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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2009271317 A (KOMATSU HARUNOBU et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
348
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 1, Komatsu a display device, comprising: a driving substrate [9: “the circuit board 9 has a flat base 91 provided with a circuit (not shown) including a switching element such as a TFT”]; a display medium layer [2], disposed on the driving structure [see figure 2]; and a material layer [6], disposed on a side of the display medium layer, and extending to the driving substrate [see figure 2], wherein the material layer is a material layer with conductivity properties [“The upper electrode 6 is provided so as to cover the top 4a of the wall 4 and the surface of the microcapsule 3 (curved convex surface located on the upper side in FIG. 1).”]
Per claim 2, Komatsu teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the material layer is disposed on a side of the display medium layer relatively far away from the driving substrate, and extends to a periphery of the display medium layer [see figure 5].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009271317 A (KOMATSU HARUNOBU et al.) in view of JP 2012242432 A (FUJITA AKIRA).
PNG
media_image2.png
220
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
470
586
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claims 3-5, Komatsu teaches the display device according to claim 2. Komatsu lacks, but Fujita teaches, a conductive paste “a conductive member 32 to be described later is provided in a gap portion between the upper and lower substrates”], disposed on the display medium layer [see figure 6 above; the paste 32 would be coupled to Komatsu’s electrode 6], wherein the material layer is a conductive material layer which is fixed on the display medium layer through conductive paste [inherent to the combination], and electrically connected with a conductive terminal on the driving substrate [see Fujita’s figure 6, electrode 11]. Simplified external control connectivity and manufacturing would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujita with Komatsu.
The combination lacks a thickness of the conductive material layer being greater than 0 and less than or equal to 20 microns. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the conductive paste with a thickness between 0 and less than or equal to 20 microns in order to reduce overall cell thickness. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Komatsu lacks, Fujita teaches, a water-blocking material layer [substrate 20], the conductive material layer is fixed on the display medium layer through the conductive paste and is electrically connected with a conductive terminal on the driving substrate [see Fujita’s figures 5-6], and the water-blocking material layer is disposed on the conductive material layer [see figures 5-6] and is conformally disposed with the conductive material layer [see figures 5-6]. Improved protection from environmental elements would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Fujita with Komatsu.
Per claim 6, Komatsu teaches the display device according to claim 2. As described above, Fujita teaches connecting via a conductive paste an upper substrate electrode to a lower substrate terminal. In view of Fujita’s conductive paste use, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been an matter of routine skill in the art to incorporate into the material layer a conductive material layer [disclosed as Komatsu’s layer 6] and a water-blocking material layer [routine skill in the art], the conductive material layer directly covers the display medium layer [see Komatsu’s figure 2] and is electrically connected to a conductive terminal on the driving substrate, and the water-blocking material layer is disposed on the conductive material layer and completely covers the conductive material layer. In view of Fujita, it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to connect Komatsu’s conductive material 6 to a lead on Komatsu’s substrate with Fujita’s paste 32 in order to simplify manufacturing and simplify connectivity to the external control devices.
Per claim 7, Komatsu et al. teaches the display device according to claim 6, but lacks a thickness of the water-blocking material layer being greater than 0 and less than or equal to 20 microns. However, official notice is hereby taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the conductive paste with a thickness between 0 and less than or equal to 20 microns in order to reduce overall cell thickness. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009271317 A (KOMATSU HARUNOBU et al.) in view of JP 2012242432 A (FUJITA AKIRA).
Per claim 9, Komatsu teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the display medium layer is a substrate [9] of an electrophoretic display layer [2], and the material layer is a conductive material layer [“a conductive member 32 to be described later is provided in a gap portion between the upper and lower substrates”]. Komatsu lacks a plastic substrate. However, official notice is hereby taken that it was common knowledge to use plastic substrates in order to cell weight. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 10-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Per claim 8, the prior art teaches the display device according to claim 1, wherein the display medium layer is a microcup electronic ink layer [3]. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach the display device further comprises: a conductive film, disposed on the display medium layer; and a conductive paste, disposed on the display medium layer, wherein the conductive film is fixed on the display medium layer through the conductive paste; wherein the material layer comprises a conductive pillar and a water-blocking material layer, the material layer is disposed between the conductive paste and the driving substrate, and is electrically connected to the conductive paste and a conductive terminal on the driving substrate, the water-blocking material layer is disposed on the conductive film and extends to the driving substrate along a periphery of the conductive film, a periphery of the conductive paste, a periphery of the conductive pillar and a periphery of the display medium layer.
Per claim 10, the prior art teaches the display device according to claim 9. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach a protection cover, comprising a cover and a transparent conductive layer, wherein the cover is disposed on the display medium layer, and the transparent conductive layer is disposed on the cover, and a part of the transparent conductive layer is located between the cover and the display medium layer.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “in KOMATSU HARUNOBU, the upper electrode 6 should be part of the electrophoretic display sheet 2, which has been interpreted as the display medium layer of the present application in the Office Action. Thus, the applicant submits that the current claim interpretation of the upper electrode 6 of KOMATSU HARUNOBU as the material layer of the present application should be reconsidered.”
In response, the claimed language merely requires “a material layer, disposed on a side of the display medium layer, and extending to the driving substrate, wherein the material layer is a material layer with conductivity properties.” As such, Komatsu’s upper electrode 6 sufficiently meets the claimed language. See the abstract: “an upper electrode (a first electrode) 6 provided on a viewing side of the microcapsule-containing layer 5”. That is, Komatsu’s electrode 6 is a conductive layer or a material layer that is conductive formed on the display medium layer 2 or “on a side of the display medium”.
Applicant further argues that “even if the upper electrode 6 of KOMATSU HARUNOBU could be interpreted as the material layer of the present application, according to FIG.2 of KOMATSU HARUNOBU, the upper electrode 6 does not extend to the circuit board 9 (which is interpreted as the driving substrate of the present application).”
In response, the phrase “extending to the driving substrate” merely requires the material layer 6 to extend in a direction from the top of the display towards the bottom of the display. As such, Komatsu’s figure 2 clearly shows electrode 6 extending from the apex of the wall 4 towards the lower substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights