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 § 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 1–3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/020856 A1 to Katsuhara (cited in Applicant’s February 11, 2025, IDS; a machine translation is provided with this Office action, and citations are made to the provided translation) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0009731 to O’Callaghan et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Katsuhara discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 1 and its description in the translation, pages 6–9) an electrophoretic display device 1 (page 1, display device includes electrophoretic element), comprising: a first stretchable material layer 31 (substrates 11/31 are described as having elasticity or stretchability, pages 7 and 19)1; a first stretchable electrode layer 32 (“first electrode 21 is preferably made of a conductive material having elasticity,” page 8, and “second electrode 32 is preferably made of a conductive material . . . having the same stretchability as the first electrode 21,” page 19), disposed on the first stretchable material layer (Fig. 1); a stretchable electrophoretic 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), disposed on the first stretchable electrode layer (Fig. 1); a plurality of second stretchable electrode layers 21, separately disposed on the stretchable electrophoretic display medium layer (Fig. 1), allowing the stretchable electrophoretic display medium layer to form a plurality of display regions (pages 6–8 and 27, segment type display or active matrix type display).
Katsuhara does not explicitly disclose an insulation layer, disposed on the plurality of second stretchable electrode layers and having a plurality of through holes, wherein the plurality of through holes are respectively filled with a plurality of conductive materials; and a third stretchable electrode layer, disposed on the insulation layer and electrically connected to the plurality of second stretchable electrode layers through the plurality of conductive materials, respectively.
O’Callaghan (e.g., Figs. 3 and 4 and their description) discloses a display, and teaches an insulation layer 110 formed on an electrode layer 108/128 having a plurality of through holes (aligned with 132, where electrode conductors 124 pass) filled with a plurality of conductive materials 124, and a third electrode layer 126 disposed on the insulation layer and electrically connected to the plurality of electrodes 128 of the electrode layer 108 through the through holes by means of electrode conductors 124, in order to improve brightness when used as a reflection display (e.g., paragraphs [0002]–[0006]).
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 an insulation layer, disposed on the plurality of second stretchable electrode layers and having a plurality of through holes, wherein the plurality of through holes are respectively filled with a plurality of conductive materials; and a third stretchable electrode layer, disposed on the insulation layer and electrically connected to the plurality of second stretchable electrode layers through the plurality of conductive materials, respectively, as suggested by O’Callaghan, in order to improve brightness of the display, and where forming the third electrode layer to be stretchable similar to the first and second electrode layers would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to match the elasticity through the device.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Katsuhara and O’Callaghan would have rendered obvious a second stretchable material layer (11 of Katsuhara) disposed on the third stretchable electrode layer (Fig. 1 of Katsuhara).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Katsuhara and O’Callaghan would have rendered obvious wherein a material of the first stretchable material layer and the second stretchable material layer is amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (where Katsuhara discloses suitable materials for the first and second stretchable material layers, including “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 features).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Katsuhara and O’Callaghan would have rendered obvious wherein a material of the first stretchable material layer is amorphous polyethylene terephthalate (where Katsuhara discloses suitable materials for the first and second stretchable material layers, including “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 features).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Katsuhara and O’Callaghan would have rendered obvious wherein a material of the first stretchable electrode layer, the plurality of second stretchable electrode layers, and the third stretchable electrode layer is poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (e.g., page 8 of Katsuhara lists suitable materials, including “metal nanofibers (silver nanofibers, copper nanofibers, etc.), carbon (carbon nanofibers, graphene, etc.), polythiophene-based conductive polymers (PEDOT-PSS), and mixtures thereof”).
Regarding Claim 7, Katsuhara discloses (e.g., at least Fig. 1 and its description in the translation, pages 6–9) an electrophoretic display device 1 (page 1, display device includes electrophoretic element), comprising: a first stretchable material layer 31 (substrates 11/31 are described as having elasticity or stretchability, pages 7 and 19); a first stretchable electrode layer 32 (“first electrode 21 is preferably made of a conductive material having elasticity,” page 8, and “second electrode 32 is preferably made of a conductive material . . . having the same stretchability as the first electrode 21,” page 19), disposed on the first stretchable material layer (Fig. 1); a stretchable electrophoretic 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), disposed on the first stretchable electrode layer (Fig. 1); a second stretchable electrode layer 21, disposed on the stretchable electrophoretic display medium layer (Fig. 1), allowing the stretchable electrophoretic display medium layer to form a display region (pages 6–8 and 27, segment type display or active matrix type display).
Katsuhara does not explicitly disclose an insulation layer, disposed on the second stretchable electrode layer and having a through hole, wherein the through hole is filled with a conductive material; and a third stretchable electrode layer, disposed on the insulation layer and electrically connected to the second stretchable electrode layer through the conductive material.
O’Callaghan (e.g., Figs. 3 and 4 and their description) discloses a display, and teaches an insulation layer 110 formed on an electrode layer 108/128 having a plurality of through holes (aligned with 132, where electrode conductors 124 pass) filled with a plurality of conductive materials 124, and a third electrode layer 126 disposed on the insulation layer and electrically connected to the plurality of electrodes 128 of the electrode layer 108 through the through holes by means of electrode conductors 124, in order to improve brightness when used as a reflection display (e.g., paragraphs [0002]–[0006]).
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 an insulation layer, disposed on the second stretchable electrode layer and having a through hole, wherein the through hole is filled with a conductive material; and a third stretchable electrode layer, disposed on the insulation layer and electrically connected to the second stretchable electrode layer through the conductive material, as suggested by O’Callaghan, in order to improve brightness of the display, and where forming the third electrode layer to be stretchable similar to the first and second electrode layers would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to match the elasticity through the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuhara and O’Callaghan, further in view of CN 113641046 A to Wang (machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Katsuhara and O’Callaghan does not explicitly disclose a decorative layer disposed on the first stretchable material layer, wherein the first stretchable material layer is disposed between the first stretchable electrode layer and the decorative layer.
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 and O’Callaghan to include a decorative layer disposed on the first stretchable material layer, wherein the first stretchable material layer is disposed between the first stretchable electrode layer and the decorative layer, as suggested by Wang, in order to provide the function of a pattern observable by a user.
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 term “stretchable” is not further defined or explained, and no ranges or bounds are described in Applicant’s specification, so the term will be interpreted using its broadest reasonable interpretation of “capable of being stretched”, which the elements of Katsuhara appear to satisfy, e.g., 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, and substrates and electrodes of the device are described as having elasticity, pages 7 and 8.