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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enomoto et al. (US 2002/0030785).
Regarding claim 18, Enomoto teaches (FIG. 5):
A display device, comprising:
a common line electrode (34);
a lower electrode (31, 32, 33);
a plurality of partitioning-wall patterns (5, FIG. 9) between the common line electrode and the lower electrode and connected the common line electrode and the lower electrode; and
a transmissive solution layer disposed between the plurality of partitioning-wall patterns and including a plurality of electrophoretic particles (35, 36, 37), wherein the lower electrode is disposed under one of the plurality of partitioning-wall patterns (FIG. 5), and
wherein the display device switches between a light-transmissive mode and a light- blocking mode by supplying voltage to at least one of the common line electrode and the lower electrode ([0007]).
Regarding claim 19, Enomoto teaches:
The display device of claim 18, wherein the common line electrode or the lower electrode includes a transparent metal oxide including indium-tin-oxide or indium- zinc-oxide ([0123]).
Regarding claim 20, Enomoto teaches an electronic display with means for applying a voltage:
The display device of claim 18, further comprising a thin-film transistor connected to the lower electrode (inherent to electronic displays to apply voltages as described).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly render obvious each of the plurality of display parts including a respective substrate, the respective substrates of the plurality of display parts being spaced apart from each other, in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Applicants remarks filed 08/14/2026, page 7, provides additional reasons for allowance.
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
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 CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5.
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, Julio Madonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/CORY W ESKRIDGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
