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. 18/805,808 filed on August 15, 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 25, 2023 (Korea KR10-2023-0112015).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 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 applicant' s drawings submitted on August 15, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, 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, 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) there are no working examples of the dielectric permittivity of the solvent and the first dielectric having a difference greater than or equal to 15 (H) an undue quantity of experimentation would be needed to make the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
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.
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song et al. US 2021/0382366 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Song).
Regarding claim 24, Song teaches “A transparent display device (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “transparent display apparatus according to the present disclosure”), comprising:
a transparent 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) at 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 dielectric layer (paragraph [0085]: The transparent fluid TL may be an uncharged liquid such as pure water” water is a dielectric with a dielectric permittivity of about 80.),
wherein:
the dielectric layer comprises a plurality of light blocking particles (charged black particles BP) that are movable (e.g. paragraph [0099]: “the charged black particles BP having negative ions may move”);
the light controlling panel is configured to operate in a light-blocking mode (e.g. paragraph [0099]: “FIG. 6A is a cross-sectional view illustrating one example of the light blocking mode in the light shutter panel LST”) or a light-transmitting mode (e.g. paragraph [0099]: “FIG. 6B is a cross-sectional view illustrating a light transmitting mode of the light shutter panel LST”); and
for the light-transmitting mode, the light controlling panel is configured to cause the plurality of light blocking particles to move into an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (see Fig. 9B, the grooves into which the particles move in the light-transmitting mode are arranged corresponding to the EA areas, see dotted lines and double arrows showing IB in an EA area).”
Regarding claim 25, Song teaches “The transparent display device of claim 24, wherein:
for the light-transmitting mode, the light controlling panel is configured to cause all of the plurality of light blocking particles to move into the area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (see Fig. 9B, the grooves into which the particles move in the light-transmitting mode are arranged corresponding to the EA areas, see dotted lines and double arrows showing IB in an EA area. The IB areas are where the particles reside in the light-transmitting mode, see Fig. 6B), with none of the plurality of light blocking particles for being in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Fig. 9B the IB areas are exclusive beneath the EA areas, not the TA areas); and
for the light-blocking mode, the light controlling panel is configured to cause the plurality of light blocking particles to be present in areas corresponding to the non-transmissive area and the transmissive area (see light-blocking mode of Fig. 6A, particles are present above both the IB regions and the EG regions, thus in Fig. 9B the particles will be present in areas corresponding to the non-transmissive area and the transmissive area when the LST is in the light-blocking mode).”
Regarding claim 26, Song teaches “The transparent display device of claim 24, wherein:
the light controlling panel further includes a first electrode (lower transparent electrode layer 103) and a second electrode (upper transparent electrode layer 203);
the dielectric layer is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 6A, STL and IK are between 103 and 203); and
in accordance with whether a voltage is for being applied to the first electrode and the second electrode, the light controlling panel is configured operate in the light-blocking mode (paragraph [0099]: “A negative common voltage may be applied to the lower transparent electrode layer 103 and a positive driving voltage may be applied to the upper transparent electrode layer 203, at the same time. Accordingly, the charged black particles BP having negative ions may move to the upper transparent substrate 201. The charged black particles BP may be evenly distributed to cover the entire surface of the upper transparent electrode layer 203, so the light shutter panel LST may be in the light blocking mode.” emphasis added) or the light-transmitting mode (paragraph [0100]: “FIG. 6B is a cross-sectional view illustrating a light transmitting mode of the light shutter panel LST according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure. Referring to FIG. 6A, the charged black particles BP of the black ink IK may be charged with the negative ions. A positive driving voltage may be applied to the lower transparent electrode layer 103, and a negative common voltage may be applied to the upper transparent electrode layer 203, at the same time. Accordingly, all of the charge black particles BP having the negative ions may move to the lower transparent electrode layer 103. Here, the charged black particles charged black particle BP are distributed only within the minimum light blocking portion IB due to the electric field guide EG. As a result, the minimum light blocking portion IB may be in the light blocking state, and other areas may be in the light transmitting state.” emphasis added).”
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 1-3, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota).
Regarding claim 1, O’Keeffe teaches “A light controlling panel (paragraph [0037]: “a light shutter, a light attenuator, a variable light transmittance sheet… a display…”), comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode (two transparent electrodes 60 or 260) disposed to face each other (see e.g. Fig. 2c); and
a dielectric layer (layer with electrophoretic medium 273 and other structures listed below, which is a dielectric layer at least in that the solvent has a low dielectric constant see paragraph [0089]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2c),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first [structure layer] (cavity walls 52, non-planar polymer structure 21,22,23,24 including protrusions 31,32,33) including a first… material (paragraph [0039] polymer) and a groove (interstices area 41,42,43 which can be discontinuous see paragraph [0133])… and
a second dielectric (suspending fluid 71 and particles 10, where the fluid is dielectric with a low dielectric constant such as 2.3 see paragraph [0091]) including a plurality of light blocking particles (particles 10, which are light blocking because they are pigment particles that absorb a portion of the incident light see paragraph [0003]) and a solvent (paragraph [0091]: “The fluids are preferably solvents… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene”) including a second dielectric material (paragraph [0091]: “The fluids used in the variable transmission media of the present invention will typically be of 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 [0091]: “low dielectric constant (preferably less than 10 and desirably less than 3)… a low dielectric constant (2.3)”)…
wherein the first [structure layer] comprises a first… pattern (walls 52 or the portion of the protrusions 31,32,33,72 that are apodized with serrations 31b, 32b, 33b,34b or steps 76 and 75) disposed between adjacent grooves (With respect to the walls 52, see Figs. 1b and 2c, the walls 52 are between adjacent groove-shaped interstices 41/42/43. With respect to the serrations 31b, 32b, 33b,34b or steps 76 and 75 see paragraph [0133]: “In some embodiments the circumscribed aperture diameter (defined by protrusion diameter 1321) is the same as the flat-to-flat width of the hexagonal wall cavity and so the interstices area (43) is discontinuous.” When the grooves are discontinuous, the groove disposed directly across the intervening protrusion within one cell is an “adjacent” groove, with the protrusion and its serrations disposed therebetween.), and
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (31,32,72) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (best seen in Fig. 2c).”
However, O’Keeffe fails to teach “a first dielectric including a first dielectric material… the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity; and… 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)”),
wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern (71) disposed between adjacent grooves (see e.g. Fig. 2), and
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (51) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (see Fig. 2 51 protrudes toward second electrode 40).”
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.”
O’Keeffe 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 O’Keeffe 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 O’Keeffe, 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 2, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe teaches “wherein the protrusion has an inclined side surface of a regular tapered shape (This is met in at least the following ways. (1) As can be seen in Figs. 2a and 2c, there is an inclined side surface underlying the serrations that is more steeply inclined than the central conical portion that has a regular tapered shape. (2) The side surfaces of the serrations also have regular tapered shapes as seen in Fig. 1c and 2a. (3) the stepped sides in Fig. 7b have a regular tapered shape in that they have a draft angle to the vertical see paragraph [0107]).”
Regarding claim 3, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the protrusion has a flat top surface (paragraph [0130]: “the protrusion surface inside the serrated area… is a flat top”).”
Regarding claim 7, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the first dielectric further comprises a spacer (wall 52) maintaining a gap between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2c and paragraph [0034]: “the walls and bottom creating a volume”. The walls “create” a volume by maintaining a gap between the two electrods 260), and
wherein the groove is disposed at at least one side of the spacer (the grooves of adjacent microcells are disposed on either side of the walls.).”
Regarding claim 8, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 7,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the groove is disposed between the first dielectric pattern and the spacer (see e.g. Fig. 3a where interstices area 43 is between 33 and 53 in the corners of the hexagon), and
the groove is disposed between adjacent first dielectric patterns (Two areas 43 and one wall 53 are disposed between adjacent patterns 33 in adjacent microcells).”
Regarding claim 10, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the first dielectric pattern is extended in a first direction (See Fig. 3a, the serrated/apodized portion of 33 extends in both the radial and circumferential directions, either of which can be called the first direction.),
wherein the protrusion is extended in the first direction on the top surface of the first dielectric pattern (The central top portion of 33 also extends in both the radial and circumferential directions), and
wherein the groove is extended in the first direction parallel to the first dielectric pattern or the protrusion (areas 43 also extend in the radial direction between the outer diameter of 33 and the wall, and in the circumferential directions across each corner from one wall to the next).”
Regarding claim 11, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the first dielectric is disposed on a top surface of the first electrode (see Fig. 2c), and
wherein the first dielectric has a first thickness in an area where the groove is disposed (see thickness between the electrode 260 and the electrophoretic medium 273).”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Shibata et al. WO 2019/167542 A1 (hereafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 4, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein a horizontal distance between a first point of the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and a second point of a top surface of the protrusion (for example the diameter of the top surface of the protrusion interior to the serrations. In paragraph [0120] the flat-to-flat width of the entire circular protrusion, 1321, is 600 microns and the serration length, 1322 is 100 microns, thus the diameter of the top surface, 1320 is 600-(2x100)=400 microns) is less than a vertical distance which is a height of the protrusion (paragraph [0141]: “the cell has a width (W), representing a longest interior dimension that may be between 50 microns and 5,000 microns… while the height from the extend of the raised feature (56) is… from 1% to 60% of the cell width”. As seen in Fig. 5a, W is the largest diagonal length, point to point, across the hexagon, whereas 1321 in Fig. 3a is the diameter of the circular protrusion. As shown in the diagram below, for a protrusion where the circumscribed aperture diameter (defined by protrusion diameter 1321) is the same as the flat-to-flat width of the hexagonal wall cavity, see paragraph [133], one can calculate the width W, from the diameter 1321, using the fact that the shown triangle is a 30°, 60°, 90° triangle. In particular,
W
2
÷
3
=
d
2
÷
2
), thus
W
=
2
d
÷
3
, thus for d= 600 microns, W=692.8 microns. Taking the upper limit of the preferred range of the ratio of the height to the cell width of 60%, this results in a height of 416 microns which is greater than 400 microns),
wherein the first point is a point where the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and one end of a side surface of the protrusion meet (a point where the top surface meets the serrations), and
wherein the second point is a point where the top surface of the protrusion and the other end of the side surface of the protrusion meet (the point where the top surface meets the serrations which is diagonally across from the first point).”
PNG
media_image1.png
292
318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the calculations above merely establish that O’Keeffe teaches a range of relative horizontal and vertical distances as claimed which overlaps the claimed relative size that the horizontal distance is less than the vertical distance, because O’Keeffe does not explicitly discuss a 60% height to cell width ratio being associated with the example of paragraph [0120].
O’Keeffe further teaches (paragraph [0115]): “In the first light state, to minimize the peak light intensity in the diffraction bands of light transmitted through the serrated apertures of embodiments (or about serrated obstructions) the following formulas/relationships are used as a guide. The optimum values can be arrived at through trials of the range of values. The range shown is for practical implementation purposes.”
Shibata teaches (claim 1) “A light controlling panel (1), comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode (40 and 50) disposed to face each other (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0074]); and
a dielectric layer (light distribution layer 30, where liquid 37 and structures 31a and 31b are dielectric see paragraph [0064]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0074]),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric (structures 31a and 31b which are dielectric see paragraph [0064]) including a first dielectric material (structures 31a and 31b which are dielectric see paragraph [0064]) and a groove (the grooves between 31a or between 31b), the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0064]: “the dielectric constant of the first uneven structure layer 31a and the second uneven structure layer 31b”); and
a second dielectric (liquid 37 and nanoparticles 38, where 37 is dielectric see paragraph [0064]) including a plurality of… particles (nanoparticles 38) and a solvent (37 is a solvent see paragraph [0063]) including a second dielectric material (37 is dielectric see paragraph [0064]) having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0064]: “the insulating liquid 37 may have a low dielectric constant (for example, less than or equal to the dielectric constant of the first uneven structure layer 31a and the second uneven structure layer 31b)”)…
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (uneven structure 31a) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (31a protrudes towards electrode 50).”
(claim 4) “wherein a horizontal distance between a first point of the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and a second point of a top surface of the protrusion (paragraph [0127]: “In Example 2… the top of the first protrusion 33 and the second protrusion 35 is 2 μm”) is less than a vertical distance which is a height of the protrusion (paragraph [0127]: “In Example 2… the height of the first protrusion 33 and the second protrusion 35 is 30 μm”. where 2 μm is less than 30 μm).”
It is a well-established proposition that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
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 horizontal width at the top of the protrusions relative to the height of the protrusions, such that the horizontal distance claimed is less than the vertical distance claimed which overlaps the disclosed range of O’Keeffe as established by the exemplary calculations above, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, width to height ratio is an art recognized results effective variable in that the ranges described by O’Keeffe are appropriate for practical implementations thereof, but that the optimum values can be arrived at through trials of the range of values as taught by O’Keeffe, paragraph [0115]. Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the width to height ratio because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Shibata teaches examples of convex, trapezoidally cross-sectioned dielectric structures where the claimed horizontal width is less than the claimed vertical distance.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota) as evidenced by Kang US 9,279,906 B2 and Liang et al. US 7,072,095 B2 (hereafter Liang).
Regarding claim 5, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, and the groove is disposed as a single body (O’Keeffe paragraph [0007] teaches that the microcell structure can be formed by embossing. O’Keeffe paragraph [0010] teaches that the microcell structures, wall materials, and methods of forming microcells can be found in for example U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,072,095 and 9,279,906. Kang teaches embossing the entire microcell structure, by use of a drum mounted embossing shim, see Fig. 6. Liang teaches forming the microcup structure by microembossing or photolithograpy see col. 2 lines 38-44. All of these methods involve making all of the structures of the microcells out of a single continuous sheet of material, and thus the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, and the groove being disposed as a single body).”
Regarding claim 9, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 7,” and O’Keeffe further teaches “wherein the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, the groove, and the spacer are disposed as a single body (O’Keeffe paragraph [0007] teaches that the microcell structure can be formed by embossing. O’Keeffe paragraph [0010] teaches that the microcell structures, wall materials, and methods of forming microcells can be found in for example U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,072,095 and 9,279,906. Kang teaches embossing the entire microcell structure, by use of a drum mounted embossing shim, see Fig. 6. Liang teaches forming the microcup structure by microembossing or photolithograpy see col. 2 lines 38-44. All of these methods involve making all of the structures of the microcells out of a single continuous sheet of material, and thus the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, the groove, and the spacer being disposed as a single body.).”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) 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 6, the O’Keeffe – 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 (O’Keeffe teaches that the second dielectric permittivity can preferably be 2.3, paragraph [0091], 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 O’Keeffe – 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 6) “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 O’Keeffe – 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 (O’Keeffe paragraph [0091]).
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 O’Keeffe, 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) in view of Ota et al. WO 2019/187753 A1 (hereafter Ota) as evidenced by O’Keeffe US 10,067,398 B2.
Regarding claim 12, the O’Keeffe – Ota combination teaches “The light controlling panel of claim 1, wherein each of the first electrode and the second electrode is a transparent electrode (transparent electrodes 60)
wherein the first electrode or the second electrode is disposed to correspond to a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 2c shows the electrodes extending across multiple cavities and a plurality of protrusions. That one of these two is a common electrode that extends across the whole device would be understood, because paragraph [0112] discloses “The forming of light states in an electrophoretic device using protrusions is described in more detail in the applicant's US 10,067,398 titled “An Electrophoretic Device Having a Transparent Light State”. In col. 30, lines 25-32 of US 10,067,398 it is explained “The active-matrix creates a matrix of pixels by patterning a bottom electrode into a matrix of pixel electrodes. The top electrode 60 is referred to as a common electrode.”).”
Claims 13-15 and 20 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 13, Song teaches “A transparent display device (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “transparent display apparatus according to the present disclosure”), comprising:
a transparent 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)… the first dielectric further including a groove (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)…
wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern (spacers SP) disposed between adjacent grooves (for example, consider Fig. 9A, the spacers SP separate and are between grooves that are adjacent to one another along the Y-direction. The spacers, SP, are also disposed between the adjacent grooves on either side thereof in the X-direction, within an region that also includes two guides EG, see Figs. 9A and 6-8.), and
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (electric field guide EG) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 6A EG protrudes towards 203).”
However, Song fails to explicitly teach “a dielectric layer… wherein the dielectric layer comprises: a first dielectric including a first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity… a second dielectric including… a solvent including a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity.”
Ota teaches (claim 13) “a light controlling panel (optical device 1, paragraph [0001]: “(optical device 1)”), including a first electrode (first electrode 30) and 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”) having a first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70”), the first dielectric further including a groove (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 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)”),
wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern (71) disposed between adjacent grooves (see e.g. Fig. 2), and
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (51) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (see Fig. 2 51 protrudes toward second electrode 40).”
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 14, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein the protrusion has an inclined side surface of a regular tapered shape (see inclined, regular tapered shape of EG in Figs. 6-9).”
Regarding claim 15, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein the protrusion has a flat top surface (paragraph [0104]: “the top of the electric field guide EG may have a plane surface”).”
Regarding claim 20, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein a plurality of protrusions are disposed in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Figs. 9A,9B, EG are disposed under the areas TA), and
at least one groove is disposed between two adjacent first dielectric patterns (for example, consider Fig. 9A, the spacers SP separate and are between any two grooves that are adjacent to one another along the Y-direction. The spacers, SP, are also disposed between two adjacent grooves on either side thereof in the X-direction, within an region that also includes two guides EG, see Figs. 9A and 6-8.).”
For the purpose considering claims 16-19 and 21-22, the following additional rejection of claim 13 over Song, Ota and O’Keeffe is introduced below.
Claims 13, 18-19 and 21-22 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) and O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe).
Regarding claim 13, Song teaches “A transparent display device (e.g. paragraph [0050]: “transparent display apparatus according to the present disclosure”), comprising:
a transparent 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)… the first dielectric further including a groove (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)…
wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern (spacers SP) disposed between adjacent grooves (for example, consider Fig. 9A, the spacers SP separate and are between grooves that are adjacent to one another along the Y-direction. The spacers, SP, are also disposed between the adjacent grooves on either side thereof in the X-direction, within an region that also includes two guides EG, see Figs. 9A and 6-8.), and
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (electric field guide EG) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 6A EG protrudes towards 203).”
However, Song fails to explicitly teach “a dielectric layer… wherein the dielectric layer comprises: a first dielectric including a first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity… a second dielectric including… a solvent including a second dielectric material having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity.”
Ota teaches (claim 13) “a light controlling panel (optical device 1, paragraph [0001]: “(optical device 1)”), including a first electrode (first electrode 30) and 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”) having a first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0057]: “the dielectric constants of the first uneven structure 50 and the second uneven structure 70”), the first dielectric further including a groove (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 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)”),
wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern (71) disposed between adjacent grooves (see e.g. Fig. 2), and
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (51) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (see Fig. 2 51 protrudes toward second electrode 40).”
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]).
However, Song fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves” of claim 13 in a manner that is compatible with claims 16-19 and 21-22.
O’Keeffe teaches (claim 13) “A… display device (e.g. paragraph [0003]: “such films may be incorporated into displays”), comprising:
a… display panel (paragraph [0003]: display) including… a plurality of pixels (displays have a plurality of pixels) are disposed; and
a light controlling panel (paragraph [0037]: “a light shutter, a light attenuator, a variable light transmittance sheet… a display…”) including a first electrode, a second electrode (two transparent electrodes 60 or 260), and a dielectric layer (layer with electrophoretic medium 273 and other structures listed below, which is a dielectric layer at least in that the solvent has a low dielectric constant see paragraph [0089]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 2c),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first [structure layer] (cavity walls 52, non-planar polymer structure 21,22,23,24 including protrusions 31,32,33) including a first … material (paragraph [0039] polymer)… the first dielectric further including a groove (interstices area 41,42,43 which can be discontinuous see paragraph [0133]); and
a second dielectric (suspending fluid 71 and particles 10, where the fluid is dielectric with a low dielectric constant such as 2.3 see paragraph [0091]) including a plurality of light blocking particles (particles 10, which are light blocking because they are pigment particles that absorb a portion of the incident light see paragraph [0003]) and a solvent (paragraph [0091]: “The fluids are preferably solvents… A particularly preferred solvent is limonene”) including a second dielectric material (paragraph [0091]: “The fluids used in the variable transmission media of the present invention will typically be of 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)”)…
wherein the first [structure layer] comprises a first… pattern (the portion of the protrusions 31,32,33,72 that are apodized with serrations 31b, 32b, 33b,34b or steps 76 and 75) disposed between adjacent grooves (With respect to the serrations 31b, 32b, 33b,34b or steps 76 and 75 see paragraph [0133]: “In some embodiments the circumscribed aperture diameter (defined by protrusion diameter 1321) is the same as the flat-to-flat width of the hexagonal wall cavity and so the interstices area (43) is discontinuous.” When the grooves are discontinuous, the groove disposed directly across the intervening protrusion within one cell is an “adjacent” groove, with the protrusion and its serrations disposed therebetween.), and
wherein the first [structure layer] further comprises a protrusion (the central, non-apodized portions of 31,32,72) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (best seen in Fig. 2c).”
O’Keeffe further teaches (paragraph [0032]): “There is a need for an electrophoretic device that has less perception of diffraction, preferably by significantly suppressing the diffraction pattern, and the scale of the diffraction visible about bright lights (in the distance) viewed through the device.”
(paragraph [0037]): “Such electrophoretic cells may be incorporated into a light shutter, a light attenuator, a variable light transmittance sheet,… a display, or a digital sign.”
(paragraph [0040]): “In embodiments, the capture volumes are arranged to apodize transmitted light. In the first light state, apodization changes an aperture's (or obstruction's) transmission profile resulting in non-uniform transmission.”
(paragraph [0061]): “In embodiments, the maxima in a diffraction pattern in far-field viewing conditions will be less than half the corresponding non-apodized device for the 4th and higher order maxima shown by a PSF plot of intensity versus distance (or viewing angle). In more preferred embodiments, the suppression of diffraction in the higher order maxima (≥5th) is at least 3 fold and consequently their pattern is not perceivable when viewing a bright light through a device's face.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a serrated or apodization pattern as the claimed first dielectric pattern as taught by O’Keeffe to the protrusions, electric field guides EG, of Song, such that the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves. One would have been motivated to introduce these apodization features to the light control panel of a display as taught by O’Keeffe (paragraph [0037]) in order to reduce or suppress any diffraction patterns that would otherwise have been introduced by the structures of the light control panel as taught by O’Keeffe (see paragraphs 0032, 0040 and 0061).
Regarding claim 18, the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein … the protrusion [is] disposed in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Fig. 9B, EG is formed in the TA areas).”
However, Song fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric pattern… [is] disposed in an area corresponding to the transmissive area.”
O’Keeffe teaches (claim 18) “wherein the first dielectric pattern and the protrusion are disposed in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Figs. 1c and 2d, the walls of the serrations that correspond to the first dielectric pattern, and the central protrusion regions are disposed in the light transmissive areas of the light controlling panel. In particular, the particles are concentrated in the interstices and the open groove portions of the serrations and do not rest on the top of the protrusion or the tops of the serration walls.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a serrated or apodization pattern as the claimed first dielectric pattern as taught by O’Keeffe to the protrusions, electric field guides EG, of Song, such that the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves and the first dielectric pattern is disposed in an area corresponding to the transmissive area. One would have been motivated to introduce these apodization features to the light control panel of a display as taught by O’Keeffe (paragraph [0037]) in order to reduce or suppress any diffraction patterns that would otherwise have been introduced by the structures of the light control panel as taught by O’Keeffe (see paragraphs 0032, 0040 and 0061).
Regarding claim 19, the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein… the protrusion are extended in a first direction (see Fig. 9A, protrusions EG are extended in the Y-direction for a substantial length)… in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Figs. 9A-9B, EG are in areas corresponding to TA), and
wherein the groove is extended, in the first direction parallel to at least one of the first dielectric pattern or the protrusion (Figs. 9A-9B, IB are extended in the Y-direction), in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (Figs. 9A-9B, IB correspond to EA).”
However, Song fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric pattern …[is] extended in a first direction in an area corresponding to the transmissive area.”
O’Keeffe teaches (claim 19) “wherein the first dielectric pattern and the protrusion are extended in a first direction (the serrations and central protrusion extend in both the radial and circumferential directions) in an area corresponding to the transmissive area (see Figs. 1c and 2d, the walls of the serrations that correspond to the first dielectric pattern, and the central protrusion regions are disposed in the light transmissive areas of the light controlling panel. In particular, the particles are concentrated in the interstices and the open groove portions of the serrations and do not rest on the top of the protrusion or the tops of the serration walls.), and
wherein the groove is extended, in the first direction parallel to at least one of the first dielectric pattern or the protrusion (the interstices areas 43 are extended in the radial direction between the protrusions and the walls, and in the circumferential direction between neighboring walls), in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (the grooves are in an area that always contains colored particles and thus is non-transmissive).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a serrated or apodization pattern as the claimed first dielectric pattern as taught by O’Keeffe to the protrusions, electric field guides EG, of Song, such that the first dielectric comprises a first dielectric pattern disposed between adjacent grooves disposed in transmissive areas. One would have been motivated to introduce these apodization features to the light control panel of a display as taught by O’Keeffe (paragraph [0037]) in order to reduce or suppress any diffraction patterns that would otherwise have been introduced by the structures of the light control panel as taught by O’Keeffe (see paragraphs 0032, 0040 and 0061).
Note that the limitations “wherein the first dielectric pattern and the protrusion are extended in a first direction in an area corresponding to the transmissive area” are considered to be met by the combination of references, because the combination served to add serrations or apodization structures as a first dielectric pattern as taught by O’Keeffe to the existing protrusions, EG of Song. Thus the first dielectric patterns in the combination extend in the same first direction as the protrusions EG and the grooves IB/IS.
Regarding claim 21, the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” 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 (e.g. paragraph [0007]: “a plurality of spacers maintaining a gap between the lower electrode plate”), wherein the groove is disposed at least one side of the spacer (This is met in at least the following way: see Fig. 9A the spacers SP are embedded in a groove, such that the groove is disposed on either side of the spacer in the Y-direction.), and wherein the spacer and the groove are disposed in an area corresponding to the non-transmissive area (see Figs. 9A and 9B the grooves and spacers are disposed corresponding to EA, not TA).”
Regarding claim 22, the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 21,” and Song further teaches “wherein … a plurality of protrusions are disposed between adjacent spacers (see e.g. Fig. 9A, there are a plurality of protrusions EG between spacers, SP that are adjacent to one another in the X-direction).”
However, Song fails to teach “wherein a plurality of first dielectric patterns… are disposed between adjacent spacers.”
The combination of references introduced for claim 13 above served to incorporate serrations or apodization features as taught by O’Keeffe to the protrusions, EG of Song. Thus the combination of references teaches “wherein a plurality of first dielectric patterns… are disposed between adjacent spacers” because a plurality of first dielectric patterns have been added to the plurality of protrusions EG.
Claim 16 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) and O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shibata et al. WO 2019/167542 A1 (hereafter Shibata).
Regarding claim 16, the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein a horizontal distance between a first point of the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and a second point of a top surface of the protrusion (the width of the rounded tip of EG in Fig. 7)… a vertical distance which is a height of the protrusion (the height of the protrusions EG).”
However, Song does not explicitly teach “wherein the first point is a point where the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and one end of a side surface of the protrusion meet, and
wherein the second point is a point where the top surface of the protrusion and the other end of the side surface of the protrusion meet.”
This limitation is considered to be met by the combination of references introduced for claim 13 because O’Keeffe teaches “wherein a horizontal distance between a first point of the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and a second point of a top surface of the protrusion (for example the diameter of the top surface of the protrusion interior to the serrations. In paragraph [0120] the flat-to-flat width of the entire circular protrusion, 1321, is 600 microns and the serration length, 1322 is 100 microns, thus the diameter of the top surface, 1320 is 600-(2x100)=400 microns)… a vertical distance which is a height of the protrusion (paragraph [0141]: “the cell has a width (W), representing a longest interior dimension that may be between 50 microns and 5,000 microns… while the height from the extend of the raised feature (56) is… from 1% to 60% of the cell width”),
wherein the first point is a point where the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and one end of a side surface of the protrusion meet (a point where the top surface meets the serrations), and
wherein the second point is a point where the top surface of the protrusion and the other end of the side surface of the protrusion meet (the point where the top surface meets the serrations which is diagonally across from the first point).”
Thus when the serrations or apodizations of O’Keeffe are added to the protrusions, EG, of Song, as introduced for claim 13 above, the claimed horizontal distance can be defined by the points where the central portion of the protrusion meet the beginnings of the serrations.
However, Song fails to teach “wherein a horizontal distance between a first point of the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and a second point of a top surface of the protrusion is less than a vertical distance which is a height of the protrusion.”
Song depicts and discusses the top of the protrusion EG as being just a rounded tip, whereas the height of the protrusions is 50%-90% of the height of the spacers, thus Song suggests the claimed horizontal distance being less than the claimed vertical distance, but does not explicitly, numerically, disclose it as such.
Song further teaches (paragraph [0104]): “The top of the electric field guide EG may have a round tip structure in which the middle portion has the highest height and sloped side to downward direction, so all of the charge black particles BP may be smoothly moved into the black particle storage portion BS. When the top of the electric field guide EG may have a plane surface or a concaved surface, some of the charged black particles BP may remain on the top of the electric field guide EG. Therefore, the transmittance ratio may be degraded. It is preferable that the top of the electric field guide EG may have a convex rounded tip shape.”
Shibata teaches (claim 1) “A light controlling panel (1), comprising:
a first electrode and a second electrode (40 and 50) disposed to face each other (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0074]); and
a dielectric layer (light distribution layer 30, where liquid 37 and structures 31a and 31b are dielectric see paragraph [0064]) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 1 and paragraph [0074]),
wherein the dielectric layer comprises:
a first dielectric (structures 31a and 31b which are dielectric see paragraph [0064]) including a first dielectric material (structures 31a and 31b which are dielectric see paragraph [0064]) and a groove (the grooves between 31a or between 31b), the first dielectric material having a first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0064]: “the dielectric constant of the first uneven structure layer 31a and the second uneven structure layer 31b”); and
a second dielectric (liquid 37 and nanoparticles 38, where 37 is dielectric see paragraph [0064]) including a plurality of… particles (nanoparticles 38) and a solvent (37 is a solvent see paragraph [0063]) including a second dielectric material (37 is dielectric see paragraph [0064]) having a second dielectric permittivity less than the first dielectric permittivity (paragraph [0064]: “the insulating liquid 37 may have a low dielectric constant (for example, less than or equal to the dielectric constant of the first uneven structure layer 31a and the second uneven structure layer 31b)”)…
wherein the first dielectric further comprises a protrusion (uneven structure 31a) where a portion of a top surface of the first dielectric pattern protrudes toward the second electrode (31a protrudes towards electrode 50).”
(claim 16) “wherein a horizontal distance between a first point of the top surface of the first dielectric pattern and a second point of a top surface of the protrusion (paragraph [0127]: “In Example 2… the top of the first protrusion 33 and the second protrusion 35 is 2 μm”) is less than a vertical distance which is a height of the protrusion (paragraph [0127]: “In Example 2… the height of the first protrusion 33 and the second protrusion 35 is 30 μm”. where 2 μm is less than 30 μm).”
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 claimed horizontal distance to be less than the claimed vertical distance as taught by Shibata in the device of the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination so that the charged black particles do not remain on the top surface of the electric field guide (Song paragraph [0104]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 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) and O’Keeffe et al. US 2023/0100320 A1 (hereafter O’Keeffe) as applied to claim 13 above, and as evidenced by Kang US 9,279,906 B2 (hereafter Kang) and Liang US 7,072,095 B2 (hereafter Liang).
Regarding claim 17, the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” however, Song fails to teach “wherein the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, and the groove is disposed as a single body.
O’Keeffe teaches “wherein the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, and the groove is disposed as a single body (O’Keeffe paragraph [0007] teaches that the microcell structure can be formed by embossing. O’Keeffe paragraph [0010] teaches that the microcell structures, wall materials, and methods of forming microcells can be found in for example U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,072,095 and 9,279,906. Kang teaches embossing the entire microcell structure, by use of a drum mounted embossing shim, see Fig. 6. Liang teaches forming the microcup structure by microembossing or photolithograpy see col. 2 lines 38-44. All of these methods involve making all of the structures of the microcells out of a single continuous sheet of material, and thus the first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, and the groove being disposed as a single body).”
O’Keeffe further teaches (paragraph [0024]): “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… Thus, the resulting display can be flexible. Further, because the display medium can be printed (using a variety of methods), the display itself can be made inexpensively.”
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 first dielectric pattern, the protrusion, and the groove as a single body as taught by O’Keeffe in the device of the Song – Ota – O’Keeffe combination for at least the advantages of the ability to print or coat the display on a wide variety of flexible and rigid substrates resulting in displays that can be flexible and can be made inexpensively as taught by O’Keeffe (paragraph [0024]).
Claim 23 is 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 claim 13 above and further in view of Ulmer US 2018/0366622 A1 (hereafter Ulmer).
Regarding claim 23, the Song – Ota combination teaches “The transparent display device of claim 13,” and Song further teaches “wherein the transparent display panel further comprises a light emitting device (e.g. paragraph [0059]: “A pixel P, in the area excepting the transmission area TA, may include an organic light emitting diode”) and a color (e.g. paragraph [0060]: “An emission area EA may represent one color light”) … and
wherein the groove is disposed to overlap the light emitting device and the color (see Figs. 9A,9B the grooves IB/IS are beneath the emission areas EA where the color pixels are arranged.).”
However, Song does not explicitly teach “a color filter disposed on the light emitting device.”
Ulmer teaches paragraph [0003] “A color display is typically composed of pixels that emit light in three wavelength bands corresponding to the visible colors red, green, and blue (RGB), often referred to as an RGB display… the most prevalent technology and they produce RGB images by shining a white light source, typically a phosphor produced white light emitting diode (LED), through the color filter of a sub-pixel.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ color filters in the R, G, B, subpixels of Song as taught by Ulmer, because Ulmer teaches that a white light source shining through different color filters is a prevalent technology for RGB displays.
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.
Telfer et al. US 2024/0219801 A1 “Variable Light Transmission Device and a Method of Operation of the Same” pertinent to the state of the art.
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