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 .
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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 07/25/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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, 3-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (PG
Pub 2021/0376292; hereinafter Choi) and Zhang et al. (CN 202120866580; hereinafter Zhang).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to Fig. 3 and the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 7 provided above, Choi teaches a display apparatus 10 comprising:
a first substrate 101 comprising a component region (CA) and a main display region (MDA) surrounding at least a portion of the component region (see Fig. 3);
a second substrate 103 disposed on the first substrate and comprising a component region (portion of CA above 103) and a main display region (portion of MDA above 103) surrounding at least a portion of the component region (see Fig. 3);
a first-1 electrode 102 disposed on one surface (top surface) of the first substrate (see Fig. 7); and
a second-1 electrode 105 disposed on one surface (top surface) of the second substrate (see Fig. 7). Choi teaches the material composition of the first and second substrate as comprising a polymer material, he does not explicitly teach that polymer comprises an electrochromic material.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 10, Zhang teaches a display panel comprising: an electrochromic film 522 is made of organic conductive polymer material.
electrochromic film 522 so that the electrochromic film 522 becomes black, so that the electrochromic layer 5 is in a light blocking state; The light from the photosensitive element 9 is prevented from reflecting and the light reflected by the photosensitive element 9 is prevented from entering the array substrate 20.
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the polymer material composition of Choi, for that of Zhang’s organic conductive polymer material, to prevent undesired light from entering or leaving the device
Regarding claim 3, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Choi and Zhang, Zhang teaches at least a portion of the first-1 electrode 102 and at least a portion of the second-1 electrode 105 overlap each other (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Choi and Zhang, Zhang teaches a first-2 electrode G1 disposed on a surface (top) opposite to the one surface of the first substrate 101, on which the first-1 electrode 102 is disposed (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Choi and Zhang, Zhang teaches a second-2 electrode G2 disposed on a surface (top) opposite to the one surface of the second substrate 103, on which the second-1 electrode is disposed (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Choi and Zhang, Zhang teaches each of the first substrate 101 and the second substrate 103 comprises a peripheral region(Are outside of DA) surrounding the main display region MDA, and a portion of the first-1 electrode 102 and a portion of the second-1 electrode 105 are each arranged in the peripheral region (see Figh. 3 and Fig. 7) to bypass the main display region.
The recited “to bypass the main display region” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having the first substrate 101 and the second substrate 103 comprises a peripheral region(Are outside of DA) surrounding the main display region MDA, and a portion of the first-1 electrode 102 and a portion of the second-1 electrode 105 are each arranged in the peripheral region (see Figh. 3 and Fig. 7) to bypass the main display region, which Choi clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.").
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Choi and Zhang, Zhang teaches the material composition of the first 101 and second substrate 103 as being electrochromic (see claim 1) the limitation “transmittance of each of the first substrate and the second substrate increases when a voltage is applied thereto” would be an inherent characteristic to that material composition.
Prior Art
2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a.
b.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 11-20 are allowable.
Claims 2, 7-8 and 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 2, in a plan view, at least one of the first-1 electrode and the second-1 electrode surrounds at least a portion of the component region.
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 7, the second substrate comprises an opening arranged in the peripheral region and penetrating the second substrate.
Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 8, the first-1 electrode and the second-1 electrode are connected to each other in a portion of the peripheral region.
Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 10, a barrier layer arranged between the first substrate and the second substrate.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 11, a substrate comprising a first substrate, a second substrate, a component region, and a main display region surrounding at least a portion of the component region; a first electrode disposed on one surface of the first substrate; and a second electrode disposed on one surface of the second substrate, wherein transparency of at least one of the first substrate and the second substrate varies according to a voltage applied to the first electrode or the second electrode. Claims 12-20 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 11.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. 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.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights