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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed February 20, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 6-8 and 17 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on page 7, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Namely, the newly added limitation, “a port . . . extending parallel to the first substrate and second substrate” is taught by the Majima reference. Specifically, port reduction member 37 of Majima extends in three dimensions including in parallel to the first and second substrates.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 18.
Regarding dependent claim 3, applicant argues, on pages 7-8 of the Remarks, that Majima fails to disclose the port reduction member is spaced between the first and second substrate. However, as show in Figure 3 below, port reduction member 37 of Majima is clearly spaced between the substrates.
Regarding dependent claim 4, applicant argues, on page 8 of the Remarks, that Majima fails to disclose “wherein both holding members member interface a bottom surface and a top surface of the port reduction member.” However, as set forth below, Majima discloses
wherein both holding members member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) interface a bottom surface and a top surface of the port reduction member 37 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that they at least interface indirectly via other layers).
In regard to independent claim 9, applicant’s arguments, on page 8 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 9, as newly amended have been fully considered and are appreciated. Namely, applicant argues that there is no functional link between the spacers as taught by Sato and the rib of Majima and would not be obvious to modify Majima in this way. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as taught by Sato and known the art, glass is used for various components in the sealing structure. Glass is used to provide structural integrity to the seal. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using glass for as a port reduction member to bring structural integrity to the seal in that portion of the device.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 8-16, and 18-20
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majima (JP 2000-231112).
In regard to claim 1, Majima discloses an electro-optic assembly (denoted “liquid crystal display device”, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of the English translation) comprising (see e.g. Figure 3):
a first substrate 1 having a first surface (i.e. surface of substrate 1 facing away from substrate 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation) and a second surface opposite the first surface (i.e. surface of substrate 1 facing substrate 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation);
a second substrate 2 having a third surface (i.e. surface of substrate 2 facing first substrate 1, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation) and a fourth surface (i.e. surface of substrate 2 facing away from substrate 1, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation) opposite the third surface,
the first and second substrates 1, 2 disposed in a parallel and spaced apart relationship so as to define a cavity (not labeled in Figure 3, but is the region that is defined between substrates 1, 2) therebetween, the second and third surfaces facing each other (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that internal surfaces of substrates 1, 2 are facing each other);
a seal 34 (denoted “rectangular frame” that is made of a seal resin, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 4, paragraph 6 of the English translation) extending between the first and second substrates 1, 2 (see e.g. Figure 3), an electro-optic medium (i.e. liquid crystal, see e.g. page 4, paragraph 6, of the English translation) located in the cavity (i.e. region between substrates 1,2) and retained by the seal 34 (see e.g. Figure 3 and page 4, paragraph 6 of the English translation); and
a port 35 (denoted “liquid crystal injection hole”, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, paragraph 7 of the English translation) at least partially defined by a port reduction member 37 (denoted “intermediate rib”, see e.g. page 4, 9th paragraph and note that element 37 reduces the port size by at least the volume of element 37) located between and extending parallel to the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 2 (see e.g. Figure 3) .
In regard to claim 3, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the port reduction member 37 is suspended and spaced between the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 2 with at least one holding member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, respectively, are considered to be the “holding members”, see e.g. annotated Figure 3, attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 4, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
wherein the at least one holding member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) includes a pair of holding members (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) spaced from one another (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, respectively, are considered to be the “holding members”, see e.g. annotated Figure 3, attached above), wherein both holding members member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) interface a bottom surface and a top surface of the port reduction member 37 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that they at least interface indirectly via other layers).
In regard to claim 5, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, and
wherein the port 35 is split by the port reduction member 37 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the port 35 is at least split into left and right half portions by port reduction member 37).
In regard to claim 18, Majima discloses a method of assembling an electro-optic assembly (denoted “liquid crystal display device”, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of the English translation) comprising steps of (see e.g. Figure 3):
Horizontally aligning a first substrate 1 over a second substrate 2 that is horizontally aligned to define a cavity therebetween (see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation);
placing a seal 34 (denoted “rectangular frame” that is made of a seal resin, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 4, paragraph 6 of the English translation) between the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 2 to define a transmission perimeter (see e.g. page 4, paragraph 6, of the English translation and note that the liquid crystal region is within the seal and thus the seal defines the transmission perimeter around the liquid crystal, also see Figure 4 where the perimeter around the display area of a device is shown); and
coupling a port reduction member 37 (denoted “intermediate rib”, see e.g. page 4, 9th paragraph and note that element 37 reduces the port size by at least the volume of element 37) horizontally across the port and coupled to at least one of the first and second substrates 1, 2 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that 37 is coupled to substrates 1, 2, via portions of layers 6 and 4) and at least partially defining a port 35 (denoted “liquid crystal injection hole”, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, paragraph 7 of the English translation).
In regard to claim 19, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
suspending the port reduction member 37 between the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 2 with at least one holding member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above).
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 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majima (JP 2000-231112) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2007-010705).
In regard to claim 2, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the port is closed with at least one of a valve, a plug, a cured medium, or a deformation of the port reduction member.
However, Takahashi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the port 7 (denoted “liquid crystal injection port”, see e.g. page 6, last full paragraph) is closed with at least one of a valve, a plug 11 (see e.g. page 6, last full paragraph where the port 7 is sealed with 11 after liquid crystal is injected between the substrates), a cured medium, or a deformation of the port reduction member.
Given the teachings of Takahashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Majima with wherein the port is closed with at least one of a valve, a plug, a cured medium, or a deformation of the port reduction member.
Providing a plug to the injection port of the electro-optic device would prevent unwanted particles or other contaminants from entering the display layer via said port.
In regard to claim 20, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 19 above, but fails to disclose
closing the port with at least one of closing a valve, inserting a plug, or inserting and curing a medium.
However, Takahashi et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1, 6):
closing the port 7 (denoted “liquid crystal injection port”, see e.g. Figure 1 and page 6, last full paragraph of the English translation) with at least one of closing a valve, inserting a plug 11 (see e.g. Figure 1 and page 6, last full paragraph of the English translation, where the port 7 is sealed with 11 after liquid crystal is injected between the substrates), or inserting and curing a medium (see e.g. Figure 6 and page 11, fifth paragraph for plugging injection hole 7 with material 11).
Given the teachings of Takahashi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Majima with closing the port with at least one of closing a valve, inserting a plug, or inserting and curing a medium.
Providing a plug to the injection port of the electro-optic device would prevent unwanted particles or other contaminants from entering the display layer via said port.
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majima (JP 2000-231112) in view of Sato et al. (US 2001/0013919 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Majima discloses an electro-optic assembly (denoted “liquid crystal display device”, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of the English translation) comprising (see e.g. Figure 3):
a first substrate 1 having a first surface (i.e. surface of substrate 1 facing away from substrate 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation) and a second surface opposite the first surface (i.e. surface of substrate 1 facing substrate 2, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation);
a second substrate 2 having a third surface (i.e. surface of substrate 2 facing first substrate 1, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation) and a fourth surface (i.e. surface of substrate 2 facing away from substrate 1, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, 7th full paragraph of English translation) opposite the third surface,
the first and second substrates 1, 2 disposed in a parallel and spaced apart relationship so as to define a cavity (not labeled in Figure 3, but is the region that is defined between substrates 1, 2) therebetween, the second and third surfaces facing each other (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that internal surfaces of substrates 1, 2 are facing each other);
a seal 34 (denoted “rectangular frame” that is made of a seal resin, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 4, paragraph 6 of the English translation) extending between the first and second substrates 1, 2 (see e.g. Figure 3), an electro-optic medium (i.e. liquid crystal, see e.g. page 4, paragraph 6, of the English translation) located in the cavity (i.e. region between substrates 1,2) and retained by the seal 34 (see e.g. Figure 3 and page 4, paragraph 6 of the English translation);
a port 35 (denoted “liquid crystal injection hole”, see e.g. Figure 3 and page 5, paragraph 7 of the English translation) defined by the seal 34, the first substrate 1, and the second substrate 2 (see e.g. Figure 3); and
a port reduction member 37 (denoted “intermediate rib”, see e.g. page 4, 9th paragraph) located within the port 35 that reduces a size of the port (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that element 37 reduces the size of port 35 by at least the volume of element 37).
Majima fails to disclose
wherein the port reduction member is formed of glass.
However, Sato et al. discloses a spacer member 23 formed within a seal 4 made of glass (see e.g. paragraph [0083] and Figure 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using a similar material in a port reduction member in order to have a stable liquid crystal thickness using a material that is known to provide a uniform thickness.
Given the teachings of Sato et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Majima with wherein the port reduction member is formed of glass.
By using a typical material that is used as a spacer for maintaining a uniform distance between substrates in a display device, the port reduction member would help maintain said distance.
In regard to claim 10, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the size of the port is at least partially defined by a distance between the second and third surface (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the second surface and third surfaces are the internal surfaces of substrates 1, 2, respectively and therefore at least partially define the size of the port 35).
In regard to claim 11, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, and
wherein the port reduction member 37 is located between and spaced from the second and third surface (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the second surface and third surfaces are the internal surfaces of substrates 1, 2, respectively and that element 37 is at least spaced from those surfaces by the thickness of layers 5 and 3).
In regard to claim 12, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the port reduction member 37 is located centrally in the distance between the second and third surface (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the second surface and third surfaces are the internal surfaces of substrates 1, 2, respectively and that element 37 is located in at least part of a central potion between those surfaces).
In regard to claim 13, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein at least one holding member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) statically retains the port reduction member 37 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the port reduction member is held between portions of layers 5 and 3).
In regard to claim 14, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, and
wherein the at least one holding member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) includes a pair of holding members (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) spaced from one another (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, respectively, are considered to be the “holding members”, see e.g. annotated Figure 3, attached above).
In regard to claim 16, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, and
wherein the port reduction member 37 extends horizontally across the port 35 (see e.g. Figure 3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majima (JP 2000-231112) in view of Sato et al. (US 2001/0013919 A1) and further in view of Katsura (US 2001/0015786 A1).
In regard to claim 15, Majima, in view of Sato et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 13 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the at least one holding member is formed of epoxy.
However, Katsura discloses using epoxy resin as a seal material (see e.g. paragraph [0107]) and further discloses additional structures 708 made of the seal material in the injection port 704 (see e.g. paragraphs [0017], [0160] and Figure 7). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using such a material that is used for the seal of the perimeter of the display device for other pieces of the injection port.
Given the teachings of Katsura, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Majima, in view of Sato et al., with wherein the at least one holding member is formed of epoxy.
By providing multiple structures in the injection port region using a same material, a decreased cost or time of manufacturing may be accomplished.
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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 at (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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights