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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed July 14, 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 Claims 6-8 and 17 were previously withdrawn.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, see pages 6-11 of the Remarks, filed July 28, 2026, with respect to claims 1-5 and 9-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 9-16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026, regarding claims 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Namely, applicant argues that element 37 of Majima extends vertically through the port rather than including “a central portion spaced from the at least one holding member that floats between the first and second substrates”. However, it is noted that the Majima reference satisfies the claim language. Specifically element 37 of Majima extends both horizontally and vertically across the port. Further, a portion of element 37 may be considered to be a central portion that is between ends of element 37 and thus spaced from the holding members, and 37 is suspended or floating between those holding members (see e.g. Figure 3 of Majima).
Therefore, claims 18-20 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 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 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) 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) 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),
wherein the port reduction member 37 includes a central portion (i.e. the central region of 37) spaced from the at least one holding member (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the center portion is spaced from the holding members by at least end portions of 37) that floats between the first and second substrates 1,2 (see e.g. Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 19, Majima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the 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) includes a pair of holding member (i.e. portion of layers 5 and 3 defined by openings 6 and 4, see e.g. annotated Figure 3 above) spaced on opposite sides of the central portion (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the center portion is spaced from the holding members by at least end portions of 37).
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.
Claim 20 is 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 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 9-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
In regard to independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, the closest prior art references, Majima (JP 2000-231112), Takahashi et al. (JP 2007-010705), Sato et al. (US 2001/0013919 A1), and Katsura (US 2001/0015786 A1), fail to disclose or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 1, including the combination of limitations, “seal extending between along a perimeter of the first and second substrates, an electro- optic medium located in the cavity and retained by the seal; and a port at least partially defined by a port reduction member, the port reduction member located between and extending parallel to the first substrate and the second substrate between opposite edges of the port a length along the perimeter of the first substrate and the second substrate, the port reduction member defining a thickness transverse to the length defined by an upper surface facing the first substrate and a lower surface facing the second substrate, the thickness being less than the length.”
In regard to independent claim 9 and dependent claims 10-16, the closest prior art references, Majima (JP 2000-231112), Takahashi et al. (JP 2007-010705), Sato et al. (US 2001/0013919 A1), and Katsura (US 2001/0015786 A1), fail to disclose or make obvious all of the limitations of claim 1, including the combination of limitations, “a seal extending between the first and second substrates, an electro-optic medium located in the cavity and retained by the seal; a port defined by the seal, the first substrate, and the second substrate; and a port reduction member formed of a planar piece of glass that is located within the port that reduces a size of the port, the port reduction member defining a length between side edges that extends along a perimeter of the first and second substrates and across the port; and a pair of holding members, each holding member coupled to one of the side edges of the port reduction member and spacing the side edges from the seal.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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