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 December 12, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows. Claims 3, 5-10, and 16-20 were previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-10 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that the cited references fails to disclose “a color compensation layer, wherein the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer”. However, as cited below and in the previous office action, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It was further noted that providing the additional color region would yield a device that may provide a high quality monochrome or full color image depending on the display mode.
Therefore claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-15 are rejected as set forth below.
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 1, 2, 4, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US 2018/0039150 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (JP 2006-174379).
In regard to claim 1, Lo et al. discloses a reflective display with a color compensation layer, comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
a driving substrate 114 (denoted “array substrate”, paragraph [0034]) comprising a first sub-pixel region 115, a second sub-pixel region 115, and a third sub-pixel region 115 (see e.g. paragraph [0035] and note the sub-pixel regions are all labeled 115);
a display medium layer 116 located on the driving substrate 114 (see e.g. paragraph [0034]);
a color filter array 120 comprising a red color resist 122, a green color resist 124, and a blue color resist 126 (see e.g. paragraphs [0034]-[0035]);
an adhesive layer 130 located on the display medium layer 116 (see e.g. paragraph [0030]).
Lo et al. fails to disclose
a color compensation layer, wherein the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer,
the color compensation layer comprises a first blue ink layer, an vertical projection of the green color resist on the driving substrate overlaps the second sub-pixel region, and
an vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate at least partially overlaps the second sub-pixel region.
However, Nakano et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 5):
a color compensation layer 23B’,
the color compensation layer 23B’ comprises a first blue ink layer (see e.g. paragraph [0067] of English translation where an inkjet method may be used for forming color filters), an vertical projection of the green color resist 51G on the driving substrate overlaps the second sub-pixel region, and
an vertical projection of the first blue ink layer 23B’ on the driving substrate 10 at least partially overlaps the second sub-pixel region (see e.g. annotated Figure 5 below and Figure 3 for driving substrate 10).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Given the teachings of Nakano 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 Lo et al. with a color compensation layer, wherein the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer, the color compensation layer comprises a first blue ink layer, an vertical projection of the green color resist on the driving substrate overlaps the second sub-pixel region, and an vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate at least partially overlaps the second sub-pixel region.
Providing the additional color region would yield a device that may provide a high quality monochrome or full color image depending on the display mode.
In regard to claim 2, Lo et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the color filter array 120 is located on a surface of the display medium layer 110 facing the adhesive layer 130 (see e.g. Figure 2).
Lo et al., in view of Nakano et al., fails to disclose
wherein the color compensation layer is located on a surface of the adhesive layer facing away from the display medium layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the color compensation layer is located on a surface of the adhesive layer facing away from the display medium layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
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 Lo et al., in view of Nakano et al., with wherein the color compensation layer is located on a surface of the adhesive layer facing away from the display medium layer.
Providing the additional color region would yield a device that may provide a high quality monochrome or full color image depending on the display mode.
In regard to claim 4, Lo et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate is located within the second sub-pixel region.
However, Nakano et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 5):
wherein the vertical projection of the first blue ink layer 23B’ on the driving substrate 10 is located within the second sub-pixel region (see e.g. annotated Figure 5 below and Figure 3 for driving substrate 10).
Given the teachings of Nakano 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 Lo et al. with wherein the vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate is located within the second sub-pixel region.
Providing the additional color region would yield a device that may provide a high quality monochrome or full color image depending on the display mode.
In regard to claim 13, Lo et al., in view of Nakano et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a white balance (a*,b*) is in a range of (±5, ±5).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which a white balance (a*,b*) is in a range of (±5, ±5), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
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 Lo et al., in view of Nakano et al., with wherein a white balance (a*,b*) is in a range of (±5, ±5).
Selecting a configuration in which a desired white balance is achieved would allow for a desired color rendering of the display device.
In regard to claim 14, Lo et al. discloses a reflective display with a color compensation layer, comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
a driving substrate 114 (denoted “array substrate”, paragraph [0034]) comprising a first sub-pixel region 115, a second sub-pixel region 115, and a third sub-pixel region 115 (see e.g. paragraph [0035] and note the sub-pixel regions are all labeled 115);
a display medium layer 116 located on the driving substrate 114 (see e.g. paragraph [0034]);
a color filter array 120 comprising a red color resist 122, a green color resist 124, and a blue color resist 126 (see e.g. paragraphs [0034]-[0035]);
an adhesive layer 130 located on the display medium layer 116 (see e.g. paragraph [0030]).
Lo et al. fails to disclose
wherein the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer, the color compensation layer comprises a first blue ink layer, an vertical projection of the green color resist on the driving substrate and an vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate overlaps the same sub-pixel region, and a white balance (a*,b*) is in a range of (±5, ±5).
However, Nakano et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 5):
a color compensation layer 23B’,
the color compensation layer 23B’ comprises a first blue ink layer (see e.g. paragraph [0067] of English translation where an inkjet method may be used for forming color filters), an vertical projection of the green color resist 51G on the driving substrate 10 and an vertical projection of the first blue ink layer 23B’ on the driving substrate 10 overlaps the same sub-pixel region (see e.g. annotated Figure 5 below and Figure 3 for driving substrate 10).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a configuration in which the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which a white balance (a*,b*) is in a range of (±5, ±5), since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of Nakano 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 Lo et al. with wherein the color filter array and the color compensation layer are located at two opposite sides of the adhesive layer, the color compensation layer comprises a first blue ink layer, an vertical projection of the green color resist on the driving substrate and an vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate overlaps the same sub-pixel region, and a white balance (a*,b*) is in a range of (±5, ±5).
Providing the additional color region would yield a device that may provide a high quality monochrome or full color image depending on the display mode. Further, selecting a configuration in which a desired white balance is achieved would allow for a desired color rendering of the display device.
In regard to claim 15, Lo et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the vertical projection of the green color resist on the driving substrate overlaps the second sub-pixel region, and the vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate at least partially overlaps the second sub-pixel region.
However, Nakano et al. discloses
wherein the vertical projection of the green color resist 51G on the driving substrate 10 overlaps the second sub-pixel region, and the vertical projection of the first blue ink layer 23B’ on the driving substrate 10 at least partially overlaps the second sub-pixel region (see e.g. annotated Figure 5 below and Figure 3 for driving substrate 10).
Given the teachings of Nakano 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 Lo et al. with wherein the vertical projection of the green color resist on the driving substrate overlaps the second sub-pixel region, and the vertical projection of the first blue ink layer on the driving substrate at least partially overlaps the second sub-pixel region.
Providing the additional color region would yield a device that may provide a high quality monochrome or full color image depending on the display mode.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US 2018/0039150 A1) in view of Nakano et al. (JP 2006-174379) and further in view of DeGreef (US 2016/0178891 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Lo, in view of Nakano et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a total area of the blue color resist and the first blue ink layer is similar with to area of the green color resist.
However, DeGreef discloses manipulating physical properties including shape, concentration of dye/ink/resist of the material of the color filter, thickness, and area of color regions of a display device to provide a desired color rendering (see e.g. paragraph [0060]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which a total area of the blue color resist and the first blue ink layer is similar with to area of the green color resist, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of DeGreef, 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 Lo, in view of Nakano et al., with wherein a total area of the blue color resist and the first blue ink layer is similar with to area of the green color resist.
Adjusting a physical property of the color layers, such as the area, would allow the desired coloring rendering of the device to be achieved.
In regard to claim 12, Lo, in view of Nakano et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a total area of the blue color resist and the first blue ink layer is different from an area of the green color resist.
However, DeGreef discloses manipulating physical properties including shape, concentration of dye/ink/resist of the material of the color filter, thickness, and area of color regions of a display device to provide a desired color rendering (see e.g. paragraph [0060]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which a total area of the blue color resist and the first blue ink layer is different from an area of the green color resist, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Given the teachings of DeGreef, 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 Lo, in view of Nakano et al., with wherein a total area of the blue color resist and the first blue ink layer is different from an area of the green color resist.
Adjusting a physical property of the color layers, such as the area, would allow the desired coloring rendering of the device to be achieved.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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