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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 and 14-21 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1 and 12 are currently amended; claims 2-11 and 14-20 are original; claim 13 is canceled; and claim 21 is newly added. The amendment dated July 22, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the newly amended claim 1 and the newly added claim 21, the applicant argues that Park or Han does not teach “a first electrode disposed directly on the light emitting element” (see Remarks, Pages 7-11).
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 1 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive because the amended and newly added claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The 07/22/2026 amendment specifies “a first electrode disposed directly on the light emitting element” in claim 1. Remarks filed with the amendment state that support is found in Figure 3 and Paragraph [0075]. However, Figure 3 teaches the first electrode directly disposed on the display module 10, not on the light emitting element. Paragraph [0075] of US PGPub recites “The display module 10 may include a substrate, light emitting elements, and driving circuits for driving the light emitting elements” (it appears “paragraph [0075] of the application as filed” recited by the applicant Remarks refers to Paragraph [0075] of US PGPub, because Paragraph [0075] of the originally filed application merely recites the electronic ink layer 30). Because the display module 10 includes a substrate, light emitting elements, and driving circuits, the specification does not disclose the feature of “a first electrode disposed directly on the light emitting element”. Note that the specification does not disclose the features of claim 1 with the amended claim limitations as a whole, and cannot be used to support the newly added clam limitations.
Claims 2-11 and 19 are rejected because they depend upon claim 1; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-9, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 20220291564), of record, in view of Park (US 20230100884), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a display device (Figs. 1-5; see Paras. [0017]-[0019] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a first electrode (210; Para. [0034]);
an electronic ink layer (300; see Paras. [0068], [0077], [0079], [0081] teaching colored charged particles dispersed in a solvent in 302 of 300, and moving by the application of a voltage) including partition walls (a portion of 301 between 302; Para. [0069]) disposed on the first electrode, the partition walls include an internal space having a substantially recessed shape to accommodate an electronic ink between the partition walls (see Figs. 4-5);
a second electrode (220; Para. [0034]) disposed on the electronic ink layer; and
an adhesive layer (400; Para. [0067]) disposed between the electronic ink layer and the second electrode and adhered to a surface of the electronic ink layer (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0067]),
wherein a viewing angle is adjusted by moving a carbon particle included in the electronic ink according to a voltage difference between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Paras. [0081] and [0086] teaching carbon particles which have an electric charge on the surface and moving by the application of a voltage between 210 and 220).
Han does not explicitly disclose a light emitting element; the first electrode directly disposed on the light emitting element.
However, Park teaches a similar display device (Fig. 5; Para. [0134]) includes a light emitting element (Para. [0128] “The organic light emitting display panel PNL1 includes an organic light emitting layer”); a first electrode (120 a) disposed directly on the light emitting element via a base member (110 a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Han with the teachings of Park, to have a light emitting element; the first electrode directly disposed on the light emitting element, for the purpose of displaying images (Park: Para. [0128]).
Regarding claim 2, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein the adhesive layer is adhered to an upper surface of the partition walls facing the second electrode (see Figs. 4-5) after a positive voltage is applied to the first electrode and a negative voltage is applied to the second electrode to move the carbon particle toward the first electrode (regarding the term “adhered … after a positive voltage is applied to the first electrode and a negative voltage is applied …”, the examiner considers Figures 7-8 of the specification teaching the method of adhering the adhesive layer. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, adhering the adhesive layer after applying a voltage does not change the product made, i.e., the adhesive layer adhered to an upper surface of the partition walls).
Regarding claim 3, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein
the electronic ink layer further includes a base layer (a horizontal portion of 301) disposed on the first electrode to support the partition walls, and
the partition walls protrude from the base layer in a direction toward the second electrode and are spaced apart from each other on the base layer (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 4, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 3 above, and Han further discloses wherein each of the partition walls has a first surface (the lower surface of the portion of 301, which is disposed between 302) facing the base layer, and a second surface (the upper surface of the portion of 301) opposite the first surface and facing the second electrode, and
a width of the first surface is wider than or equal to a width of the second surface (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 5, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 3 above, and Han further discloses wherein the first electrode and the second electrode include indium tin oxide (ITO) (Paras. [0042], [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses a solvent included in the electronic ink (Para. [0079]).
Han does not explicitly disclose the partition walls and a solvent included in the electronic ink have a same refractive index.
However, Han teaches the dispersion contains a transparent material, the partition walls contain a transparent material (Para. [0072]), and light is transmitted through both the partition walls and the internal space having the dispersion (Paras. [0072], [0079], [0085]).
Because light has to be transmitted through both the partition walls and the internal space without disrupting the optical path when the viewing angle of the user is widened (Para. [0085]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Han, wherein the partition walls and a solvent included in the electronic ink have a same refractive index, for the purpose of considering the user’s requirement for a display (Han: Paras. [0093]-[0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein the partition walls include resin (Para. [0073]).
Regarding claim 8, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein
the display device operates in one of a viewing angle blocking mode and a wide viewing angle mode (Paras. [0084]-[0085]),
in case that the display device operates in the viewing angle blocking mode, the carbon particle is dispersed and distributed in the internal space of the partition walls (see Fig. 4; Paras. [0083]-[0084], [0091]), and
in case that the display device operates in the wide viewing angle mode, the carbon particle is distributed adjacent to the first electrode (see Fig. 5; Paras. [0085], [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein
the display device operates in one of a viewing angle blocking mode and a wide viewing angle mode (Paras. [0084]-[0085]), and
in case that the display device operates in the wide viewing angle mode, a positive voltage is applied to the first electrode and a negative voltage is applied to the second electrode (see Paras. [0085] and [0089] teaching applying a voltage for the wide viewing angle mode and see Para. [0090] teaching the case where the first electrode is a positive electrode) (regarding the second electrode being a negative electrode, the examiner considers it is conventionally known that the opposite electrode of the positive electrode becomes a negative electrode so as to drive the current).
Regarding claim 19, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein the internal space of the partition walls has a narrow lower end and a wide upper end (see Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 21, Han discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-5 and 19-20; see Paras. [0017]-[0019] and [0025] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-5 and 19-20) comprising:
a display device (Figs. 1-5) to display an image, the display device comprising:
a first electrode (210; Para. [0034]);
an electronic ink layer (300; see Paras. [0068], [0077], [0079], [0081] teaching colored charged particles dispersed in a solvent in 302 of 300, and moving by the application of a voltage) including partition walls (a portion of 301 between 302; Para. [0069]) disposed on the first electrode, the partition walls include an internal space having a substantially recessed shape to accommodate an electronic ink between the partition walls (see Figs. 4-5);
a second electrode (220; Para. [0034]) disposed on the electronic ink layer; and
an adhesive layer (400; Para. [0067]) disposed between the electronic ink layer and the second electrode and adhered to a surface of the electronic ink layer (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0067]),
wherein a viewing angle is adjusted by moving a carbon particle included in the electronic ink according to a voltage difference between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Paras. [0081] and [0086] teaching carbon particles which have an electric charge on the surface and moving by the application of a voltage between 210 and 220).
Han does not explicitly disclose a light emitting element; the first electrode directly disposed on the light emitting element.
However, Park teaches a similar display device (Fig. 5; Para. [0134]) includes a light emitting element (Para. [0128] “The organic light emitting display panel PNL1 includes an organic light emitting layer”); a first electrode (120 a) disposed directly on the light emitting element via a base member (110 a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Han with the teachings of Park, to have a light emitting element; the first electrode directly disposed on the light emitting element, for the purpose of displaying images (Park: Para. [0128]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Park, and in further view of Lee (KR 20210076477A), of record.
Regarding claim 10, Han as modified by Park discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Han further discloses wherein
the display device operates in one of a viewing angle blocking mode and a wide viewing angle mode (Paras. [0084]-[0085]).
Han does not explicitly disclose in case that the display device operates in the viewing angle blocking mode, a voltage pulse is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode.
However, Lee teaches in case that a display device operates in the viewing angle blocking mode, a voltage pulse is applied to the first electrode and the second electrode (Para. [0075] “applies a reverse voltage to each of the first electrode 22 and the second electrode 32 when switching from the wide viewing angle mode to the narrow viewing angle mode … it is possible to switch from the wide viewing angle mode to the narrow viewing angle mode in about 2 seconds … the reverse voltage may be supplied only to a range in which the carbon particles are evenly distributed” teaching applying a reverse voltage pulse).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device disclosed by Han with the teachings of Lee, to have a voltage pulse, for the purpose of quickly switching to the viewing angle blocking mode (Lee: Para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 11, Han as modified by Park and Lee discloses the limitations of claim 10 above.
Han does not explicitly disclose, in the viewing angle blocking mode, a negative voltage is applied to the second electrode in case that a positive voltage is applied to the first electrode, and a positive voltage is applied to the second electrode in case that a negative voltage is applied to the first electrode.
However, Lee teaches, in the viewing angle blocking mode, wherein a reverse voltage is applied to a first electrode and a second electrode (Para. [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device disclosed by Han with the teachings of Lee, wherein in the viewing angle blocking mode, a negative voltage is applied to the second electrode in case that a positive voltage is applied to the first electrode, and a positive voltage is applied to the second electrode in case that a negative voltage is applied to the first electrode, for the purpose of quickly switching to the viewing angle blocking mode (Lee: Para. [0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14-18 and 20 are allowable over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses a method of manufacturing a display device (Figs. 1-5; see Paras. [0017]-[0019] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-5), the method comprising: forming a first electrode (210; Para. [0034]); forming an electronic ink layer (300; Paras. [0068], [0077], [0079], [0081] teaching colored charged particles dispersed in a solvent in 302 of 300, and moving by the application of a voltage) including partition walls (a portion of 301 between 302; Para. [0069]), the partition walls including an internal space having a substantially recessed shape to accommodate an electronic ink between the partition walls on the first electrode (see Figs. 4-5); forming a second electrode (220; Para. [0034]) on the electronic ink layer; and forming an adhesive layer (400; Para. [0067]) disposed between the electronic ink layer and the second electrode and adhered to a surface of the electronic ink layer (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0067]), and the forming of the adhesive layer comprises adhering the surface of the electronic ink layer to the second electrode (Figs. 4-5; Para. [0095]).
Park further teaches a similar display device (Fig. 5; Para. [0134]) includes a light emitting element (Para. [0128] “The organic light emitting display panel PNL1 includes an organic light emitting layer”); a first electrode (120 a) disposed on the light emitting element.
However, Han and Park fail to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “after moving a carbon particle included in the electronic ink toward the first electrode due to a positive voltage applied to the first electrode and a negative voltage applied to the second electrode”. The examiner further considered Hong et al. (US 20230152658, hereinafter “Hong”). For example, Hong discloses adhering an adhesive layer (420 Figs. 18-20) for an optical path member, but fails to disclose forming of the adhesive layer after moving the carbon particle because the particles of Hong are injected after the adhesive layer is adhered for the optical path member. The prior art of Park, Han, Lee, Huang and Hong, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 12.
Dependent claims 14-18 and 20 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H Caley can be reached on (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 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.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights