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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2019/0025571).
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a display device (Fig. 1, (100) comprising: a backplane (Fig. 1, (110); a control unit on the backplane (Fig. 1, (140)(the viewing angle control layer (140) is being considered the control unit as it includes all the other elements that work together to facilitate the piezoelectric material to contract and expand); a light source (Fig. 1, (130)[0047] between the backplane and the control unit (the light emitting elements in the display layer (130)[0047] are between the backplane (110) and the control unit (140); a transparent electrode (Fig. 1, (141, 142)connected to the control unit (Fig. 1, (140); and a shape control layer (Fig. 1, (piezoelectric material (143) on the transparent electrode (Fig. 1, (piezoelectric material (143) on the side of the transparent electrode (Fig. 1, (141, 142), wherein: the control unit (Fig. 1, (140) is configured to control a voltage of the transparent electrode [0049]; and the shape control layer includes an electro-active polymer (EAP) [0049].
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0025571).
As to claim 7, Lee, further, does not specifically disclose the absolute value of the half beam angle of the light source is 5° or less. Examiner takes Official Notice as to the absolute value of the half beam angle of the light source is 5° or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the angle of a light beam from a light source to be 5 degrees or less, in the device of Lee, as desired by a designer in a manufacturing, or lab environment, to obtain the desired result, in this case a narrow illumination range.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0025571) in view of Hamburgen et al. (CN 110537154).
As to claim 2, Lee, further, does not specifically disclose, the electro-active polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a conductive polymer, an ionic polymer, Nafion, and Flemion.
Hamburgen discloses the electro-active polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a conductive polymer, an ionic polymer, Nafion, and Flemion (see second paragraph in reference to Fig. 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the electroactive material, as taught by Hamburgen, in Lee, since these materials are commonly known to conform an electroactive material which reacts to application of an electric field.
As to claim 3, Lee, further, does not specifically disclose the conductive polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polypyrrole, polyaniline, polythiophene, and poly-sodium allyloxy hydroxypropyl sulfonate.
Hamburgen discloses the conductive polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of polypyrrole, polyaniline, polythiophene, and poly-sodium allyloxy hydroxypropyl sulfonate. (see second paragraph in reference to Fig. 15). Same rationale as in claim 2.
As to claim 4, Lee, as anticipated by Hamburgen, further, does not specifically disclose the ionic polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a carbon nanotube, a fluorinated polymer, and a sulfonated polymer. Examiner takes Official Notice as to the ionic polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a carbon nanotube, a fluorinated polymer, and a sulfonated polymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the ionic polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of a carbon nanotube, a fluorinated polymer, and a sulfonated polymer, in the device of Lee and Hamburgen, since these examples of polymer are known to be used optionally as types of ionic polymers.
As to claim 5, Lee, as anticipated by Hamburgen, further, does not specifically disclose the fluorinated polymer comprises a fluorinated acrylic copolymer. Examiner takes Official Notice as to the fluorinated polymer comprises a fluorinated acrylic copolymer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the fluorinated polymer comprising a fluorinated acrylic copolymer, in the device of Lee and Hamburgen, since it is a known form of fluorinated acrylic polymer that can be used as a type of fluorinated polymer as desired to obtain the desired result.
As to claim 6, Lee, as anticipated by Hamburgen, further, does not specifically disclose the sulfonated polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting sulfonated polystyrene, sulfonated poly (vinyl alcohol), sulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone), sulfonated ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, and sulfonated poly (styrene-b-ethylene-co-butylene-b-styrene). Examiner takes Official Notice as to the sulfonated polymer comprises one or more selected from the group consisting sulfonated polystyrene, sulfonated poly (vinyl alcohol), sulfonated poly(arylene ether sulfone), sulfonated ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer, and sulfonated poly (styrene-b-ethylene-co-butylene-b-styrene). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have one of said sulfonated polymer types, in the device of Lee and Hamburgen, since these are known optional forms of sulfonated polymer that can be used as a type of fluorinated polymer as desired to obtain the desired result.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0025571) in view of Jia et al. (CN 105932171).
As to claim 8, Lee, further, does not specifically disclose a first electrode on the substrate; and a second electrode (on the light source, wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are spaced apart from each other with the light source interposed therebetween.
Jia discloses a first electrode (Fig. 5, (11)) on the substrate(Fig. 5, (10); and a second electrode (Fig. 5, (12) on the light source (Fig. 5, (13), wherein the first electrode (11) and the second electrode (12) are spaced apart from each other with the light source (13) interposed therebetween. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the light source between the first and second electrodes, as taught by Jia, in the device of Lee, since it is well known in the art of display devices as a common arrangement of a display device.
As to claim 9, Lee, further, does not specifically disclose the first electrode comprises a transparent conductive material and an electrode material, wherein: the transparent conductive material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a transition metal oxide, a metal nitride, indium tin oxide, and aluminum-doped zinc oxide; and the electrode material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), tungsten (W), chromium (Cr), magnesium (Mg), and lithium (Li).
Jia discloses the first electrode comprises a transparent conductive material and an electrode material (see second paragraph after Preferred Embodiment)(“ the first electrode 11 and the second electrode 12 is a reflective electrode, and the other one is semi-transparent electrode so that the first electrode 11 and the second electrode 12 is formed between the optical microcavity”), wherein: the transparent conductive material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of a transition metal oxide, a metal nitride, indium tin oxide, and aluminum-doped zinc oxide(see third paragraph in reference to Fig. 5)(“ the structure of the semi-transparent electrode include, but are not limited to magnesium-silver alloy, lithium-aluminium alloy layer”), and the electrode material includes one or more selected from the group consisting of silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), molybdenum (Mo), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), gold (Au), platinum (Pt), tungsten (W), chromium (Cr), magnesium (Mg), and lithium (Li). )(“a reflective electrode structure include, but are not limited to aluminium metal layer, silver metal layer, indium tin oxide layer in one or more of the composite layer”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the transparent conductive material, as taught by Jia, in the device of Lee, since (Jia)“the light-emitting color of the organic electroluminescent device can be adjusted, so that the display device displays the colour of the picture can be adjusted correspondingly, so that the gamut of display device is wider and better display effect”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 10-20 are allowable since certain key features of the claimed invention are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art. In claim 10, “wherein the pixels each include: a control unit on the backplane; a light source between the backplane and the control unit; a transparent electrode connected to the control unit; and a shape control layer on the transparent electrode, wherein: the control unit is configured to control a voltage of the transparent electrode; and the shape control layer includes an electro-active polymer (EAP).” In claim 17, “wherein the first sub-pixel, the second sub-pixel, and the third sub-pixel each includes: a control unit on the backplane; a transparent electrode connected to the control unit; and a shape control layer on the transparent electrode, wherein: the first sub-pixel further includes a red light source between the backplane and the control unit; the second sub-pixel further includes a green light source between the backplane and the control unit; and the third sub-pixel further includes a blue light source between the backplane and the control unit, wherein: the control unit is configured to control a voltage of the transparent electrode; and the shape control layer includes an electro-active polymer (EAP).” The closest prior art of record, Lee (US 2019/0025571) as in the above rejection, fails to disclose each pixel, or each sub-pixel including all the claimed elements, rather, Lee claims the elements as being included in the display in general, and not in each pixel, as claimed in claim 10, or in each sub-pixel, as claimed in claim 17. Singularly or in combination, Lee fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO OSORIO whose telephone number is (571)272-7676. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/RICARDO OSORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625