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
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) 1-2 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Yan CN 113391493.
Regarding claim 1, Yan teaches a teaches a writable device, comprising: a first substrate (fig. 1 second substrate 7’); a second substrate (first substrate 1’) opposite the first substrate; a liquid-crystal layer (mixed layer 4’) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate; a first alignment layer(second alignment layer 5’) disposed between the first substrate and the liquid-crystal layer; and a second alignment layer (first alignment layer 3’) disposed between the second substrate and the liquid-crystal layer; wherein the first alignment layer and the second alignment layer are vertically oriented (see claim 1), wherein in an initial state, the liquid-crystal layer is in a transparent state (see claim 3), in a writing state, the liquid-crystal layer corresponding to a pressed writing area is in a scattering state (see fig. 8), in a clear state, at least a part of the liquid-crystal layer corresponding to the pressed writing area is in the transparent state (see fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, Yan also teaches wherein in the clear state, the at least part of the liquid-crystal layer corresponding to the pressed writing area is in the transparent state by exerting a cross-pressure as this limitation does not appear to impart any structure not taught by Yan (see MPEP 2144 below).
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.).
Regarding claim 14, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first substrate comprises glass, polymer materials, or ceramics (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 16, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first conductive layer (fig. 6 second conductive layer 6’) disposed between the first substrate (second substrate 7’) and the first alignment layer (second alignment layer 5’), and the first conductive layer is selectively electrically connected to a power supply (page 6 last paragraph).
Regarding claim 17, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first conductive layer is divided into a plurality of first portions that are electrically independent (page 6 5th paragraph applying voltage to parts of the conductive layers).
Regarding claim 18, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 17, further comprising a second conductive layer (first conductive layer 2’) disposed between the second substrate (first substrate 1’) and the second alignment layer (first alignment layer 3’), and the second conductive layer is divided into a plurality of second portions that are electrically independent (see page 6 5th paragraph applying voltage to all or parts of the first conductive layer).
Regarding claim 19, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the second portions at least partially overlap the first portions in a normal direction of the first substrate (see page 7 second last paragraph local positions are applied voltage region).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doane US 6104448 in view of Mamiya JP-2021063178-A.
Regarding claim 1, Doane teaches a teaches a writable device, comprising: a first substrate (fig 1 glass plates 11); a second substrate (glass plate 10) opposite the first substrate; a liquid-crystal layer (liquid crystal 16) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate; a first alignment layer(polyimide coating 14) disposed between the first substrate and the liquid-crystal layer; and a second alignment layer (polyimide coating 14) disposed between the second substrate and the liquid-crystal layer; wherein in an initial state, the liquid-crystal layer is in a transparent state (see abstract), in a writing state, the liquid-crystal layer corresponding to a pressed writing area is in a scattering state (see abstract), in a clear state, at least a part of the liquid-crystal layer corresponding to the pressed writing area is in the transparent state (see abstract).
Doanne does not teach wherein the first alignment layer and the second alignment layer are vertically oriented but does show vertical orientation in an off state (fig. 2). Mamiya teaches an alignment layer with vertical orientation(see page 15 1st paragraph) for orientation stability and contrast. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan in view of Mamiya for orientation stability and contrast.
Regarding 3, Doanne teaches the liquid-crystal layer comprises cholesteric positive liquid-crystal (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Doanne teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 3, wherein at least one dye is added to the liquid-crystal layer (see example 10 column 10 line 48).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan CN 113391493 in view Mamiya JP 2012-63178.
Regarding claim 9, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the liquid-crystal layer adjacent to the first alignment layer has a pretilt angle, and the pretilt angle is greater than 70° and less than 90°. Mamiya teaches an alignment layer has a pretilt angle, and the pretilt angle is greater than 70° and less than 90° (see page 15 1st paragraph) for orientation stability and contrast. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan in view of Mamiya for orientation stability and contrast.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan CN 113391493 in view of Khan US 2015/0124178.
Regarding claim 10-11, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach wherein the writable device is attached to a transparent element, a display or a reflective element via an attachment member. Khan teaches writable device (fig. 6 20-24 form the writable device) is attached to a transparent element(glass sheet 19 and dot array film 16) , a display or a reflective element via an attachment member (adhesive 17) to form a functional white board [0042]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan in view of Khan to form a white board.
Regarding claim 11, Khan further teaches the attachment member (adhesive 17) is bonded to the first substrate or the second substrate.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan CN 113391493 in view Li US2020/0089036.
Regarding claim 12 Yan teaches all the limitations of claim 12 except a thickness of the first substrate is greater than or equal to 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm. Li teaches similar writable devices with substrates is greater than or equal to 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 30 mm (1mm [0014] This would be obvious to balance transmittance and durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan in view of Li to balance transmittance and durability.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan CN 113391493 in Doane US 6104448.
Regarding claim 13, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1 but does not teach wherein the liquid-crystal layer comprises cholesteric liquid-crystal but does not teach polymer-stabilized cholesteric liquid crystal. Doane teaches a writable device wherein the liquid-crystal layer comprises cholesteric liquid-crystal but does not teach polymer-stabilized cholesteric liquid crystal offering stable color reflectivity (see column 5 lines 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan in view of Doane to achieve stable color reflectivity.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan CN 113391493.
Regarding claim 15, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach further comprising a sealant disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the sealant surrounds the liquid-crystal layer. However a seal disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the sealant surrounds the liquid-crystal layer would be considered obvious for forming a liquid crystal cell and examiner takes official notice of this. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan to form a liquid crystal cell.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan CN 113391493 in view of Schneider US 2009/0096942.
Regarding claim 20, Yan teaches the writable device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach an adhesive layer disposed over the first substrate or the second substrate and configured to bond another writable device. However Schneider teaches adhesive layer (fig. 3 index matching material 50) disposed over the first substrate or the second substrate and configured to bond another writable device (fig. 3 completed cell 41) to improve color acuity (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yan in view of Schneider to improve color acuity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 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, 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights