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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/804,521 filed on August 14, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on August 24, 2023 (Korea KR10-2023-0111484).
An attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application 10-2023-0111484 to which priority is claimed failed on 01/24/2025. See notice of 1/24/2025.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated August 14, 2024 and October 8, 2024 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the descriptions of Figs. 14 and 15 in the body of the specification are reversed. This inconsistency can be corrected by simply switching the Figure numbers for these two figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: “overlaps least two or more guide patterns” is missing the word “at” and should be “overlaps at least two or more guide patterns”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 8-9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/805,808 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as detailed in the table below:
Instant application
18/805,808
Explanation as needed
1. A light controlling panel, comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode disposed to face each other; and
a dielectric layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric including a first dielectric material and a groove, the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity; and
a second dielectric including a plurality of light blocking particles and a solvent including a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity.
1. A light controlling panel, comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode disposed to face each other; and
a dielectric layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric including a first dielectric material and a groove, the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity; and
a second dielectric including a plurality of light blocking particles and a solvent including a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity…
2. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than 15.
6. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than 15.
3. The light controlling panel of claim 2, wherein the first dielectric comprises a guide pattern with a convex top surface, and
wherein the groove is disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern.
1. wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves, and wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode
a first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves
A protruding portion of the top surface is a convex top surface.
8. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric comprises a guide pattern extending in a first direction, and
wherein the groove extends in the first direction parallel to the guide pattern.
10. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric pattern is extended in a first direction, … and
wherein the groove is extended in the first direction parallel to the first dielectric pattern or the protrusion.
9. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric is disposed on a top surface of the first electrode, and wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed.
11. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric is disposed on a top surface of the first electrode, and wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed.
11. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode.
12. The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode…
1.
A light controlling panel, comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode disposed to face each other; and
a dielectric layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric including a first dielectric material and a groove,
the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity; and
a second dielectric including a plurality of light blocking particles and a solvent including a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity.
13. A transparent display device, comprising:
a light controlling panel including
a first electrode, a second electrode, and
a dielectric layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode,
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric including a first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity, the first dielectric further including a groove; and
a second dielectric including a plurality of light blocking particles and a solvent including a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity…
Since the dielectric layer is between the first and second electrodes, the electrodes face each other across the dielectric layer.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 2-7 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than 15” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. In particular, although Fig. 15 is described as depicting the electric field generated when the solvent has a dielectric permittivity of 2.0 and the first dielectric has a dielectric permittivity of 35 the specification fails to disclose any material choices for the first dielectric such that the difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than 15. The dielectric permittivity is not the only important optical or material property necessary to obtain a working device. Other important characteristics include but are not limited to: the refractive index, the flexibility, the birefringence, the haze, the transparency, the ability to be manufactured into the disclosed shapes and compatibility and immiscibility with the second dielectric.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The Nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 7331, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In the instant case, (A) the breadth of claims 2-7 would include devices where the first dielectric is any material having a dielectric permittivity of 16 or more with no upper limit thereon (B) the nature of the invention is drawn to flexible, transparent, light-control panels (C) the state of the art as evidence by Beales et al. US 2021/0132435 includes dielectric materials with permittivity between 1-30, however, the dielectric layers in Beales are thin, flat layers, such that properties such as the refractive index, the flexibility, the birefringence, the haze, the transparency, and the ability to be manufactured into the disclosed shapes are not nearly as constrained as would be needed for the present device. The state of the art also includes Shi et al. “Dielectric gels with ultra-high dielectric constant, low elastic modulus, and excellent transparency” however, there is no evidence that these dielectric gels are compatible and immiscible with a second dielectric having a solvent and particles. (D) The level of ordinary skill in the art is high, however, the quantity of experimentation needed to arrive at a working material for the first dielectric without any starting point is not just undue but unlimited (E) the level of predictability in the opto-chemical arts across all possible materials is low (F) the inventor has not provided any direction with respect to the material choices for the first and second dielectrics to achieve the claimed difference (G) the working example of the solvent having a dielectric permittivity of 2.0 and the first dielectric having a dielectric permittivity of 35 does not disclose any of the materials (H) an undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Claims 3-7 depend from claim 2 and inherit and do not mitigate the above enablement issue from claim 2.
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 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the guide pattern" and “the spacer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because neither term is introduced in claims 1 or 9 upon which claim 10 depends. It is unclear whether claim 10 was intended to depend from claim 4 which introduces both terms, or if claim 10 was intended to newly introduce a guide pattern and a spacer with fewer limitations thereon. Since both possibilities are reasonable, it is not possible to guess which one was intended. For the purpose of applying prior art, it will be assumed that claim 10 was intended to newly introduce these terms. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu et al. US 2025/0072231 A1 (hereafter Yu).
The applied reference has a common assignee and inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 1, Yu teaches “A light controlling panel (e.g. claim 1 “A light controlling panel”), comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode disposed to face each other (e.g. claim 1 “a first electrode and a second electrode disposed to face each other”); and
a dielectric layer (e.g. claim 1 “a dielectric layer”) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (e.g. claim 1 “a dielectric layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode”),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric (e.g. claim 1 “a first dielectric”) including a first dielectric material (e.g. claim 1 “including a first dielectric material”) and a groove (e.g. claim 1 “a first dielectric including… a groove”), the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity (e.g. claim 1 “the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity”); and
a second dielectric (e.g. claim 1 “a second dielectric”) including a plurality of light blocking particles (e.g. claim 1 “a second dielectric including a plurality of light blocking particles”) and a solvent (e.g. claim 1 “a second dielectric including … a solvent”) including a second dielectric material (e.g. claim 1 “a solvent including a second dielectric material”) having a second dielectric permittivity (e.g. claim 1 “a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity”) less than the first dielectric permittivity (e.g. claim 1 “a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity”).”
Regarding claim 2, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than 15 (e.g. claim 6: “wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than 15.”).”
Regarding claim 3, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 2, wherein the first dielectric comprises a guide pattern (e.g. claim 1 “first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves, and wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode” see pattern 252a and protrusion 253 between the grooves in Figs. 7 or 14 which is a guide pattern in that it guides the particles) with a convex top surface (the protrusion 253 protrudes convexly from the top surface), and
wherein the groove is disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (e.g. claim 1 “first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves” and Figs. 7 and 14).”
Regarding claim 4, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 3, wherein the first dielectric further comprises a spacer (spacer 252b) maintaining a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode (e.g. paragraph [0137]: “The spacer 252b can be disposed between the first electrode 230 and the second electrode 240 to maintain the gap between the first electrode 230 and the second electrode 240.”).”
Regarding claim 5, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 4, wherein the groove is disposed between the guide pattern and the spacer (see Fig. 7 the grooves are between the pattern and the spacer. In Fig. 14 the grooves closest to the spacers are between the patterns and the spacers, and the middle groove is between the left pattern and the right spacer and between the right pattern and the left spacer).”
Regarding claim 6, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 4, wherein the groove is disposed between two adjacent guide patterns (In Fig. 7 two grooves and a spacer are between any two adjacent guide patterns. In Fig. 14 it is also the case that the middle groove is directly between two immediately adjacent guide patterns.).”
Regarding claim 7, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 4, wherein the guide pattern, the groove, and the spacer are formed as single body (e.g. paragraph [0150]: “the first dielectric pattern 252a, the spacer 252b, the protrusion 253, and the groove 252c included in the first dielectric 252 can be formed as a single body.”).”
Regarding claim 8, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric comprises a guide pattern extending in a first direction (see 253 in Figs. 10 and 16 and e.g. paragraph [0145] “The groove 252c can be disposed to extend parallel to at least one of the first dielectric pattern 252a, the spacer 252b, and the protrusion 253 in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area NTA.”), and
wherein the groove extends in the first direction parallel to the guide pattern (see 252c in Figs. 10 and 16 and e.g. paragraph [0145] “The groove 252c can be disposed to extend parallel to at least one of the first dielectric pattern 252a, the spacer 252b, and the protrusion 253 in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area NTA.”).”
Regarding claim 9, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric is disposed on a top surface of the first electrode (see e.g. Fig. 7 252 is on the top surface of first electrode 230), and
wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness (T4) in an area where the groove is disposed (paragraph [0151]: “The first dielectric pattern 252a can have a fourth thickness T4 in an area corresponding to the groove 252c.”).
Regarding claim 10, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 9, wherein the first dielectric has a second thickness (T1 or T3) in an area where the guide pattern is disposed (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0151]), and wherein the first dielectric has a third thickness (T2) in an area where the spacer is disposed (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0151]).”
Regarding claim 11, Yu teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode (paragraph [0114]: “Each of the first electrode 230 and the second electrode 240 can be transparent electrode.”).”
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.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al. US 2024/0219801 A1 (hereafter Telfer) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota).
Regarding claim 1, Telfer teaches “A light controlling panel (variable light transmission device 200), comprising:
a first electrode (second light transmissive electrode layer 207) and a second electrode (first light transmissive electrode layer 202) disposed to face each other (see e.g. Figs. 2A or 3); and
a dielectric layer (microcell layer 203, which is a dielectric layer at least in that the solvent in the electrophoretic media has a low dielectric constant, see paragraph [0135]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2A),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first [structure layer] (microcell bottom layer 210, protrusion structure 217, microcell walls 212, and channel 215) including a first… material (the material of 210, 217 and 212) and a groove (channel 215),… and
a second dielectric (electrophoretic medium 209, which is a dielectric with a low dielectric constant see paragraph [0135]) including a plurality of light blocking particles (electrically charged pigment particles 222, which are light blocking in that the control the variable light transmission, see e.g. paragraph [0083]) and a solvent (paragraph [0135]: “Typically, solvents used in electrophoretic media… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene”) including a second dielectric material (paragraph [0135]: “solvents used in electrophoretic media have low dielectric constant (preferably less than 10 and desirably less than 3)… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene, since it combines a low dielectric constant (2.3)”) having a second dielectric permittivity paragraph [0135]: “low dielectric constant (preferably less than 10 and desirably less than 3)… a low dielectric constant (2.3)”).”
However, Telfer fails to explicitly teach “a first dielectric including a first dielectric material… the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity… a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity.”
Ota teaches (claim 1) “A light controlling panel (optical device 1, paragraph [0001]: “(optical device 1)”), comprising:
a first electrode (first electrode 30) and a second electrode (second electrode 40) disposed to face each other (see Figs. 1 and 2); and
a dielectric layer (the layer comprising 50, 60 and 70, which is dielectric in that each of 50, 60 and 70 are dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70 should be higher than the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61”) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric (50 or 70) including a first dielectric material (the material of 50 or 70 which is dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70”) and a groove (the grooves between adjacent convex portions 51 or adjacent portions 71), the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70”); and
a second dielectric (60 which is dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61”) including a plurality of… particles (nanoparticles 62) and a solvent (paragraph [0056]: “The insulating liquid 61 is a transparent liquid having insulating properties and is a solvent”) including a second dielectric material (insulating liquid 61, which is dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61”) having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0124]: “it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71)”).
Note that “dielectric constant” and “dielectric permittivity” are used interchangeably in the art as synonyms for the relative dielectric permittivity, relative to the dielectric permittivity of vacuum.
Ota further teaches (paragraph [0124]): “Furthermore, the electric field generated by the voltage applied between the first electrode 30 and the second electrode 40 tends to be applied to the electrode with the lower dielectric constant. Therefore… it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71). This prevents the electric field from being absorbed by the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70.”
Telfer discloses the claimed device except that the material of the microcell structures should be dielectric with a first dielectric material and a first dielectric permittivity.
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a dielectric material as the material for the structure of the microcell structures as taught by Ota in the microcell layer of Telfer since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the dielectric permittivity of the second dielectric to be less than the dielectric permittivity of the first dielectric as taught by Ota in the device of the Telfer, because Ota teaches that it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71) to prevent the electric field from being absorbed by the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70, in the operation of the suspended particle layer (Ota paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 8, the Telfer – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the first dielectric comprises a guide pattern (protrusion structure 217) extending in a first direction (the radial direction from the center of each microcell, and the circumferential direction around each microcell see Fig. 14), and
wherein the groove (channel) extends in the first direction parallel to the guide pattern (the channel likewise extends in both the radial and circumferential directions see Fig. 14).”
Regarding claim 9, the Telfer – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the first dielectric is disposed on a top surface of the first electrode (210 is disposed on the top surface of 207 in Fig. 2A), and
wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in the direction in which the electrodes face one another in an area where the groove is disposed (the thickness of 210 in the area of channel 215).”
Regarding claim 10, the Telfer – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 9,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the first dielectric has a second thickness in an area where the guide pattern is disposed (the thickness in the direction in which the electrodes face one another of protrusion structure 217, which takes values between a minimum thickness and a maximum thickness), and wherein the first dielectric has a third thickness in an area where the spacer is disposed (the thickness in the direction in which the electrodes face one another of walls 212).”
Regarding claim 11, the Telfer – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode (e.g. paragraph [0078]: “first light transmissive electrode layer 202… second light transmissive electrode layer 207” which is transparent in that it is transmissive to light, and it can be a transparent conductor such as indium tin oxide, see paragraph [0124]).”
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al. US 2024/0219801 A1 (hereafter Telfer) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Marchewka et al. US 2021/0373405 A1 (hereafter Marchewka) and Shi et al. “Dielectric gels with ultra-high dielectric constant, low elastic modulus, and excellent transparency” NPG Asia Materials, 2018 v. 10, pages 821-826 (hereafter Shi).
Regarding claim 2, the Telfer – Ota combination introduced for claim 1 teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than (Telfer teaches that the second dielectric permittivity can preferably be 2.3, paragraph [0135], and Ota, as introduced for claim 1 above, teaches that the first dielectric permittivity should be greater than the second dielectric permittivity, paragraph [0124]).”
However, the Telfer- Ota combination fails to specifically teach the difference being “equal to or greater than 15.”
Marchewka teaches (claim 1) “A light controlling panel (Fig. 21A array of pixel chambers 2100), comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode (two electrodes 1802) disposed to face each other (the major surfaces of 1802 face one another in Fig. 21A); and
a dielectric layer (layer with dielectric fin barriers 2106) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 21A),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric (dielectric fin barriers 2106) including a first dielectric material (the material of 2106) and a groove (the openings between 2106 together with substrate layer 2110A are grooves) the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0155]: “The higher the dielectric constant of the dielectric fin barriers 2106, the more the applied electric field is concentrated inside the trench voids 2104. Preferably, the dielectric constant is greater than 3, but higher dielectric constants are achievable depending on the material selected.”); and
… a plurality of light blocking particles (1402, paragraph [0109]: “charged mobile carrier 1402 including charged polymeric core 1403, polymeric corona 1404, and chemical entities, may be referred to herein simply as a particle.”) and a solvent (suspension fluid of an electrophoretic dispersion 1406… e.g. paragraph [0101]: “solvent for the electrophoretic dispersion”)…
(claim 2) “wherein a difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is equal to or greater than (paragraph [0155]: “The higher the dielectric constant of the dielectric fin barriers 2106, the more the applied electric field is concentrated inside the trench voids 2104. Preferably, the dielectric constant is greater than 3, but higher dielectric constants are achievable depending on the material selected.”).”
Shi teaches (page 821 second column): “Improving the dielectric constant and lowering the elastic modulus of the polymer dielectrics are efficient ways of lowering the actuating voltage… However, polymer dielectrics with optical transmittance functionality are emerging materials with practical significance in next-generation flexible displays and flexible touchscreen panels”
(page 822 first column) “Herein, we introduce a new type of polymer dielectric, dielectric gels. The new materials achieve a unique combination of ultra-high ε (30–50), low elastic modulus (from 20 to 60 KPa), and excellent transparency (~99%). A gel is a polymer composite with a three-dimensional polymer network that contains a large amount of solvent. Gels are present as solid-state soft materials. We designed dielectric gels by using solvents with ultra-high ε and a polymer network that matched well with the solvents. Dielectric gels offer new opportunities for soft robotics, sensors, electronics, optics, and biomimetics.”
The Telfer – Ota combination teaches that the difference between the first dielectric permittivity and the second dielectric permittivity is significant and greater than zero, where the second dielectric permittivity can be as low as 2.3 (Telfer paragraph [0135]).
Marchewka teaches that the dielectric structure in which the suspended particle solution is disposed should have a dielectric permittivity of at least greater than 3, but that higher dielectric constants are both desirable and achievable depending on the material selected.
Shi teaches that dielectric gels with ultra-high dielectric constants of 30 to 50 with excellent transparency have emerged as materials with practical significance in next-generation flexible displays and flexible touchscreen panels.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the material for the microcell structures of Telfer, a dielectric gel with an ultra-high dielectric constants of 30 to 50 as taught by Shi because Marchewka teaches that the higher the dielectric constant of the dielectric structure the more the applied electric field is concentrated (paragraph [0155]) and Shi teaches that increasing the dielectric constant can lower the necessary voltage (page 821 second column). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Shi teaches that such highly transparent, flexible, high dielectric constant gels have practical significance in next-generation flexible displays and flexible touchscreen panels (page 821 second column).
Regarding claim 3, the Telfer combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 2,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the first dielectric comprises a guide pattern (protrusion structure 217) with a convex top surface (see e.g. Fig. 2a), and wherein the groove is disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (215 is formed circumferentially around all sides of 217, see Fig. 14).”
Regarding claim 4, the Telfer combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 3,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the first dielectric further comprises a spacer (wall 212) maintaining a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 2A the microcell walls 212 maintain the space between the two substrates and electrode layers.).”
Regarding claim 5, the Telfer combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 4,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the groove is disposed between the guide pattern and the spacer (see e.g. Fig. 2A channel 215 is between protrusion structure 217 and wall 212).”
Regarding claim 6, the Telfer combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 4,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the groove is disposed between two adjacent guide patterns (see e.g. Fig. 2D there are two channels and one wall between adjacent protrusion structures).”
Regarding claim 7, the Telfer combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 4,” and Telfer further teaches “wherein the guide pattern, the groove, and the spacer are formed as single body (see Fig. 2A and 2D, 210, 217 and 212 are depicted as being formed as a single body).”
In the alternative that Telfer fails to teach “wherein the guide pattern, the groove, and the spacer are formed as single body” this would also have been obvious as follows.
It is a well-established proposition that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the guide pattern, the groove and the spacer as a single body, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). In the current instance, one would have been motivated to make all of the microcell structural elements as a single body for simplicity and reduced cost of manufacturing.
Claims 12-17, 19-21, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. US 2021/0382366 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Song) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota).
Regarding claim 12, Song teaches “A transparent display device (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “transparent display apparatus according to the present disclosure”), comprising:
a display panel (transparent display panel DIP) including a transmissive area (transmission area TA.) for transmitting an external light (paragraph [0069]: “a transmission area TA passing through the background scene of the display panel as it is.”) and a non-transmissive area (emission area EA which is a non-transmissive area at least in the sense that it is not the transmission areas TA and in that it is colored, and thus less transmissive than areas TA) on which a plurality of pixels are disposed (see Figs. 3A-3C a plurality of pixels P or unit pixels UP are disposed specifically in the emission areas EA, but also on the combination of TA and EA areas); and
a light controlling panel (light shutter panel LST of Fig. 7) including a first electrode (lower transparent electrode layer 103), a second electrode (upper transparent electrode layer 203), and a … [suspended particle] layer (shutter layer STL) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 7),
wherein the [suspended particle] layer comprises:
a first [material layer] (electric field guide EG) including a first… material (the material of EG), a guide pattern (EG) having a curved top surface (see Fig. 7 and paragraph [0104]: “the top of the electric field guide EG may have a convex rounded tip shape”), and a groove disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (black particle storage portions BS); and
a second [material layer] (ink storage portion IS filled with ink IK) including a plurality of light blocking particles (charged black particles BP) and a second… material (transparent fluid TL).”
However, Song fails to explicitly teach “a dielectric layer… wherein the dielectric layer comprises: a first dielectric including a first dielectric material… a second dielectric including… a second dielectric material.”
Ota teaches (claim 12) “A transparent… device (optical device 1, which is transparent in that its components are transparent and in that it distributes external light see e.g. paragraph [0002]), comprising:
…
a light controlling panel (optical device 1) including a first electrode (first electrode 30), a second electrode (second electrode 40), and a dielectric layer (the layer comprising 50, 60 and 70, which is dielectric in that each of 50, 60 and 70 are dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70 should be higher than the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61”) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Figs. 1 and 2),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric (50 or 70) including a first dielectric material (the material of 50 or 70 which is dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70”), a guide pattern (the convex portions 51 or 71) having a curved top surface (paragraph [0171]: “the cross-sectional shape of the side surfaces of the first protrusion 51 (first protrusion 51A) and the second protrusion 71 (second protrusion 71A) is not limited to a straight line, but may also be curved… the first protrusion 51 (first protrusion 51A) and the second protrusion 71 (second protrusion 71A)… may also be curved, wavy” emphasis added), and a groove disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (the grooves between adjacent convex portions 51 or adjacent portions 71); and
a second dielectric (60 which is dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61”) including a plurality of … particles (nanoparticles 62) and a second dielectric material (insulating liquid 61, which is dielectric see paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61”).”
Ota further teaches (paragraph [0124]): “Furthermore, the electric field generated by the voltage applied between the first electrode 30 and the second electrode 40 tends to be applied to the electrode with the lower dielectric constant. Therefore, it is preferable that the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71) be greater than the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 of the refractive index variable layer 60. In other words, it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71). This prevents the electric field from being absorbed by the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70.”
Song discloses the claimed device except that the materials of the shutter layer should be dielectric, with specifically a first dielectric having the guide pattern and a second dielectric in which the particles are suspended.
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a dielectric material as the material for the structure of the guide pattern and grooves as taught by Ota in the shutter layer of Song since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a dielectric material as the material for the liquid in which the particles are suspended as taught by Ota in the shutter layer of Song since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make both of these choices for the materials because Ota teaches that it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71) to prevent the electric field from being absorbed by the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70, in the operation of the suspended particle layer (Ota paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 13, the Song - Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the guide pattern is disposed in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Fig. 9B, EG which corresponds to the guide pattern is disposed in an area corresponding to TA).”
Regarding claim 14, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the first dielectric (EG) is disposed on a top surface of the first electrode (103, see Fig. 7 EG is on the top surface of 103), and
wherein the curved top surface of the guide pattern is convex toward the second electrode (see Fig. 7 the curved top surface of EG is convex towards 203).”
Regarding claim 15, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the groove is disposed in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (see Fig. 9B the grooves are disposed beneath the areas EA).”
Regarding claim 16, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the guide pattern extends in a first direction (see e.g. Fig. 9A, EG extends in the Y direction), and
wherein the groove extends in the first direction parallel to the guide pattern (see Fig. 9A, IS where the grooves are extends in the Y direction).”
Regarding claim 17, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the first dielectric comprises a plurality of guide patterns (see Figs. 7, 9A and 9B), and
wherein at least one groove is disposed between two adjacent guide patterns (in Fig. 7 there are two grooves between patterns EG, in Figs. 9A,9B there are many grooves between adjacent patterns EG) in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (most easily seen in Fig. 9B the grooves are disposed in the areas EA).”
Regarding claim 19, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the first dielectric further comprises a spacer (spacer SP) maintaining a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode (paragraph [0084]: “A plurality of spacers SP are distributed between the lower electrode plate 100 and the upper electrode plate 200 for maintaining a constant gap between them.”).”
Note that claim 19 does not explicitly require that the spacer itself is made of a dielectric material, thus that the spacer is amongst the structures of the shutter layer and does not have suspended particles therein is sufficient to meet the limitation that the first dielectric further comprises the spacer.
Regarding claim 20, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 19,” and Song further teaches “wherein the spacer is disposed in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (See dotted lines in Fig. 9A between the EA areas and the groove where IS is located. Since the spacers SP are in the neighboring groove, the spacers are disposed corresponding to the EA area), and
wherein the groove is disposed between the spacer and the guide pattern (see Fig. 9A, the spacers SP are within the grooves and thus the grooves are disposed between the spacer and the guide pattern for almost the entirety thereof even if there exists a tangent point where the bottom of the spacers touch the structures EG).”
Regarding claim 21, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 19,” and Song further teaches “wherein the first dielectric comprises a plurality of spacers (two shown in Fig. 7, many shown in Fig. 9A), and
wherein at least one guide pattern is disposed between two adjacent spacers (see two EG structures between the spacers SP in Fig. 7 and the many EG structures between adjacent spacers SP in the X-direction in Fig. 9A).”
Regarding claim 24, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” however, Song fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric has a first dielectric permittivity, and the second dielectric material has a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity.”
Ota teaches “wherein the first dielectric has a first dielectric permittivity (the dielectric constant of 51 or 71), and the second dielectric material has a second dielectric permittivity (the dielectric constant of 61) less than the first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0124]: “it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71)”).”
Note that “dielectric constant” and “dielectric permittivity” are used interchangeably in the art as synonyms for the relative dielectric permittivity, relative to the dielectric permittivity of vacuum.
Ota further teaches (paragraph [0124]): “Furthermore, the electric field generated by the voltage applied between the first electrode 30 and the second electrode 40 tends to be applied to the electrode with the lower dielectric constant. Therefore… it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71). This prevents the electric field from being absorbed by the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the dielectric permittivity of the second dielectric to be less than the dielectric permittivity of the first dielectric as taught by Ota in the device of the Song – Ota combination, because Ota teaches that it is preferable that the dielectric constant of the insulating liquid 61 is lower than that of the first uneven structure 50 (first protrusion 51) and the second uneven structure 70 (second protrusion 71) to prevent the electric field from being absorbed by the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70, in the operation of the suspended particle layer (Ota paragraph [0124]).
Regarding claim 25, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein one transmissive area overlaps one guide pattern (see Figs. 9A and 9B).”
Regarding claim 26, the Song -Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” however, Song fails to explicitly teach “wherein one transmissive area overlaps least two or more guide patterns.” Rather Song teaches in Figs. 9A and 9B that one transmissive area overlaps one guide pattern.
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
The instant claims and the prior art differ by the recitation of a relative dimension, the combined width of the guide patterns EG and ink storage portions IS in the X-direction relative to the combined width of the transmissive areas TA and non-transmissive areas EA in the X-direction. The prior art and the instant claim do not perform differently from one another.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative dimension of width of the shutter layer elements to be smaller than the width of the display layer elements such that one transmissive area overlaps least two or more guide patterns, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Regarding claim 27, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the display panel comprises a data line (data line DL) extending in a first direction (the Y-direction in Fig. 2) and a scan line (scan line SL) extending in a second direction (the X-direction in Fig. 2), and
wherein the guide pattern and the groove extend in the second direction (see Figs. 4B, 9A and 9B. In Fig. 4B the guide patterns EG and grooves IB extend along parallel lines in both the X and Y directions. In Figs. 9A and 9B, the guide pattern and grooves have their longest extents in the Y-direction, but also have their shortest extents in the X-direction.).”
Regarding claim 28, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” and Song further teaches “wherein the light controlling panel is formed of a film type having a flexibility (paragraph [0052]: “the transparent display panel DIP may include… a flexible light emitting display panel, a flexible micro light emitting display panel” and paragraph [0087]: “the lower transparent substrate 101 may be made in a film type having excellent flexibility.” Thus one would reasonably deduce that the light shutter panel is of a flexible film type, such that the overall device can be of a flexible type.) to dispose on one side of the display panel (LST is disposed on one side of DIP).”
Claims 18 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. US 2021/0382366 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Song) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota) as applied to claims 12 and 19 above, and further in view of Telfer et al. US 2024/0219801 A1 (hereafter Telfer).
Regarding claim 18, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 12,” however, Song is silent regarding “wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed.”
Telfer teaches (claim 12) “a light controlling panel (variable light transmission device 200) including a first electrode (second light transmissive electrode layer 207), a second electrode (first light transmissive electrode layer 202), and a dielectric layer (microcell layer 203, which is a dielectric layer at least in that the solvent in the electrophoretic media has a low dielectric constant, see paragraph [0135]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2A),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first [structure layer] (microcell bottom layer 210, protrusion structure 217, microcell walls 212, and channel 215) including a first… material (the material of 210, 217 and 212) a guide pattern (protrusion structure 217) and a groove (channel 215) disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (see Figs. 2A and 14); and
a second dielectric (electrophoretic medium 209, which is a dielectric with a low dielectric constant see paragraph [0135]) including a plurality of light blocking particles (electrically charged pigment particles 222, which are light blocking in that the control the variable light transmission, see e.g. paragraph [0083]) and a second dielectric material (paragraph [0135]: “solvents used in electrophoretic media have low dielectric constant (preferably less than 10 and desirably less than 3)… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene, since it combines a low dielectric constant (2.3)”).”
(claim 18) “wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed (the thickness of microcell bottom layer 210).”
Telfer further teaches (paragraph [0020]): An encapsulated or microcell electrophoretic display typically does not suffer from the clustering and settling failure mode of traditional electrophoretic devices and provides further advantages, such as the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a microcell bottom layer with a finite thickness as taught by Telfer in the suspended particle shutter layer of the Song – Ota combination in order to fully encapsulate the electrophoretic medium as taught by Telfer, see paragraph [0006], to avoid clustering and settling failures and further advantages such as the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates, as taught by Telfer (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 22, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 19,” however, Song fails to teach “wherein the guide pattern, the groove, and the spacer are formed as single body.”
Telfer teaches (claim 12) “a light controlling panel (variable light transmission device 200) including a first electrode (second light transmissive electrode layer 207), a second electrode (first light transmissive electrode layer 202), and a dielectric layer (microcell layer 203, which is a dielectric layer at least in that the solvent in the electrophoretic media has a low dielectric constant, see paragraph [0135]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2A),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first [structure layer] (microcell bottom layer 210, protrusion structure 217, microcell walls 212, and channel 215) including a first… material (the material of 210, 217 and 212) a guide pattern (protrusion structure 217) and a groove (channel 215) disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (see Figs. 2A and 14); and
a second dielectric (electrophoretic medium 209, which is a dielectric with a low dielectric constant see paragraph [0135]) including a plurality of light blocking particles (electrically charged pigment particles 222, which are light blocking in that the control the variable light transmission, see e.g. paragraph [0083]) and a second dielectric material (paragraph [0135]: “solvents used in electrophoretic media have low dielectric constant (preferably less than 10 and desirably less than 3)… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene, since it combines a low dielectric constant (2.3)”).”
(claim 19) “wherein the first dielectric further comprises a spacer (wall 212) maintaining a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 2A the microcell walls 212 maintain the space between the two substrates and electrode layers.).”
(claim 22) “wherein the guide pattern, the groove, and the spacer are formed as single body (see Fig. 2A and 2D, 210, 217 and 212 are depicted as being formed as a single body).”
Telfer further teaches (paragraph [0020]): An encapsulated or microcell electrophoretic display typically does not suffer from the clustering and settling failure mode of traditional electrophoretic devices and provides further advantages, such as the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a microcell bottom layer with a finite thickness as taught by Telfer in the suspended particle shutter layer of the Song – Ota combination in order to fully encapsulate the electrophoretic medium as taught by Telfer, see paragraph [0006], to avoid clustering and settling failures and further advantages such as the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates, as taught by Telfer (paragraph [0020]).
Furthermore, it is a well-established proposition that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the guide pattern, the groove and the spacer as a single body, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). In the current instance, one would have been motivated to make all of the microcell structural elements as a single body for simplicity and reduced cost of manufacturing.
Regarding claim 23, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 19,” and Song further teaches “wherein the first dielectric has a second thickness in an area where the guide pattern is disposed (the height of the guide pattern EG), and
wherein the first dielectric has a third thickness in an area where the spacer is disposed (the height of spacer SP).”
However, Song fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed.” Specifically, Song fails to teach the presence of a dielectric structure at the bottom of the grooves.
Telfer teaches (claim 12) “a light controlling panel (variable light transmission device 200) including a first electrode (second light transmissive electrode layer 207), a second electrode (first light transmissive electrode layer 202), and a dielectric layer (microcell layer 203, which is a dielectric layer at least in that the solvent in the electrophoretic media has a low dielectric constant, see paragraph [0135]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2A),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first [structure layer] (microcell bottom layer 210, protrusion structure 217, microcell walls 212, and channel 215) including a first… material (the material of 210, 217 and 212) a guide pattern (protrusion structure 217) and a groove (channel 215) disposed on at least one side of the guide pattern (see Figs. 2A and 14); and
a second dielectric (electrophoretic medium 209, which is a dielectric with a low dielectric constant see paragraph [0135]) including a plurality of light blocking particles (electrically charged pigment particles 222, which are light blocking in that the control the variable light transmission, see e.g. paragraph [0083]) and a second dielectric material (paragraph [0135]: “solvents used in electrophoretic media have low dielectric constant (preferably less than 10 and desirably less than 3)… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene, since it combines a low dielectric constant (2.3)”).”
(claim 19) “wherein the first dielectric further comprises a spacer (wall 212) maintaining a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 2A the microcell walls 212 maintain the space between the two substrates and electrode layers.).”
(claim 23) “wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed (the thickness of microcell bottom layer 210),
wherein the first dielectric has a second thickness in an area where the guide pattern is disposed (the thickness of protrusion 217), and
wherein the first dielectric has a third thickness in an area where the spacer is disposed (the thickness of wall 212).”
Telfer further teaches (paragraph [0020]): An encapsulated or microcell electrophoretic display typically does not suffer from the clustering and settling failure mode of traditional electrophoretic devices and provides further advantages, such as the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a microcell bottom layer with a finite thickness as taught by Telfer in the suspended particle shutter layer of the Song – Ota combination in order to fully encapsulate the electrophoretic medium as taught by Telfer, see paragraph [0006], to avoid clustering and settling failures and further advantages such as the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates, as taught by Telfer (paragraph [0020]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al US 2025/0216739 A1 “Light Controlling Panel and Transparent Display Device Including the Same” pertinent to at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET 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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights