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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/939,551 filed on 11/30/2023 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 e M.P.E.P. 210, 200, 214, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application TW112146450 (Taiwan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Inagaki discloses a display device, in at least Figure 1, comprising:
a laminated glass (11 "substrate", 12 "substrate", page 2, paragraph 12 of translation states "the substrate 11 located on the side opposite to the backlight 3 side with respect to the liquid crystal layer 13 is composed of a glass laminate", page 2, paragraph 12 of translation states "you may comprise the board/substrate 12 with a glass laminated body", Figure 1);
a driving substrate ("pixel electrodes", page 2, paragraph 13 of translation states "On the liquid crystal layer 13 side of the substrate 12, a pixel electrode corresponding to each pixel, a TFT (Thin Film Transistor) which is a switching element for controlling ON / OFF of display in each pixel, and various types of devices connected to the TFT Wiring (including scanning lines and signal lines) and an alignment film for aligning liquid crystal molecules are formed"), sealed within the laminated glass (11 "substrate", 12 "substrate", page 2, paragraph 12 of translation states "On the liquid crystal layer 13 side of the substrate 12, a pixel electrode”);
at least one display film (13 "liquid crystal layer", Figure 1), sealed within the laminated glass (11 "substrate", 12 "substrate", Figure 1) and located on the driving substrate ("pixel electrodes", page 2, paragraph 12 of translation states "On the liquid crystal layer 13 side of the substrate 12, a pixel electrode”); and
a sealant layer (14 "sealing material", Figure 1), sealing edges of the laminated glass (11 "substrate", 12 "substrate", page 2, paragraph 12 of translation states "The liquid crystal layer 13 is sealed between the two substrates 11 and 12 by a sealing material 14").
Regarding claim 9, Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein an upper surface (see examiner’s markup of Figure 1) and a lower surface (see examiner’s markup of Figure 1) opposite to each other of the sealant layer (14 "sealing material") are respectively flush with a first surface (see examiner’s markup of Figure 1) and a second surface (see examiner’s markup of Figure 1) opposite to each other of the laminated glass (11 "substrate", 12 "substrate", see examiner’s markup of Figure 1).
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 1 of Inagaki pointing out an upper surface, a lower surface, a first surface, and a second surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
711
1186
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Emori (WO 2017094265 A1)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the laminated glass comprises:
a first glass substrate (12 "substrate", Figure 1), wherein the driving substrate ("pixel electrodes") is located on the first glass substrate (12 "substrate", page 2, paragraph 12 of translation states "On the liquid crystal layer 13 side of the substrate 12, a pixel electrode”);
a second glass substrate (11 "substrate", Figure 1), located above the at least one display film (13 "liquid crystal layer", Figure 1).
However, Inagaki does not disclose a glass laminating material, laminating the first glass substrate and the second glass substrate and covering the driving substrate and the at least one display film.
Emori teaches wherein a glass laminating material, laminating the first glass substrate (5 “base material”, page 8, paragraph 2 of translation states “When the first barrier film 2 is laminated on the base material 5 on which the plurality of display layers 1 are imposed by using such a barrier film laminate 22”) and the second glass substrate (12 “first protective film”, page 7, paragraph 8 of translation states “The first protective film 12 can be laminated”) and covering the driving substrate (3 “driver mounting portion electrode”, page 7, paragraph 8 of translation states “The first protective film 12 can be laminated so as to cover the second protective film 19 and the driver mounting portion electrode 3”) and the at least one display film (1 “display layer”, page 7, paragraph 8 of translation states “the first barrier film 2 is laminated so as to cover the display layer 1”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the display device of Inagaki modified by a glass laminating material, laminating the first glass substrate and the second glass substrate and covering the driving substrate and the at least one display film, as taught by Emori, in order to adhere a plurality of surfaces while avoiding dirt collection (page 8, paragraph 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Inagaki and Emori disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein a thickness of the first glass substrate and a thickness of the second glass substrate are respectively at least greater than 5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a first glass substrate and a second glass substrate such that a thickness of the first glass substrate and a thickness of the second glass substrate are respectively at least greater than 5 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Inagaki and Emori disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein a thickness of the glass laminating material is between 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a glass laminating material such that a thickness of the glass laminating material is between 0.8 mm and 1.2 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Emori (WO 2017094265 A1)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Seeory “SEF Interlayer”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Inagaki and Emori disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein the glass laminating material comprises a safety excellent finesse film.
Seeory teaches wherein the glass laminating material comprises a safety excellent finesse film (page 11 states “we made sizable laminated glass with SEF interlayer”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the display device of Inagaki modified by wherein the glass laminating material comprises a safety excellent finesse film, as taught by Seeory, in order to reduce delamination and cloudiness of laminated glass (page 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a safety excellent finesse film as a glass laminating material, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. Sinclair and Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Emori (WO 2017094265 A1)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Subbarayan (US 9811188 B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Inagaki and Emori disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein there is a gap between the at least one display film and the second glass substrate.
Subbarayan teaches wherein there is a gap between the at least one display film (212 “display component”, Figure 2) and the second glass substrate (216 "coverglass", Figure 2 shows that there is a gap between 212 "display component" and 216 "coverglass").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the display device of Inagaki modified by a gap between the at least one display film and the second glass substrate, as taught by Subbarayan, in order to provide protection to the display film.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Hara (CN 107079541 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein a water vapor transmission rate of the sealant layer is less than 14.5 g/m2 day.
Hara teaches wherein a water vapor transmission rate of the sealant layer is less than 14.5 g/m2 day (first paragraph of page 14 of translation states "measuring the base resin layer 2A and the sealing resin layer 1A has a water vapor transmission rate, the result are 9.0g/ (m2 days), 7.2g/ (m2 days)").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the display device of Inagaki modified by wherein a water vapor transmission rate of the sealant layer is less than 14.5 g/m2 day, as taught by Hara, in order to cause the water vapor transmission rate to be less than the sealing resin layer (claim 16).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Fukui (TW 202026705 A)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein a material of the sealant layer comprises epoxy, polymethylmethacrylate, silicone or polystyrene.
Fukui teaches wherein a material of the sealant layer (26 “sealing material”) comprises epoxy, polymethylmethacrylate, silicone or polystyrene (page 10, paragraph 3 of translation states "As a material of the sealing material 26 shown in FIG. 2, a butyl type sealing material, a silicone type sealing material, a polysulfide type sealing material, and a polyurethane type sealing material can be mentioned. The said material has high sealing performance, especially low water vapor transmission rate. By using such a sealing material, the airtightness of the transparent glass 20 can be improved. It becomes possible to display clear images even when installed in a contaminated area such as a construction site").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the display device of Inagaki modified by wherein a material of the sealant layer comprises epoxy, polymethylmethacrylate, silicone or polystyrene, as taught by Fukui, in order to improve the airtight quality of the glass and to display clear images (page 10, paragraph 3 of translation).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (WO 2014171503 A1)(see attached machine translation), in view of Subbarayan (US 9811188 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Inagaki discloses all the limitations of claim 1, however Inagaki does not disclose wherein the at least one display film comprises at least one electrophoretic display film or at least one electrowetting display film.
Subbarayan teaches wherein the at least one display film (“display component”) comprises at least one electrophoretic display film or at least one electrowetting display film (column 4, lines 8-31 state "the display component may include a reflective display, such as an electronic paper display, a reflective liquid crystal display (LCD), or the like. Electronic paper displays represent an array of display technologies that can mimic the look of ordinary ink on paper. In contrast to backlit displays, electronic paper displays typically reflect light, much as ordinary paper does. In addition, electronic paper displays can be bi-stable, meaning that these displays are capable of holding text or other rendered images even when very little or no power is supplied to the display. Some examples of the display component that can be used with the implementations described herein include ..., electrophoretic displays, ..., electrowetting displays").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the display device of Inagaki modified by wherein the at least one display film comprises at least one electrophoretic display film or at least one electrowetting display film, as taught by Subbarayan, in order to hold text or render images even when very little or no power is supplied to the display (column 4, lines 8-31).
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Paolini (US 11087644 B2) discloses a display with a glass housing and an electrode arranged to drive an electro-optic medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights