CTFR 18/382,270 CTFR 79664 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 04/15/2026. The Amendments to Claims 1 and 24, filed 04/15/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Response to Arguments On Pages 6 and 7 of the Remarks, Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1 has been considered but are moot because the Applicant is arguing newly amended claims, filed 04/15/2026, not the Non-Final Rejection filed 01/15/2026. Newly amended claims are examined below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broutin Jerome Rene (WO 2020263896), hereinafter ‘896 in view of Eom Seong Su (KR 20200063644), hereinafter ‘644 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shui, Ling-Ling (CN 105527666), hereinafter ‘666 . Regarding claim 24, ‘896 discloses, in figure 1, an electrowetting optical device (101, electrowetting optical device) (paragraph 0068), comprising: a conductive liquid (135, second liquid) (paragraph 0069 and 0071) comprising a buffer, the buffer comprising an acid (acetic acid) and a conjugate base (sodium chloride) of the acid (paragraph 0071), a non-conductive liquid (133, first liquid) (paragraphs 0069 and 0070), the non-conductive liquid (133, first liquid) immiscible with the conductive liquid (135, second liquid) (paragraphs 0069 and 0070), the conductive liquid and the non-conductive liquid form a triple junction on the dielectric topcoat (see annotated figure 1 below); and an insulating layer (139, first dielectric portion and 143, second dielectric portion) comprising a base layer and a dielectric topcoat (paragraph 0077), the dielectric topcoat in direct contact with the conductive liquid (135, second liquid) and the non-conductive liquid (135, second liquid) (paragraph 0077), the dielectric topcoat comprising SiO x C y H z (paragraph 0085 disclose silicon based compounds). ‘896 does not disclose the buffer controlling the pH of the conductive liquid to a predetermined pH, the predetermine pH in a range from 3.0 to 7.0, the acid and the conjugate base each present in the conductive liquid at a concentration of between 0.0010 mol/L and 1.0 mol/L. ‘896 and ‘644 are related as optical devices with lenses. ‘644 discloses the buffer controlling the pH of the conductive liquid to a predetermined pH, the predetermine pH in a range from 3.0 to 7.0 (paragraph 0223 discloses when the pH of the conductive liquid is less than 5 (eg, strongly acidic) and when the pH exceeds 8 (eg, strongly alkaline). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of ‘896 with the predetermined pH of the conductive liquid of ‘644 for the purpose of balancing the base. ‘666 discloses wherein the acid and the conjugate base are each present in the conductive liquid at a concentration of between about 0.0010 mol/L and about 1.0 mol/L (paragraph 0030 and 0039). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of ‘896 with the conductive liquid of ‘666 for the purpose of an electrolyte solution. Regarding claim 25, ‘896 discloses wherein the acid is succinic acid, citric acid, or acetic acid (paragraph 0071) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broutin Jerome Rene (WO 2020263896), hereinafter ‘896 in view of Eom Seong Su (KR 20200063644), hereinafter ‘644 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shui, Ling-Ling (CN 105527666), hereinafter ‘666 as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Burger Benjamin (WO 2019183335), hereinafter ‘335 . Regarding claim 26, ‘896 discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated. ‘896 does not disclose wherein the conductive liquid further comprises ethylene glycol at a concentration of greater than about 96% by weight and water at a concentration of at least about 3.0% by weight (paragraph 0078). ‘335 discloses wherein the conductive liquid further comprises ethylene glycol at a concentration of greater than about 96% by weight and water at a concentration of at least about 3.0% by weight. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of ‘896 with the conductive liquid of ‘335 for the purpose of an electrolyte solution. Regarding claim 27, ‘896 discloses wherein the non-conductive liquid comprises one or more of hexaethyldigermane, hexamethyldigermane, n-octyltris(trimethylsiloxy)silane, and diphenyldimethylgermane (paragraph 0070) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-23 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in conjunction with all the other claimed limitation, an electrowetting optical device having all the claimed features of applicant's instant invention, specifically including: an insulating layer comprising a base layer and a dielectric topcoat configured to coat the base layer, wherein the dielectric topcoat is in direct contact with the conductive liquid and the non-conductive liquid, and the dielectric topcoat has a uniform thickness, as set forth in the claims. Broutin, Jerome Rene (WO 2020263896) discloses an electrowetting device comprising a conductive liquid, a non-conductive liquid, and an insulating layer with a base and a dielectric layer. However, Broutin is silent in regards to the dielectric layer having a uniform thickness and coating the base layer. Claims 2-23 are dependent from claim 1 and are allowable for the reasons given above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30. 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. /BRANDI N THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/382,270 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/382,270 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/382,270 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/382,270 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/382,270 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/382,270 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights