DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025 has been considered by the examiner, to the extent possible in view of the long list of documents. The Applicants should note that it is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. For example, eliminate clearly irrelevant and only marginally pertinent information, and especially cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, a highlight of those documents brought to the Applicants’ attention and/or are known to be of most significance would be helpful to avoid possibly missing such a significant reference. [See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 7,379,228; already of record) in view of Amundson et al. (US 2006/0038772; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses, a method for driving an electrophoretic display (Figs. 1-2 and 8) comprising:
a light-transmissive electrode (“CF”);
a back electrode (“FE1”);
a layer of encapsulated electrophoretic medium (Col. 5, lines 1-8 and “IV”) disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode, the electrophoretic medium comprising three types of pigment particles (“Pa”, “Pb” and “Pc”) in a fluid (“IV”), each type of pigment particle having a different color and a different dielectrophoretic mobility from each other (Col. 5, lines 1-11 and 31-42), the method comprising:
providing a first signal (“FE2a”) to position the first type of pigment relative to the light-transmissive electrode (Col. 6, lines 19-26 and 42-65);
providing a second signal (“FE2b”) to position the second type of pigment relative to the light-transmissive electrode (Col. 6, lines 19-26 and 42-65); and
providing a third signal (“FE2c”) to position the third type of pigment relative to the light-transmissive electrode (Col. 6, lines 19-26 and 42-65), thus creating a mixed color of the first pigment and the second pigment, or the second pigment and the third pigment, or the first pigment and the third pigment at the viewing surface (Col. 5, lines 1-11 and 31-42).
Johnson does not disclose the signals have a frequency and magnitude.
Amundson teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for driving an electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the signals have a frequency and magnitude (Para. 0111 and Claim 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the signals have a frequency and magnitude as taught by the method for driving an electrophoretic display of Amundson in the method for driving an electrophoretic display of Johnson since Amundson teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for driving an electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing an electrophoretic display with improved service life, improved state biostability, good brightness, good contrast and low power consumption.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 7,379,228; already of record) in view of Amundson et al. (US 2006/0038772; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pullen et al. (US 6,870,661; already of record).
Johnson in view of Amundson remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Johnson in view of Amundson does not disclose the three types of pigment particles also differ from each other in size of the particle.
Pullen teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for driving an electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the three types of pigment particles also differ from each other in size of the particle (see 108 ,218, 320 of Figs. 3A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the three types of pigment particles also differ from each other in size of the particle as taught by the method for driving an electrophoretic display of Pullen in the combination of Johnson in view of Amundson since Pullen teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for driving an electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a method for driving an electrophoretic display with improved brightness and contrast.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 7,379,228; already of record) in view of Amundson et al. (US 2006/0038772; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilcox et al. (US 2008/0266245).
Johnson in view of Amundson remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Johnson in view of Amundson does not disclose the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises dissolved or dispersed a high molecular weight polymer.
Wilcox teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for driving an electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises dissolved or dispersed a high molecular weight polymer (Para. 0037 and Claim 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises dissolved or dispersed a high molecular weight polymer as taught by the method for driving an electrophoretic display of Wilcox in the combination of Johnson in view of Amundson since Wilcox teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for driving an electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a method for driving an electrophoretic display with improved steric stabilization and surface charge.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 7,379,228; already of record) in view of Amundson et al. (US 2006/0038772; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albert et al. (US 2003/0112491; already of record).
Johnson in view of Amundson remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Johnson in view of Amundson does not disclose the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises a charge control agent (CCA).
Albert teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for driving an electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises a charge control agent (CCA) (Para. 0104, lines 17-18 and Para. 0111-0112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises a charge control agent (CCA) as taught by the method for driving an electrophoretic display of Albert in the combination of Johnson in view of Amundson since Albert teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for driving an electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a method for driving an electrophoretic display with good brightness, good contrast and improved lifetime of the ink.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson in view of Albert discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Albert further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a method for driving an electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the electrophoretic medium is encapsulated in gelatin microcapsules (Para. 0126 and 0144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the method for driving an electrophoretic display of Albert in the combination of Johnson in view of Amundson since Albert teaches it is known to include this feature in a method for driving an electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a method for driving an electrophoretic display with good brightness, good contrast and improved lifetime of the ink.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawase et al. (US 2008/0252566) discloses a method for driving an electrophoretic display that includes a light-transmissive electrode; a back electrode; a layer of encapsulated electrophoretic medium disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 07/06/2025
Prosecution Insights