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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: second-type charged particles. Claim 1 recites a first-type of charged particles having charges with a first electrical property, however it is not clear what the first electrical property is without a relationship to a second electrical property. While it is known that electrophoretic displays can work with only one type of charged particle, usually white suspended in a black solvent, standard electrophoretic paper displays use two charged particles for higher contrast. Additionally, applicant’s own disclosure figures 3-16 illustrate first-type charged particles 31 and second-type charged particles 32 are needed and therefore it is not clear if the first-type of charged particles could function without the second-type of charged particles. The disclosure suggests that the presence of second-type of charged particle is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa et al (US PGPub 2014/0104675) and Qiu et al. (US PGPub 2019/0004388).
Regarding claim 1, Morikawa discloses an electronic paper display panel ([0255], “The display device according to the exemplary embodiment may be included in an electronic device, a display medium, a card medium, or the like (specifically, for example, an electronic bulletin board, electronic notice board, electronic blackboard, electronic advertisement, electronic signboard, blinking signal, electronic paper, electronic newspaper, electronic book, electronic document, sheet used for a copying machine or a printer, portable computer, tablet computer, mobile phone, smart cart, signing machine, timepiece, shelf label or flash drive)” also see fig. 2, display device 10), comprising a first substrate (fig. 2, display substrate 20) and a second substrate (fig. 2, back substrate 22) opposite to each other and a plasma layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (fig. 2 and [0182], a display substrate 20 that is a display surface; a back substrate 22 that is disposed opposite the display substrate 20 with a gap interposed therebetween” where fig. 2 shows the dispersion medium 50), wherein
the plasma layer comprises an electrophoretic fluid and first-type charged particles ([0185], “Plural kinds of the color particle groups 34 are the particles that electrophoretically move between the substrates. The absolute values of voltages of the respective color particle groups required for moving in response to an electric field are different from one another”), wherein
the first-type charged particles have charges with a first electrical property ([0028], “The color particles are positively or negatively charged and move in the dispersion when an electric field having a predetermined field intensity or higher is formed”), and the first-type charged particles comprise first charged subparticles ([0018] and fig. 1, 34L: large-diameter color particles) and second charged subparticles ([0018] and fig. 1, 34S: small-diameter color particles), wherein a first charged subparticle of the first charged subparticles has a particle size of D1, a second charged subparticle of the second charged subparticles has a particle size of D2, a charge quantity of the first charged subparticles is q1, and a charge quantity of the second charged subparticles is q2, wherein (D1 - D2) x (q1 – q2) >0 ([0020], “a larger charge amount Cl of the large-diameter color particles and a smaller charge amount Cs of the smaller-diameter color particles are advantageous. Each charge amount represents the charge amount per unit area of display”).
While Morikawa discloses a charge amount which represents the charge amount per unit area of display, it has been known to have a charge amount based on a charge quantity carried by a charge subparticle. In a similar field of endeavor of display devices, Qiu discloses a charge quantity carried by the first charged subparticle is q1, and a charge quantity carried by the second charged subparticle is q2 ([0075], “a ratio of the quantity of electric charge and the mass of the second charged particle may be larger than a ratio of the quantity of electric charge and the mass of the first charged particle 1021b”).
In view of the teachings of Morikawa and Qui, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the quantity of electric charge of a charge particle, as taught by Qui, as the method of determining charge of Morikawa, for the purpose of measuring total charge quantity within a unit area of a display or measuring charge quantity carried by a single subparticle as known types of charge measuring where Qiu teaches increasing a bright state of a display device by alternating a quantity of electric charge relative to the mass of a charged particle (Qui: [0075]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein a relative viscosity between a surface of the first charged subparticle and the electrophoretic fluid is µ1, and a relative viscosity between a surface of the second charged subparticle and the electrophoretic fluid is µ2, wherein (D1 - D2) X (µ1 - µ2) <0 (while Morikawa discloses viscosity in general at [0159] and [0123], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a larger surface area represented by the large diameter color particles would move slower through an electrophoretic fluid than the small diameter color particles and thus the relative viscosity of the first charged particle would be less than the relative viscosity of the second charged subparticle).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein D2/D1 ≤ 0.414 (Morikawa: [0041]-[0042], where for example if the diameter of the small-diameter color particle is 0.3 and a diameter of the large-diameter color particle is 5 then 0.3/5 is 0.06 which is less than 0.414).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein Di>D2; and a ratio of a number of the first charged subparticles to a number of the second charged subparticles is between 1:2 and 1:1 Morikawa: [0015], “A ratio (hereinafter, referred to as "Cs/Cl ratio") of a charge amount Cs of the small-diameter color particles per unit area of display to a charge amount of Cl of the large-diameter color particles per unit area of display is less than or equal to 5” where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio be less than 2).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein the electronic paper display panel has a first display state, wherein in the first display state, a first electric field is formed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein in the first electric field, the first-type charged particles move to the first substrate; and an electric intensity of the first electric field gradually increases as a driving time length increases within a time length of one frame in the first display state (Qui: [0075], “For example, a ratio of the quantity of electric charge and the mass of the second charged particle may be larger than a ratio of the quantity of electric charge and the mass of the first charged particle 1021b; in such a case, the second charged particle can move to the inner surface of the second electrodes 1023 at faster speed (compare with the speed of the first charged particle 1021b) when the first voltage is applied on the display pixels, such that the inner surface of the second electrodes 1023 can be covered with the second charged particles more effectively, and the ratio of the totally reflected light to the incident light λ can be effectively decreased when the display sub-pixel 102 is in the bright state, such that the display brightness of the display sub-pixel 102 in the bright state can be further increased”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein the electronic paper display panel has a first display state, wherein in the first display state, a first electric field is formed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein in the first electric field, the first-type charged particles move to the first substrate; and a time length of one frame in the first display state comprises a first driving sub-stage and a second driving sub-stage sequentially arranged in a time dimension, and the first electric field has a first electric intensity in the first driving sub-stage and a second electric intensity in the second driving sub-stage, wherein the second electric intensity is greater than the first electric intensity (Morikawa: [0232], “in the driving method according to the exemplary embodiment, the voltage ranges required for moving the color particle groups 34 of the respective colors are set so as not to overlap each other. As a result, the color particle groups 34 of the respective colors are driven independently of each other”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein the first-type charged particles are positively charged ([0028], “The color particles are positively or negatively charged and move in the dispersion when an electric field having a predetermined field intensity or higher is formed”);
the first substrate comprises a common electrode layer, the second substrate comprises a plurality of pixel electrodes (Morikawa: [0217], “one of the surface electrode 40 and the back electrode 46 may be grounded and the other may be connected to the voltage application portion 16”), and in the first display state, a first voltage is applied to the common electrode layer and a second voltage is applied to the plurality of pixel electrodes so that the first electric field is formed, wherein the first voltage has a negative value, and the second voltage has a positive value (Morikawa: [0222], “In the display medium 12, the color particles move in response to an electric field formed between the display substrate 20 and the back substrate 22; as a result, a color corresponding to each pixel of image data is displayed on each cell corresponding to each pixel of the display medium 12”);
the time length of the one frame in the first display state comprises a first time and a second time, wherein in the time dimension, the first time is earlier than the second time, and the electric intensity of the first electric field at the second time is greater than the electric intensity of the first electric field at the first time; and an absolute value of the first voltage applied to the common electrode layer at the first time is less than an absolute value of the first voltage applied to the common electrode layer at the second time (Morikawa: [0232], “in the driving method according to the exemplary embodiment, the voltage ranges required for moving the color particle groups 34 of the respective colors are set so as not to overlap each other. As a result, the color particle groups 34 of the respective colors are driven independently of each other”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein in at least part of time within the time length of the one frame in the first display state, an absolute value of the first voltage is equal to an absolute value of the second voltage (Morikawa: [0223], “As illustrated in FIG. 3, in the display medium 12, the absolute values of voltages of the respective color particle groups 34, which are required for electrophoretically moving between the substrates in response to an electric field, are different for each color. The color particles groups 34 of the respective colors have voltage ranges required for moving the color particles groups 34 of the respective colors. The voltage ranges are different from one another. In other words, the absolute values of voltages have the voltage ranges, and the voltage ranges are different for each color of the color particle groups 34”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein the plasma layer further comprises second-type charged particles (Morikawa: fig. 2, white particles 36), wherein the second-type charged particles have charges with a second electrical property that is opposite to the first electrical property (Morikawa: [0120], “It is preferable that the white particles have a charging property having a polarity opposite to that of the color particles”); and the second-type charged particles are the same in terms of particle size and the same in terms of carried charge quantity (Morikawa: [0121] teaches the size of the white particles); wherein the second-type charged particles are greater than at least part of the first-type charged particles in terms of particle size (Morikawa: [0041]-[0042] and [0121] teaches that the size of the white particles could be greater than the size of the smaller diameter particles).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein the plasma layer further comprises second-type charged particles, wherein the second-type charged particles have charges with a second electrical property that is opposite to the first electrical property (Morikawa: [0120], “It is preferable that the white particles have a charging property having a polarity opposite to that of the color particles”); and
the second-type charged particles comprise fourth charged subparticles and fifth charged subparticles, wherein a fourth charged subparticle of the fourth charged subparticles has a particle size of D4, a fifth charged subparticle of the fifth charged subparticles has a particle size of D5, a charge quantity carried by the fourth charged subparticle is q4, and a charge quantity carried by the fifth charged subparticle is q5, wherein (D4-D5)x(q4-q5) >0 (where the combination of Morikawa and Qui discloses the equation as discussed in relation to claim 1 and Morikawa discloses at [0028], “The color particles are positively or negatively charged and move in the dispersion when an electric field having a predetermined field intensity or higher is formed” therefore the equation and particles could be either positively or negatively charged as also discussed in Qui: [0065], “For example, illustrative descriptions will be given to the charged types of the charged particles and the method of applying voltages. For example, the charged particles may be positively charged or negatively charged. For example, in a case that the charged particles are positively charged, the first voltage refers to positive voltage applied on the first electrodes 1022 (that is, to apply positive voltage onto the first electrodes 1022), the second voltage refers to negative voltage applied on the first electrodes 1022; for example, in a case that voltage is applied on the first electrodes 1022, the second electrodes is grounded. For another example, in a case that the charged particles are negatively charged, the first voltage refers to negative voltage applied on the first electrodes 1022; the second voltage refers to positive voltage applied on the first electrodes 1022”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Morikawa and Qui further discloses wherein the first-type charged particles are white charged particles (Morikawa: [0026], “In addition, the particle dispersion for display according to the exemplary embodiment may further contain, in addition to color particles, white particles for display (hereinafter, referred to as "white particles") that does not move in response to an electric field or move at a slower (in particular, extremely slower) response time to an electric field than those of the color particles (that is, the white particles may be dispersed in the dispersion medium). In this case, the color particles adopt particles of colors other than white”), and the second-type charged particles are black charged particles (Morikawa: [0299], “The cyan particles having the positive charge and the red particles having the positive charge move to the negative electrode side, that is, move to the display electrode side. In this state, when the evaluation cell is observed from the display substrate side, black display which is the mixed color of cyan and red is observed due to the cyan particles and the red particles”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Morikawa and Qui discloses a display device, comprising an electronic paper display panel (Morikawa: [0255], “The display device according to the exemplary embodiment may be included in an electronic device, a display medium, a card medium, or the like (specifically, for example, an electronic bulletin board, electronic notice board, electronic blackboard, electronic advertisement, electronic signboard, blinking signal, electronic paper, electronic newspaper, electronic book, electronic document, sheet used for a copying machine or a printer, portable computer, tablet computer, mobile phone, smart cart, signing machine, timepiece, shelf label or flash drive)” also see fig. 2, display device 10), wherein the electronic paper display panel is within the scope of the electronic paper display panel of claim 1 and is therefore interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa and Qui further in view of Seong et al. (US PGPub 2014/0160552).
Regarding claim 19, while the combination of Morikawa and Qui discloses layers of an electronic paper display, it has been known to include reflection reducing layers. In a similar field of endeavor of display devices, Seong discloses further comprising an anti-reflection layer and an anti-glare layer, wherein the anti-reflection layer is disposed on a side of the first substrate facing away from the second substrate, and the anti-glare layer is located between the first substrate and the anti-reflection layer or on a side of the anti-reflection layer facing away from the first substrate ([0039], “For example, the reflection reducing layer may include a single crystalline silicon reflection reducing layer, a polycrystalline silicon reflection reducing layer, a dielectric nano reflection reducing layer, or an anti-glare coating layer, an anti-reflection film, or a low-reflection (LR) coating layer formed of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), or polycarbonate (PC)” and “a reflection reducing layer may be further provided on the first and second substrates 210 and 220”).
In view of the teachings of Morikawa, Qui and Seong, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the anti-reflection and anti-glare layers of Seong, within the display of Morikawa and Qui, for the purpose of improving display quality by being configured to reduce reflection of light due to a difference in refractive index between a substrate and the air (Seong: [0039]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 includes allowable subject matter relating to the relationship between the size and the charge quantity of the first and second subparticles where (i) the first subparticle is larger than the second subparticle, (ii) the first charge quantity of the first subparticle is larger than the second subparticle, and (iii) the ratio of the quantity of electric charge to the size of the first subparticle is larger than the second subparticle. In the closest related prior art, Qiu discloses a second subparticle smaller than the first subparticle ([0073]) however Qiu teaches a ratio of the quantity of electric charge and the mass of the second charged particle may be larger than a ratio of the quantity of electric charge and the mass of the first charged particle 1021b ([0075]), therefore the relationship for (iii) of Qiu is opposite the relationship as claimed and would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2.
Claim 4 includes allowable subject matter relation to the relationship between the size and the charge quantity of the first and second subparticles where (i) the first subparticle is larger than the second subparticle, (ii) the first charge quantity of the first subparticle is larger than the second subparticle, and (iii) the difference between the sizes of the subparticles is less than a difference between the quantity of charges of the subparticles. The prior art of record does not discuss a relationship between the difference between the sizes of the subparticles being less than a difference between the quantity of charges of the subparticles, where relationship (iii) would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 includes allowable subject matter where the relationships as claimed are similar to (and add more details than) the relationships of claim 2 (see above for reasoning).
Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 includes allowable subject matter where the relationships as claimed are similar to the relationships of claim 2 (see above for reasoning).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nowatzyk et al. (US PGPub 2013/0003163) discloses “The charge-to-size ratio may determine the velocity of the charged quantum dots when moving through the same fluid while the same electrostatic field is being applied between the excitation plate 720 and the cover plate 730. This effect may be exploited to control the spatial distribution of the two different types of quantum dots by timing an electric field applied to a particular pixel location (e.g., by applying the electric field for only a pulse duration)” ([0082]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY J FRANK whose telephone number is (571)270-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at (571)272-2963. 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.
/EJF/
/BENJAMIN C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights