applied to piezoelectric material layer 1202; EPD layer 1204’s positive (negative) charges move towards (away from) the piezo film PZ. Note Gu recites, in ¶ 63, PVDF as a suitable piezo material. See also FIGs. 8 and 14(B-E) depicting such flexing forces).
Regarding claim 17, modified Moran discloses the method of claim 11.
LeCain further discloses wherein the flexible, light-transmissive electrode layer (substrate 12 with conductive layer 14) comprises a metal oxide comprising tin or zinc. (See ¶ 101: “the preferred form of electrically-conductive layer comprises... a thin light-transmissive conductive layer… the electrically-conductive layer is… indium-tin-oxide”)
Regarding claim 18, modified Moran discloses the method of claim 11.
Gu further discloses wherein the flexible, light-transmissive electrode layer (electrode 1 1206) comprises poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT). (See ¶ 80: “flexible and transparent conductive coatings may be used [i.e. for the electrodes], such as PEDOT:PSS…”)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872