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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al. (US 2023/0415460) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2014/0063434).
In regard to claim 1, Dixon et al. teach a transmittance-variable liquid crystal cell in a file type in which liquid crystals have been filled between a first substrate film and a second substrate film (elements 3 and 5), which is partitioned by a closed sealant line that is formed on the first substrate film or the second substrate film (elements 7, 13 and paragraph 118) the internal space of the sealing part is divided into a main filling area (element 11) and a bank for liquid crystal injection (element 15 and paragraph 117), which is connected to the main filling area through a communication channel (element 17), but does not teach wherein the liquid crystals form a liquid crystal layer sealed in a vacuum state by being filled in a state in which pressure within an internal space of a sealing part, is lower than atmospheric pressure, and when one side of the bank for liquid crystal injection of the liquid crystal layer, which has been sealed, is opened by a first opening and exposed to atmospheric pressure, the liquid crystal layer is controlled so that a filling rate of the main filling area is increased as the liquid crystals within the bank for liquid crystal injection flow into the main filling area due to a pressure difference between the pressure within the internal space of the sealing part and atmospheric pressure.
Zhao et al. teach wherein the liquid crystals form a liquid crystal layer sealed in a vacuum state by being filled in a state in which pressure within an internal space of a sealing part, is lower than atmospheric pressure (paragraph 58 and element 604. The air is evacuated out of the filling case), and when one side of the bank for liquid crystal injection of the liquid crystal layer, which has been sealed, is opened by a first opening and exposed to atmospheric pressure (paragraph 60, opening vent holes so air enters filling case), the liquid crystal layer is controlled so that a filling rate of the main filling area is increased as the liquid crystals within the bank for liquid crystal injection flow into the main filling area due to a pressure difference between the pressure within the internal space of the sealing part and atmospheric pressure (paragraph 60, liquid crystal enters display through atmosphere pressure).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of liquid crystal displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Dixon et al. with the filling method of Zhao et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Dixon et al. with the filling method of Zhao et al. because using the curved trough and atmospheric pressure, as shown in Zhao et al., using the curved trough for the curved display would improve filling efficiency and reduce waste.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al. in view of Zhao et al. further considered with Broer et al. (US 2003/0038912).
In regard to claim 2, Dixon et al. and Zhao et al. teach all the elements of claim 2 except wherein the liquid crystals comprise a liquid crystal dye mixture comprising a dichroic dye.
Broer et al. teach wherein the liquid crystals comprise a liquid crystal dye mixture comprising a dichroic dye (paragraph 102).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of liquid crystal displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Dixon et al. and Zhao et al. with the light control of Broer et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Dixon et al. and Zhao et al. with the light control of Broer et al. because the light control methods of Broer et al. are old and well-known. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using dichroic dyes and polarizers to control the state of the emitted light would work predictably and would allow the device well-tested control of the emitted light.
In regard to claim 3, Broer et al. teach wherein a film to which a polarization function has been assigned is attached to or a coating layer to which a polarization function has been assigned is formed on a surface of an outside of the liquid crystal cell comprising the first substrate film and the second substrate film (fig. 9 element 28 and paragraph 178).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon et al. in view of Zhao et al. further considered with Jun (US 2001/0020998).
In regard to claim 4, Dixon et al. and Zhao et al. teach all the elements of claim 4 except wherein the liquid crystal layer is formed by dispensing the liquid crystals on an internal area of the sealant line under atmospheric pressure and then bonding the first substrate film and the second substrate film under vacuum.
Jun teaches wherein the liquid crystal layer is formed by dispensing the liquid crystals on an internal area of the sealant line under atmospheric pressure and then bonding the first substrate film and the second substrate film under vacuum (paragraph 29).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of liquid crystal displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Dixon et al. and Zhao et al. with the vacuum bonding of Jun. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Dixon et al. and Zhao et al. with the vacuum bonding of Jun because sealing the two substrates under vacuum would prevent air bubbles.
In regard to claim 12, Dixon et al. teach a method of manufacturing a transmittance-variable liquid crystal cell, the method comprising: forming, on a first substrate film or a second substrate film (elements 3 and 5), a closed sealant line (elements 13 and 17) that comprises a main filling area (element 11) and a bank for liquid crystal injection connected to the main filling area (element 13 and paragraph 117) through a communication channel (element 17) but does not teach filling under atmospheric pressure; dispensing liquid crystals on an internal area of the sealant line under the atmospheric pressure and filling the liquid crystals into a liquid crystal cell space by bonding the first substrate film and the second substrate film under vacuum; forming a first opening on one side of the bank for liquid crystal injection under atmospheric pressure and exposing the bank for liquid crystal injection to the atmospheric pressure through the first opening; and increasing a filling rate of the main filling area by injecting the liquid crystals within the bank for liquid crystal injection into the main filling area due to a pressure difference between pressure within an internal space of the sealing part and the atmospheric pressure.
Zhao et al. teach filling under atmospheric pressure; dispensing liquid crystals on an internal area of the sealant line under the atmospheric pressure and filling the liquid crystals into a liquid crystal cell space (paragraph 60); forming a first opening on one side of the bank for liquid crystal injection under atmospheric pressure and exposing the bank for liquid crystal injection to the atmospheric pressure through the first opening (paragraph 60, opening vent holes so air enters filling case); and increasing a filling rate of the main filling area by injecting the liquid crystals within the bank for liquid crystal injection into the main filling area due to a pressure difference between pressure within an internal space of the sealing part and the atmospheric pressure (paragraph 60, liquid crystal enters display through atmosphere pressure) but does not teach bonding the first substrate film and the second substrate film under vacuum.
Jun teaches teach bonding the first substrate film and the second substrate film under vacuum (paragraph 29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 and 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claims 5 and 13, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious filling the main filling area to a volume greater than 100% and the total volume of the sealing part to less than 100% in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claims 6-8 and 15, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious a polygon cross-sectional structure where the communication channel is at an apex of the polygon.
In regard to claims 9, 10 ,16 and 17, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, in combination with the claim’s other features, the second communication channel.
In regard to claims 11 and 18, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious separating and removing the bank and the finishing sealant in combination with the claim’s other features.
In regard to claim 14, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious moving the liquid crystals within the main area to the bank in combination with the claim’s other features.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights