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 .
Claims 1-17 are currently pending in the present application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDSs dated 11 October 2024, 10 February 2025, 14 February 2025, and 13 June 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Re: claim 3, the meaning of the limitation “an orthographic projection of the color resistance layer on the first substrate” is unclear. It is not clear as to whether the limitation refers to the same orthographic projection of the color resistance layer on the first substrate as recited in claim 1 or whether some other projection is being referenced. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as referring to the same orthographic projection that is recited in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawase (US 20090128889).
Re: claim 1, Kawase discloses a first substrate 1 and a second substrate 2 arranged opposite to each other (opposite arrangement disclosed in Fig. 9), wherein a side (Fig. 9, the uppermost horizontally extending side of 2) of the second substrate 2 is a light incidence side; a reflection layer 9 located at a side (Fig. 9, the uppermost horizontally extending side of 1) of the first substrate 1; a color resistance layer 13 located at a side of the reflection layer 9 away from the first substrate (location disclosed in Fig. 9); a pixel electrode layer 3 (para. 91 discloses pixel electrode) located at a side of the color resistance layer 13 away from the first substrate 1 (location disclosed in Fig. 9), wherein the pixel electrode layer comprises a plurality of sub-pixel electrodes arranged at intervals (para. 91 “first electrodes 3 function as individual electrodes divided in a form of a matrix” & Fig. 9 disclose sub-pixel electrodes & intervals); a common electrode layer 4 located at a side of the second substrate 2 (location disclosed in Fig. 9); and pixel isolation posts (Fig. 9, portions of binder 41 disposed between adjacent capsules 401) located between the first substrate 1 and the second substrate 2 (location disclosed in Fig. 9) and defining a plurality of sub-pixel regions between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 9, where a sub-pixel region includes three adjacent electrodes 3, the portion of electrode 4 corresponding to the three adjacent electrodes, and the portions of 401 & 41 disposed therebetween), wherein there are black charged microspheres (para. 139 discloses black & para. 56 discloses charge) and white charged microspheres (para. 138 discloses white & para. 56 discloses charge) in the plurality of sub-pixel regions (Fig. 9); wherein there are at least two of the sub-pixel electrodes 3 in one of the sub-pixel regions (Fig. 9 & discloses three electrodes 3 per sub-pixel region), and an area of orthographic projections of the sub-pixel electrodes 3 in one of the sub-pixel regions on the first substrate 1 is smaller than an area of an orthographic projection of the color resistance layer 13 on the first substrate (smaller disclosed in Fig. 9).
Re: claim 15, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase further discloses that the black charged microspheres 50 and the white charged microspheres 50 comprise spherical charged particles, or nearly spherical charged particles, or comprise both spherical charged particles and nearly spherical charged particles (para. 140 discloses spherical).
Re: claim 17, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase further discloses a display panel 20.
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.
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) 2 and 6-11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase in view of Wang (US 20190081220).
Re: claim 2, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Kawase does not explicitly disclose that the color resistance layer comprises a plurality of color resistance blocks arranged at intervals, the reflection layer comprises a plurality of reflection blocks arranged at intervals, and the reflection blocks and the color resistance blocks are arranged correspondingly.
Wang discloses that the color resistance layer 301, 302, 303, 8 (Fig. 4; para. 45 discloses “[b]y selecting an appropriate thickness of the second dielectric layer 302, the light with the particular frequency that transmits out of the light resonant structure 16 is selected, and the light with other frequencies is absorbed by the first reflection layer 2 and the second reflection layer 4. Therefore, a selection of the colored light which transmits out of the second color sub-pixel unit where the second dielectric layer 302 is located is realized, and thus the display color of the second color sub-pixel unit 102 is controlled color film 302”) comprises a plurality of color resistance blocks arranged at intervals (Fig. 4 discloses blocks & intervals), the reflection layer 4 comprises a plurality of reflection blocks arranged at intervals (Fig. 4 discloses blocks & intervals), and the reflection blocks and the color resistance blocks are arranged correspondingly (arrangement disclosed in Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the color resistance layer comprise a plurality of color resistance blocks arranged at intervals, the reflection layer comprise a plurality of reflection blocks arranged at intervals, and the reflection blocks and the color resistance blocks are arranged correspondingly, as disclosed by Wang, applied to the device disclosed by Kawase for the purposes of enabling the display of color images and of improving the utilization and efficiency of the light source.
Re: claim 6, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase further discloses that the display panel 20 is configured to enable light incident from the light incidence side (Fig. 9, the uppermost horizontally extending side of 2), to be reflected by the reflection layer 9 and emitted from the light incidence side to achieve a color display (color display capability disclosed in Fig. 9 & paras. 290-291) when a first voltage and a second voltage are applied to at least two of the sub-pixel electrodes 3 in one of the sub-pixel regions (voltage application disclosed in paras. 148-151), wherein the first voltage and the second voltage are electrically opposite (paras. 150-151 disclose application of positive and negative voltage).
However, Kawase does not explicitly disclose that the color resistance blocks comprise a red color resistance block, a green color resistance block, and a blue color resistance block.
Wang discloses that the color resistance blocks 301, 302, 303, 8 comprise a red color resistance block, a green color resistance block, and a blue color resistance block (para. 46).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the color resistance blocks comprise a red color resistance block, a green color resistance block, and a blue color resistance block, as disclosed by Wang, applied to the device disclosed by Kawase for the purpose of enabling output images to be displayed in color.
Re: claim 7, Kawase and Wang discloses the limitations of claim 6, and while neither reference explicitly discloses that a difference between the first voltage and the second voltage is -40 to 40V, the magnitude of the applied voltage to generate an electric field across the pixel and common electrodes will vary depending upon the composition and arrangement of the microspheres. In addition, Kawase does disclose that differing polarities of voltage are applied across the pixel and common electrodes in paragraphs 150-151. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the application of voltages have different polarities, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 8, Kawase and Wang discloses the limitations of claim 6 and Kawase further discloses that a plurality of sub-pixel electrodes 3 are contained in one of the sub-pixel regions (Fig. 9, where a sub-pixel region includes three adjacent electrodes 3, the portion of electrode 4 corresponding to the three adjacent electrodes, and the portions of 401 & 41 disposed therebetween). While neither reference explicitly discloses that a difference between voltages applied to adjacent sub-pixel electrodes is a fixed value, Kawase does disclose the application of a pulsed voltage (para. 152), which has a defined peak and valley, as opposed to applying a variable voltage, such as an AC voltage. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the application of a voltage having a fixed value, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 9, Kawase and Wang discloses the limitations of claim 8, and Kawase further discloses that a number of the sub-pixel electrodes in one of the sub-pixel regions is not more than 10 (Fig. 9, where a sub-pixel region includes three adjacent electrodes 3).
Re: claim 10, Kawase and Wang discloses the limitations of claim 8 and Kawase further discloses that the sub-pixel electrodes 3 in the sub-pixel regions are arranged at equal intervals (Fig. 9 discloses equal intervals, where figures can be relied upon for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art [MPEP § 2125]).
Re: claim 11, Kawase and Wang discloses the limitations of claim 8, and Wang further discloses that the plurality of sub-pixel electrodes 6, 7 in one of the sub-pixel regions 101, 102, 103 are independently controlled for power supply by a drive circuit unit 19 (capability disclosed in at least Figs. 7, 8 and paragraph 62).
Claim(s) 4-5, 12-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase.
Re: claim 4, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Kawase further discloses that the display panel 20 (Fig. 9) is configured to enable the white charged microspheres 50 (paras. 138 & 154 disclose white) to move to the light incidence side when a first voltage is applied to all the sub-pixel electrodes and a second voltage is applied to the common electrode layer, to enable light incident from the light incidence side to be reflected by the white charged microspheres and emitted from the light incidence side to achieve a white state display (capability disclosed in paras. 148-151).
Re: claim 5, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1 and Kawase further discloses that the display panel 20 (Fig. 9) is configured to enable the black charged microspheres 50 (para. 135 discloses black) to move to the light incidence side when a first voltage is applied to all the sub-pixel electrodes and a second voltage is applied to the common electrode layer, to enable light incident from the light incidence side to be absorbed by the black charged microspheres to achieve a dark state display (capability disclosed in paras. 148-151).
Re: claim 12, Kawase discloses the limitation of claim 1, and Kawase further discloses that a material of the reflection layer 9 is a metal material (para. 106 discloses metal plate). While Kawase does not explicitly disclose that a reflectivity of the metal material is not less than 95%, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the reflection layer being capable of reflecting a high degree of light sufficient to generate images, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 13, Kawase discloses the limitations of claim 1, and while Kawase does not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the color resistance layer 13 is 0.5 to 5µm, Kawase does disclose that substrates 1 and 2 each have a thickness of 20 – 500 µm (para. 87), that electrodes 3 and 4 each have a thickness of 0.05 – 10 µm (para. 95), particles 50 have a thickness of 10 nm – 3 µm (para. 140) and capsule 401 has a thickness of 0.1 - 5µm (para. 197). All of the preceding components have thicknesses in the micrometer range; therefore, the general environment of the device is comprised of micrometer-scale components. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, such as the reflection layer being capable of reflecting a high degree of light sufficient to generate images, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 16, Kawase discloses the steps of forming a reflection layer 9 on a first substrate 1 (Fig. 9); forming a color resistance layer 13 on a side of the reflection layer 9 away from the first substrate (forming disclosed in Fig. 9); forming a pixel electrode layer 3 on a side of the color resistance layer 13 away from the first substrate (forming disclosed in Fig. 9); forming a common electrode layer 4 on a second substrate 2 (forming disclosed in Fig. 9); forming pixel isolation posts (Fig. 9, portions of binder 41 disposed between adjacent capsules 401) on the first substrate 1 and/or the second substrate 2 (forming disclosed in Fig. 9); aligning and coupling the first substrate 1 with the second substrate 2 to form a sub-pixel enclosed space 400 (forming disclosed in Fig. 9); and performing a sealing treatment 7 to obtain the display panel (Fig. 9).
While Kawase does not explicitly disclose the step of injecting ink into the sub-pixel enclosed space, Kawase does disclose that capsules 401, comprising colored and/or black and/or white particles 50, are inserted into the sub-pixel enclosed space and serve a light modulating function, similar to the light modulating function of ink particles. Hence, the claim limitation is the obvious application of a known technique to a known device that yields predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 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 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871