DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “second panel is configured to control a light transmission state of the colloid layer by applying voltage to each of the third electrode and fourth electrode” in claims 1 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0018267, “Yoshida”) in view of Amundson (US 2004/0008398, “Amundson”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a two-panel display device comprising a first panel (Fig. 4, below, [0029], second display panel, corresponding to claimed first panel) comprising first and second electrodes (Fig. 4, electrode layers 34 and 33, [0049], [0050]) and a polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer between the first and second electrodes (e.g., [0045], [0046], Fig. 4). Yoshida teaches a bottom panel (corresponding to the claimed second panel) comprising third and fourth electrodes wherein the fourth electrode may comprise openings (see Fig. 4, electrodes 26 and 22, [0037] – [0039]). Yoshida additionally teaches that the bottom panel may comprise an electrolyte layer between the electrodes (e.g., [0038], [0042], may be a liquid containing ionic materials, thus corresponding to the claimed colloid layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoshida fails to specifically teach that electrode layers 26 and 22 (corresponding to the claimed third and fourth electrode layers) control the light transmission of the colloid layer via application of a voltage. However, such electrochromic layers are known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of illumination or display systems (e.g., [0003] – [0010]), Amundson teaches an electrochromic system that operates via application of a voltage by electrodes across colloid suspension ([0030] – [0039]) wherein the suspension includes electrochromic materials to affect transmission of light ([0030] – [0039], [0036]). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the colloid suspension of Amundson for the electrochromic materials of layers 23-25 of Yoshida for the benefit of the providing an effective and modifiable method of controlling the transmission of light through the layer ([0030] – [0039]). Further the substitution of one known element for another that would provide predictable results (in this case a functioning electrochromic display layer) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Please see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 15, Yoshida additionally teaches that the first and second panels include control parts connected to their respective electrodes ([0059] – [0063]).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshida teaches a two panel display device comprising a first panel (Fig. 4, below, [0029], second display panel, corresponding to claimed first panel) comprising first and second electrodes (Fig. 4, electrode layers 34 and 33, [0049], [0050]), having first and second transparent substrates (e.g., Fig 4, 30, 31, [0045], [0036]), and a polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer between the first and second electrodes (e.g., [0045], [0046], Fig. 4). Yoshida teaches a bottom panel (corresponding to the claimed second panel) comprising third and fourth electrodes wherein the fourth electrode may comprise openings (see Fig. 4, electrodes 26 and 22, [0037] – [0039]) and having first and second transparent substrates (e.g., Fig 4, 20, 21, [0045], [0036]). Yoshida additionally teaches that the bottom panel may comprise an electrolyte layer between the electrodes (e.g., [0038], [0042], may contain ionic materials, thus corresponding to the claimed colloid layer). Yoshida additionally teaches that the first and second panels include control parts connected to their respective electrodes ([0059] – [0063]). Yoshida teaches that the liquid crystal layer may contain material that may be UV polymerized (e.g., [0047]). Yoshida fails to specifically teach that electrode layers 26 and 22 (corresponding to the claimed third and fourth electrode layers) control the light transmission of the colloid layer via application of a voltage. However, such electrochromic layers are known in the art. For example, in the same field of endeavor of illumination or display systems (e.g., [0003] – [0010]), Amundson teaches an electrochromic system that operates via application of a voltage by electrodes across colloid suspension ([0030] – [0039]) wherein the suspension includes electrochromic materials to affect transmission of light ([0030] – [0039], [0036]). It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have substituted the colloid suspension of Amundson for the electrochromic materials of layers 23-25 of Yoshida for the benefit of the providing an effective and modifiable method of controlling the transmission of light through the layer ([0030] – [0039]). Further the substitution of one known element for another that would provide predictable results (in this case a functioning electrochromic display layer) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. Please see MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshida additionally teaches that when a voltage is applied across the first and second electrodes the liquid crystals align in perpendicular orientation (e.g., [0091], thus the liquid crystals are arranged parallel to one another upon application of a voltage).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida additionally teaches that the electrodes for the bottom panel act as cathode and anode and thus function so that charged particles move toward one or the rother ([0038], [0039]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2019/0018267, “Yoshida”) in view of Amundson, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Zang et al. (US 2012/0176663, “Zang”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination remains as rejected in claim 1, above, and Yoshida teaches that the liquid crystals may be UV polymerized (e.g., [0047]) but fails to specifically teach the amount of liquid crystal to include vs the polymerizable precursor. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal display devices ([0002] – [0004]), Zang teaches that it is conventional for the amount of liquid crystal in a PDLC display to be on the range of from 1% to 80% to the weight of the polymer precursor (e.g., [0061] – [0063]) and thus it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used this conventional amount of liquid crystal component in order to create an effective PDLC layer (e.g., Zang, [0061] – [0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida additionally teaches that the UV curable polymer is curable via ultraviolet light (e.g., Yoshida, [0047], UV light having wavelengths on the range of from 100 to 400 nm) and it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have used an effective dosage of UV light, including that claimed of from 50 mJ to 2000 mJ (see also Zang, [0062], effective photoinitiators and amounts to be used which are manipulable in order to affect polymerization).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida fails to teach that the colloid layer includes a hydrophobic organic solvent or second liquid crystals, however, Zang teaches the inclusion of such a material in an electrophoretic layer ([0089], halocarbon oil). It would have been obvious to have substituted the electrophoretic layer (i.e., a nematic liquid crystal colloid layer including a dye, [0069], [0070]) of Zang for the electrochromic layer of Yoshida’s bottom display for the benefit of an improved LCD display device (e.g., [0023], [0028]).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Amundson in view of Zang, as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2018/0136536, “Kim ‘536”).
Regarding claims 5 – 8, while modified Yoshida teaches that it is known to include a dye in a PDLC layer (e.g., Zang, [0069], [0070]), modified Yoshida fails to teach a specific dye to be included in the layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal optoelectronic devices (e.g., [0002] – [0010]), Kim ‘536 teaches to include various dyes and that doing so may improve transmittance and focal adjustment (e.g., [0005] – [0007], [0068]). Kim ‘536 teaches that a black dye including three naphthalene rings connected via two azo groups, two naphthalene rings and an aromatic group connected via two azo groups, or a dye having three naphthalene groups and an aromatic ring are connected via three azo groups ([0039] – [0041]). Kim ‘536 teaches compounds reading on the claimed structures of Formulas 1 – 8, and thus their inclusion would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing in order to improve transmittance and focal adjustment of the layer in the display device (e.g., [0005] – [0007], [0068]).
Claim(s) 4 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Amundson in view of Zang, as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0137799, “Kim ‘799”) in view of Kollarits et al. (US 5,784,138, “Kollarits”).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Yoshida fails to teach the refractive index and dielectric anisotropy of the liquid crystal. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal optoelectronic devices ([0002] – [0004]), Kim ‘799 teaches that the dielectric anisotropy should be between 5 and 40 ([0028]) and the refractive index should between 0.1 to 0.3 ([0027]) and that modifying these properties of the liquid crystal layer to within these ranges may improve cross talk between the liquid crystal molecules of different pixel regions and thus improve the resolution of the liquid crystal device ([0080]). It therefore would have been obvious to have modified the dielectric anisotropy of the liquid crystal molecules to between 5 and 40 and the refractive index to between 0.1 and 0.3 in order to improve cross talk between the liquid crystal molecules of different pixel regions and thus improve the resolution of the liquid crystal device ([0080]). Modified Yoshida fails to specifically teach the flow viscosity of the liquid crystal, however, in the same field of endeavor of PDLC compositions (e.g., col. 1 lines 1-5), Kollarits teaches that suitable viscosity for a polymer dispersed liquid crystal is on the range of less than 40 centistokes (i.e., 40 mm^2/s, col. 6 lines 30-55) and that this can help produce a PDLC with a morphology that switches rapidly from a transparent to scattering state (col. 6 lines 30-55). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the viscosity of the liquid crystal of modified Yoshida to within the range of less than 40 cst in order to help produce a PDLC with a morphology that switches rapidly from a transparent to scattering state (col. 6 lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim, 1, above, however, Yoshida fails to teach that the colloid layer includes a hydrophobic organic solvent or second liquid crystals. Zang teaches the inclusion of such a material in an electrophoretic layer ([0089], halocarbon oil). It would have been obvious to have substituted the electrophoretic layer (i.e., a nematic liquid crystal colloid layer including a dye, [0069], [0070]) of Zang for the electrochromic layer of Yoshida’s bottom display for the benefit of an improved LCD display device (Zang, e.g., [0023], [0028]). Modified Yoshida fails to teach the refractive index and dielectric anisotropy of the second liquid crystal. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal optoelectronic devices ([0002] – [0004]), Kim ‘799 teaches that the dielectric anisotropy should be between 5 and 40 ([0028]) and the refractive index should between 0.1 to 0.3 ([0027]) and that modifying these properties of the liquid crystal layer to within these ranges may improve cross talk between the liquid crystal molecules of different pixel regions and thus improve the resolution of the liquid crystal device ([0080]). It therefore would have been obvious to have modified the dielectric anisotropy of the liquid crystal molecules to between 5 and 40 and the refractive index to between 0.1 and 0.3 in order to improve cross talk between the liquid crystal molecules of different pixel regions and thus improve the resolution of the liquid crystal device ([0080]). Modified Yoshida fails to specifically teach the flow viscosity of the second liquid crystal, however, in the same field of endeavor of PDLC compositions (e.g., col. 1 lines 1-5), Kollarits teaches that suitable viscosity for a polymer dispersed liquid crystal is on the range of less than 40 centistokes (i.e., 40 mm^2/s, col. 6 lines 30-55) and that this can help produce a PDLC with a morphology that switches rapidly from a transparent to scattering state (col. 6 lines 30-55). It therefore would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the viscosity of the liquid crystal of modified Yoshida to within the range of less than 40 cst in order to help produce a PDLC with a morphology that switches rapidly from a transparent to scattering state (col. 6 lines 30-55).
Regarding claim 11, while modified Yoshida teaches that it is known to include a dye in the layer corresponding to the claimed colloid layer (e.g., Zang, [0069], [0070]), modified Yoshida fails to teach a specific dye to be included in the layer. However, in the same field of endeavor of liquid crystal optoelectronic devices ([0002] – [0004]), Kim ‘799 teaches to include various dyes and that doing so may permit the layer to provide pixel portions effectively (e.g., [0019], [0020], [0084]). Kim ‘799 teaches to include a yellow, magenta, or cyan dye in an amount of from 0.001 to 5% with respect to liquid crystal molecules ([0018], [0013] – [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoshida (Kim ‘799) additionally teaches a structure reading on the yellow dye of claimed Formula 9 (see Kim ‘799, [0013]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoshida (Kim ‘799) additionally teaches a structure reading on the magenta dye of claimed Formula 10 (Kim ‘799, [0014], [0015]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoshida (Kim ‘799) additionally teaches a structure reading on the cyan dye of claimed Formula 11 (Kim ‘799, [0016], [0017]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
O’Keefe et al. (US 2008/0316395) discloses a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal medium and device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/13/26 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are rejected as described above.
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 ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights