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.
Claims 1–3, 5, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/020856 A1 to Katsuhara (cited in Applicant’s December 5, 2024, IDS; a machine translation is provided with this Office action, and citations are made to the provided translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Katsuhara discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 1 and its description in the translation, pages 6–9) a shapable1 display device 1 (where the substrates 11/31 are described as having elasticity or stretchability, pages 7 and 19, and the other components as described below also have characteristics of elasticity and stretchability; further, pages 27–28 teach that the display may be applied to a stretchable or flexible display; and page 36 teaches “display device 1 . . . is flexible against deformations such as bending and stretching,” making it suitable for applications where the display is stretched over curved surfaces rather than flat surfaces), comprising: a first deformable substrate 11 (as noted, substrates 11/31 are described as having elasticity or stretchability, pages 7 and 19); a first stretchable electrode layer 21 (“first electrode 21 is preferably made of a conductive material having elasticity,” page 8), configured on the first deformable substrate (Fig. 1); a stretchable display medium layer 20 (page 20 teaches that it is “desirable that the material constituting partition wall 23 contains an elastic material, similar to that of first substrate 11 and second substrate 31,” and then lists suitable stretchable materials, which means that the display medium layer 20, which includes partition walls 23, will have a degree of elasticity or be stretchable), configured on the first stretchable electrode layer (Fig. 1); and a second stretchable electrode layer 32 (page 19, “second electrode 32 is preferably made of a conductive material . . . having the same stretchability as the first electrode 21”), configured on the stretchable display medium layer (Fig. 1), wherein the stretchable display medium layer is between the first stretchable electrode layer and the second stretchable electrode layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Katsuhara discloses a second deformable substrate 31 configured on the second stretchable electrode layer (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Katsuhara discloses a package material 23 configured around the stretchable display medium layer to form an edge package (Fig. 1; also page 6, “display layer 20 is sealed between the first substrate 11 and the second substrate 31”).
Regarding Claim 5, Katsuhara discloses wherein the stretchable display medium layer 20 comprises a plurality of microcup structures 20A and a plurality of electrophoretic particles 241, the microcup structures are distributed in the stretchable display medium layer (Fig. 1), and the electrophoretic particles are configured in the microcup structures (Fig. 1; also pages 1 and 2, discussing the microcup structure, and page 9, describing the structures in greater detail).
Regarding Claim 14, Katsuhara discloses wherein the first deformable substrate is a thermoplastic substrate (page 7).
Regarding Claim 18, Katsuhara discloses wherein the shapable display device is divided into a plurality of blocks, one of the first stretchable electrode layers and the second stretchable electrode layers of the blocks are connected together or electrically connected together, and the other one of the first stretchable electrode layers and the second stretchable electrode layers of the blocks are independently and electrically connected to a plurality of different pads respectively (pages 6–7, plurality of first electrodes 21 correspond with element regions / cells 20A; page 8, electrodes can be arranged for segment type display, or passive or active matrix type displays).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 4 and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhara.
Regarding Claim 4, Katsuhara would have rendered obvious wherein the stretchable display medium layer comprises a plurality of capsule structures and a plurality of electrophoretic particles, the capsule structures are distributed in the stretchable display medium layer, and the electrophoretic particles are configured in the capsule structures (where Katsuhara discloses and prefers a microcup structure, but teaches that a microcapsule structure is also well-known, each having their respective advantages and disadvantages, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Katsuhara to select a microcapsule structure as a suitable or known alternative, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results, which do not appear in Applicant’s specification, as Applicant, similar to Katsuhara, discloses both a microcup and a microcapsule structure for the display device, e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.04,06–07).
Regarding Claim 15, Katsuhara would have rendered obvious wherein a material of the first deformable substrate is amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (APET) (where Katsuhara discloses suitable deformable materials for the substrate include “polyimides, polyamides, polyacetals, polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyethyl ether ketone (PEEK), polyethersulfone (PES), and polyolefin”, similar to APET, such that selecting APET would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature), and materials of the first stretchable electrode layer and the second stretchable electrode layer are poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) (page 8).
Regarding Claim 16, Katsuhara would have rendered obvious wherein the stretchable display medium layer comprises colored electrophoretic particles (pages 10–11).
Regarding Claim 17, Katsuhara would have rendered obvious a second deformable substrate 31 configured on the second stretchable electrode layer, wherein a material of the second deformable substrate is amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (APET) (where Katsuhara discloses suitable deformable materials for the substrate include “polyimides, polyamides, polyacetals, polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), polyethyl ether ketone (PEEK), polyethersulfone (PES), and polyolefin”, similar to APET, such that selecting APET would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhara in view of CN 113641046 A to Wang (machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 6, Katsuhara does not explicitly disclose a decorative layer configured on the first deformable substrate, wherein the first deformable substrate is located between the decorative layer and the first stretchable electrode layer, and the decorative layer is partially light-transmissive.
Wang discloses that decorative film layers 300 and 400 may be included, having color, texture, and pattern, formed on substrates, to provide a pattern observable by a user (e.g., Fig. 13 and its associated description in the translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Katsuhara to include a decorative layer configured on the first deformable substrate, wherein the first deformable substrate is located between the decorative layer and the first stretchable electrode layer, and the decorative layer is partially light-transmissive, as suggested by Wang, in order to provide the function of a pattern observable by a user.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Katsuhara and Wang would have rendered obvious a textured film configured on the decorative layer (where Wang teaches the decorative layer may include pattern and texture, and forming the layer as two separate layers to achieve both functions would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features, MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Katsuhara and Wang would have rendered obvious a textured film configured on the first deformable substrate, wherein the first deformable substrate is located between the textured film and the first stretchable electrode layer (decorative film layers 300 and 400 of Wang may be included, having color, texture, and pattern, formed on substrates, to provide a pattern observable by a user, e.g., Fig. 13 and its associated description in the translation).
Claims 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhara in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0066545 to Jung et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Katsuhara does not explicitly disclose a first water-blocking film and a second water-blocking film respectively configured on a side of the first stretchable electrode layer facing away from the stretchable display medium layer and a side of the second stretchable electrode layer facing away from the stretchable display medium layer.
Jung discloses a flexible display, and teaches including a buffer layer on the substrate for preventing water from penetrating into the display (e.g., paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Katsuhara to include a first water-blocking film and a second water-blocking film respectively configured on a side of the first stretchable electrode layer facing away from the stretchable display medium layer and a side of the second stretchable electrode layer facing away from the stretchable display medium layer, as suggested by Jung, in order to protect the display from unwanted water intrusion, and where selecting a specific location for the water-blocking film would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, so long as the film prevents water intrusion, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Katsuhara and Jung would have rendered obvious wherein the first water-blocking film is configured between the first stretchable electrode layer and the first deformable substrate (e.g., paragraph [0076] of Jung, where selecting a specific location for the water-blocking film would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, so long as the film prevents water intrusion, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Katsuhara and Jung would have rendered obvious wherein the first deformable substrate is configured between the first stretchable electrode layer and the first water-blocking film (e.g., paragraph [0076] of Jung, where selecting a specific location for the water-blocking film would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, so long as the film prevents water intrusion, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Katsuhara and Jung would have rendered obvious a second deformable substrate (e.g., 31 of Katsuhara), wherein the second water-blocking film is configured between the second stretchable electrode layer and the second deformable substrate (e.g., paragraph [0076] of Jung, where selecting a specific location for the water-blocking film would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, so long as the film prevents water intrusion, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Katsuhara and Jung would have rendered obvious a second deformable substrate (e.g., 31 of Katsuhara), wherein the second deformable substrate is configured between the second stretchable electrode layer and the second water-blocking film (e.g., paragraph [0076] of Jung, where selecting a specific location for the water-blocking film would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, so long as the film prevents water intrusion, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim feature).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
1 The terms "shapable", "stretchable", and "deformable" are not further defined or explained, and no ranges or bounds are described in Applicant’s specification, so the terms will be interpreted using their broadest reasonable interpretation of "capable of being shaped", "capable of being stretched", and "capable of being deformed".