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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information discloser statement filed on February 12, 2025 and May 19, 2026 have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the conductive adhesive film" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if the conductive adhesive film is referring to the conductive optical adhesive in the electrophoretic fluid or the conductive adhesive layer. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the conductive adhesive film” as “the conductive adhesive layer.”
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 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN-114296287 – machine translation – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Luo”) in view of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020 – hereinafter referred to as “Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Luo teaches an electrophoretic fluid (Figure 1 display layer 10), comprising:
a conductive optical adhesive (Figure 1 curing medium 12, [0044] curing medium 12 is composed of an adhesive and a conductive filler 13), wherein a material of the conductive optical adhesive comprises a polymer bonding material (([0044] curing medium 12 has an adhesive) and a conductive material (Figure 1 conductive filler 13, [0044]), and electrophoretic units (Figure 1 display units 11, [0044] display units contains an electrophoretic solution and electrophoretic pigment particle) dispersed in the conductive optical adhesive (Figure 1 display units 11 are distributed in curing medium 12, [0044]).
Luo fails to teach a mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive is 1% to 5%. However, Yamamoto is related to Luo with respect to an electrophoretic film (Figure 1) and teaches a mass fraction of the adhesive is 1% to 5% (Column 2 lines 31-33 and 62-65 weight percent of microcapsules ranges from 50-95% thus binder weight percent ranges from 5-50%). 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 a mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive such that the mass fraction is 5%, which overlaps the disclosed range of 1-5%, 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, mass fraction of the adhesive is an art recognized results effective variable in that a properly adjusted mass fraction of microcapsules and binder allows the microcapsules to be in contact without overlapping each other as taught by Yamamoto (Column 2 line 66 – Column 3 line 5). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive 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.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrophoretic fluid taught by Luo by adjusting the mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive to 5% as taught by Yamamoto in order to allow the electrophoretic units to be in contact without overlapping (Yamamoto Column 2 line 66 – Column 3 line 5).
Regarding claim 2, Luo and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Luo further teaches the polymer bonding material comprises polyester, polyurethane, epoxy resin, polyether, or siloxane, ([0050] adhesives include polyurethane emulsions with polyester diols or poly ether diols) and wherein the conductive material comprises transparent conductive particles, a conductive polymer, or an ionic conductive material ([0055] options for conductive filler includes graphite, carbon fiber, and carbon nanoparticles).
Regarding claim 5, Luo and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Luo further teaches each of the electrophoretic units comprises a micro-capsule ([0048] display unit may include microcapsules).
Regarding claim 6, Luo and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Luo further teaches each of the electrophoretic units comprises a micro-cup ([0048] display unit may include microcups).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (Chinese Patent Publication CN-114296287) in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCullough et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389 – hereinafter referred to as “McCullough”).
Regarding claim 3, Luo and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Luo and Yamamoto fail to teach the polymer bonding material comprises a fluorine-containing polymer, a sulfur-containing polymer, or a thiophene-containing polymer. However, McCullough is related to Luo with respect to electrophoretic films (Figure 3) and teaches polymer bonding material comprises a fluorine-containing polymer, a sulfur-containing polymer, or a thiophene-containing polymer ([0107]-[0108] polymerizable monomer or oligomer of the dispersion composition may comprise reactive functional groups including sulfur-containing thiols). McCullough further teaches using reactive functional groups allow crosslinking, thermoplastic drying, and bonds to form between polymers to alter the mechanical properties, viscosity, and adhesiveness ([0108]). Furthermore, A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrophoretic fluid taught by Luo and Yamamoto by having the polymer bonding material include a sulfur-containing polymer as taught by McCullough in order to allow crosslinking, thermoplastic drying, and bonds to form between polymers to alter the mechanical properties, viscosity, and adhesiveness (McCullough [0108]).
Regarding claim 4, Luo and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Luo and Yamamoto fail to teach a volume resistivity of the conductive optical adhesive is 1E8 ohm-centimeters (Ω⋅cm) to 1E12 Ω⋅cm. However, McCullough teaches a volume resistivity of the conductive optical adhesive is 1E8 ohm-centimeters (Ω⋅cm) to 1E12 Ω⋅cm ([0100] preferred volume resistivity is in the range of 108 Ω⋅cm to 1012 Ω⋅cm). McCullough further teaches a range of 108 Ω⋅cm to 1012 Ω⋅cm ensures good electro-optic performance while minimizing power consumption and preventing undesirable cross talk between adjacent electrodes ([0099]-[0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrophoretic fluid taught by Luo and Yamamoto by having the volume resistivity of the conductive optical adhesive be between 108 Ω⋅cm to 1012 Ω⋅cm as taught by McCullough in order to ensure good electro-optic performance while minimizing power consumption and preventing undesirable cross talk between adjacent electrodes (McCullough [0099]-[0100]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (Chinese Patent Publication CN-114296287) in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (Chinese Patent Publication CN-216526652 – machine translation – hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding claim 7, Luo and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Luo and Yamamoto fail to teach each of the electrophoretic units comprises a cofferdam. However, Xu is related to Luo with respect to an electrophoretic film (Figure 3) and teaches the electrophoretic units comprises a cofferdam (Figure 3 cofferdam 23). Xu further teaches using cofferdams to limit the flow of electrophoretic particles ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrophoretic fluid taught by Luo and Yamamoto by using cofferdams as taught by Xu in order to limit the flow of electrophoretic particles (Xu [0043]).
Claims 8-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0168799) in view of McCullough (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389).
Regarding claim 8, Emori teaches a display panel (Figure 1A), comprising:
a first substrate (Figure 1A color filter layer) comprising:
a first surface (Figure 1A bottom of color filter layer);
a common electrode layer (Figure 1B common electrode 14, [0027]); and
a color light-filtering layer (Figure 1A color pixels 26, 27, and 28, [0036]) stacked with the common electrode layer (Figure 1A color pixels 26-27 are stacked with common electrode 14);
a second substrate (Figure 1A TFT substrate) comprising a pixel electrode layer (Figure 1B pixel electrode 10, [0028]);
an electrophoretic layer (Figure 1A electrophoretic display layer) disposed on the first surface (Figure 1A electrophoretic display layer is disposed on bottom surface of color filter layer) and comprising:
an optical adhesive film (Figure 1B binder resin 16, [0027]) bonded to the first substrate (Figures 1A,1B binder resin 16 is bonded to color filter layer); and
first electrophoretic units (Figure 1B electrophoretic ink display element 15) distributed in the optical adhesive film ([0027] electrophoretic ink display element 15 is dispersed in binder resin 16); and
a conductive adhesive layer (Figure 1B conductive adhesive layer 17) disposed between the electrophoretic layer and the second substrate (Figures 1A,1B conductive adhesive layer 17 is between electrophoretic display layer and TFT substrate) and separately bonded to the electrophoretic layer and the second substrate ([0028] electrophoretic display layer is adhered to TFT substrate through conductive adhesive 17).
Emori fails to explicitly teach the optical adhesive film is conductive. However, McCullough is related to Emori with respect to electrophoretic displays (Figure 3) and teaches a conductive optical adhesive film (Figure 3 binder 160, [0104] dispersion composition may used to form binder of the electro-optic material layer, [0073] filler of dispersion composition can increase conductivity). McCullough further teaches using a conductive optical adhesive film in order to ensure good electro-optic performance while minimizing power consumption and preventing undesirable cross talk between adjacent electrodes ([0099]-[0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel taught by Emori to use a conductive optical adhesive film to bind to the first substrate and disperse the electrophoretic units as taught by McCullough in order to ensure good electro-optic performance while minimizing power consumption and preventing undesirable cross talk between adjacent electrodes (McCullough [0099]-[0100]).
Regarding claim 9, Emori and McCullough teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Emori fails to teach a thickness of the conductive adhesive layer is less than 15 micrometers (μm). However, McCullough teaches the thickness of the conductive adhesive layer is less than 15 micrometers (μm) ([0117] adhesive layer may have a thickness less than 15 microns). Furthermore, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel taught by Emori by having the thickness of the conductive adhesive layer be less than 15 microns as taught by McCullough since setting a thickness of a layer only requires ordinary skill in the art and one would be motivated to have a thin layer in order to reduce the thickness of the display panel.
Regarding claim 10, Emori and McCullough teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Emori further teaches the electrophoretic layer comprises a second surface (Figure 1A bottom surface of electrophoretic display layer), and wherein the conductive adhesive layer comprises a third surface (Figure 1B top surface of conductive adhesive layer 17) facing the second surface (Figures 1A,1B top surface of conductive adhesive layer 17 faces bottom surface of electrophoretic display layer).
Regarding claim 14, Emori and McCullough teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Emori further teaches the electrophoretic layer is disposed on a second surface of the common electrode layer (Figure 1A,1B electrophoretic display layer is disposed on bottom surface of common electrode 14).
Regarding claim 15, Emori and McCullough teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Emori further teaches a controller electrically coupled to the display panel (Figure 4 controller 14, [0042] controller 34 is electrically connected to the electrophoretic display substrate).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0168799) in view of McCullough (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Han et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0067211 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Han”).
Regarding claim 11, Emori and McCullough teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Emori further teaches the pixel electrode layer (Figure 1B pixel electrode 10, [0028]) comprises:
a side facing the first substrate (Figures 1A,1B top side of pixel electrode 10 faces color filter layer); and
a plurality of pixel electrodes disposed at intervals (Figures 1A,1B pixel electrode 10 is divided into a plurality of pixel electrodes, [0028] pixel electrode 10 is divided into pixels),
Emori and McCullough fail to teach the second substrate further comprises an electric field shielding layer disposed on the side and comprising a plurality of openings located above the pixel electrodes at intervals, and wherein the conductive adhesive layer covers the electric field shielding layer. However, Han is related to Emori with respect to a electrophoretic display (Figure 1) and teaches the second substrate (Figure 1 substrate 100) further comprises an electric field shielding layer (Figure 1 shielding member 150, [0048]) disposed on the side (Figure 1 shielding member 150 is on top side of substrate 100) and comprising a plurality of openings located above the pixel electrodes at intervals (Figure 1 openings between shielding members 150 are above pixel parts PX1,PX2, [0048]-[0049]), and wherein the conductive adhesive layer covers the electric field shielding layer (Figure 1 adhesive member 400 covers shielding member 150). Han further teaches using an electric field shielding member layer to prevent electric field interference between pixels ([0048]) and image distortion ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel taught by Emori and McCullough to have an electric field shield layer as taught by Han in order to prevent electric field interference between pixels (Han [0048]) and image distortion (Han [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Emori, McCullough, and Han teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Emori and McCullough fail to teach a thickness of the electric field shielding layer is 2 micrometers (μm) to 12 μm. However, Han teaches thickness of the electric field shielding layer has a thickness of about 120% the thickness of the pixel electrode ([0019]). Optimizing the thickness of the electric shielding layer is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Han teaches electric field shielding layer thickness as a variable which achieves a recognized result of preventing electric field interference between pixels. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting electric field shielding layer thickness and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to set the thickness of the electric field shielding layer taught by Han since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 13, Emori, McCullough, and Han teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 11. Emori and McCullough fail to teach a dielectric constant of the electric field shielding layer is 2 to 15. However, Han teaches dielectric constant of the electric field shielding layer is 2 to 15 ([0013]-[0014] shielding member may comprise a conductive polymer including polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF); PVDF inherently has a dielectric constant of 8-121). Han further teaches using an electric field shielding member layer to prevent electric field interference between pixels ([0048]) and image distortion ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel taught by Emori and McCullough to have an electric field shield layer as taught by Han in order to prevent electric field interference between pixels (Han [0048]) and image distortion (Han [0050]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0168799) in view of McCullough (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389) and in further view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020).
Regarding claim 16, Emori teaches a method comprising (Figure 1):
providing a first substrate (Figure 1A color filter layer) comprising a first surface (Figure 1A bottom of color filter layer);
preparing an electrophoretic layer (Figure 1A electrophoretic display layer) using an electrophoretic fluid (Figure 1B electrophoretic fluid consisting of electrophoretic ink display element 15 and binder resin 16, [0027]), wherein the electrophoretic fluid comprises a optical adhesive (Figure 1B binder resin 16) and electrophoretic units (Figure 1B electrophoretic ink display element 15) dispersed in the optical adhesive ([0027] electrophoretic ink display element 15 are uniformly dispersed in binder resin 16),
forming the electrophoretic layer on the first surface (Figure 1A electrophoretic display layer is formed on the bottom of color filter layer);
providing a second substrate (Figure 1A TFT substrate) comprising a pixel electrode layer (Figure 1B pixel electrode 10, [0028]); and
forming a conductive adhesive layer (Figure 1B conductive adhesive layer 17) bonded to the second substrate ([0028] conductive adhesive is bonded to TFT substrate).
Emori fails to explicitly teach the optical adhesive is conductive. However, McCullough is related to Emori with respect to electrophoretic displays (Figure 3) and teaches a conductive optical adhesive film (Figure 3 binder 160, [0104] dispersion composition may be used to form binder of the electro-optic material layer, [0073] filler of dispersion composition can increase conductivity). McCullough further teaches using a conductive optical adhesive film in order to ensure good electro-optic performance while minimizing power consumption and preventing undesirable cross talk between adjacent electrodes ([0099]-[0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display panel taught by Emori to use a conductive optical adhesive to disperse the electrophoretic units in the conductive optical adhesive as taught by McCullough in order to ensure good electro-optic performance while minimizing power consumption and preventing undesirable cross talk between adjacent electrodes (McCullough [0099]-[0100]).
Emori and McCullough fail to teach a mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive is 1% to 5%. However, Yamamoto is related to Emori with respect to an electrophoretic film (Figure 1) and teaches a mass fraction of the adhesive is 1% to 5% (Column 2 lines 31-33 and 62-65 weight percent of microcapsules ranges from 50-95% thus binder weight percent ranges from 5-50%). 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 a mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive such that the mass fraction is 5%, which overlaps the disclosed range of 1-5%, 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, mass fraction of the adhesive is an art recognized results effective variable in that a properly adjusted mass fraction of microcapsules and binder allows the microcapsules to be in contact without overlapping each other as taught by Yamamoto (Column 2 line 66 – Column 3 line 5). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive 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.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrophoretic fluid taught by Emori and McCullough by adjusting the mass fraction of the conductive optical adhesive to 5% as taught by Yamamoto in order to allow the electrophoretic units to be in contact without overlapping (Yamamoto Column 2 line 66 – Column 3 line 5).
Regarding claim 17, Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Emori further teaches forming the electrophoretic layer comprises: coating the first surface with the electrophoretic fluid to form an electrophoretic film ([0027] electrophoretic ink display element 15 and binder resin 16 are coated onto common electrode 14, which is the bottom surface of the color filter layer); and drying the electrophoretic film ([0027] electrophoretic film is dried).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0168799) in view of McCullough (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389) and Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020) as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Tsuju et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0159619 – hereinafter referred to as “Tsuju”).
Regarding claim 18, Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Emori further teaches forming the conductive adhesive layer comprises:
forming a conductive adhesive film on a second surface of the electrophoretic layer ([0054] microcapsule display layer (i.e. electrophoretic layer) is coated with conductive adhesive);
attaching the first substrate to the second substrate in alignment so that the conductive adhesive film faces the pixel electrode layer ([0054] resultant is adhered to the surface of sub pixel electrode of the TFT substrate);
solidifying the conductive adhesive film to form the conductive adhesive layer ([0054] conductive adhesive is dried).
Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto fail to teach forming a frame packaging adhesive film on a periphery of the pixel electrode layer; solidifying the conductive adhesive film and the frame packaging adhesive film to form the conductive adhesive layer and a frame packaging adhesive layer. However, Tsuju is related to Emori with respect to an electrophoretic display (Figure 7) and teaches forming a frame packaging adhesive film on a periphery of the pixel electrode layer (Figure 6 step 142, [0202] sealant 405 is formed to surround pixel portion 402); solidifying the conductive adhesive film and the frame packaging adhesive film to form the conductive adhesive layer and a frame packaging adhesive layer (Figure 6 step 145, [0214] sealant is cured with ultraviolet light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming an electrophoretic display taught by Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto by forming a forming a frame packaging adhesive layer on a periphery of the pixel electrode layer as taught by Tsuju in order to seal the electrophoretic display and prevent water and air from entering the device and increase adhesiveness between substrates (Tsuju [0215]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0168799) in view of McCullough (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389) and Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020) as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0157412 – hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding claim 19, Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Emori further teaches forming the conductive adhesive layer comprises:
forming a conductive adhesive film on a second surface of the electrophoretic layer ([0054] microcapsule display layer (i.e. electrophoretic layer) is coated with conductive adhesive);
attaching the first substrate to the second substrate in alignment so that the conductive adhesive film faces the pixel electrode layer ([0054] resultant is adhered to the surface of sub pixel electrode of the TFT substrate);
solidifying the conductive adhesive film to form the conductive adhesive layer ([0054] conductive adhesive is dried).
Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto fail to teach forming a frame packaging adhesive film to package side surfaces of the first substrate and the second substrate; and solidifying the frame packaging adhesive film to form a frame packaging adhesive layer. However, Lee is related to Emori with respect to electrophoretic displays (Figure 4A) and teaches forming a frame packaging adhesive film (Figure 4A sealant 100a, [0038] sealant 100a is dispensed) to package side surfaces of the first substrate and the second substrate (Figures 2C and 4A sealant 100a packages sides of substrate 30 and TFT transistor layer 6); and solidifying the frame packaging adhesive film to form a frame packaging adhesive layer ([0038] sealant 100a is hardened). Lee further teaches using a sealant layer to prevent moisture from intruding into the inside of the electrophoretic display ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming an electrophoretic display taught by Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto by forming a frame packaging adhesive layer on the sides of the first and second substrate as taught by Lee in order to prevent moisture from intruding into the inside of the electrophoretic display (Lee [0037]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0168799) in view of McCullough (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0243389) and Yamamoto (U.S. Patent No. 8,238,020) as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Izumi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0179169)
Regarding claim 20, Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 16. Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto fail to teach injecting the conductive adhesive film between the electrophoretic layer and the pixel electrode layer. However, Izumi is related to Emori with respect to displays (Figure 3B) and teaches injected a liquid layer when a substrate of low mechanical strength is used ([0094]) to avoid damaging the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming an electrophoretic display taught Emori, McCullough, and Yamamoto using the injection method taught by Izumi to inject the conductive adhesive film in order to avoid damaging substrates having low mechanical strength (Izumi [0094]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0272017) discloses an electrophoretic film with micro-capsules similar to the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 https://www.alfa-chemistry.com/plastics/resources/comprehensive-guide-to-polyvinylidene-fluoride-pvdf.html
Prosecution Insights