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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 6,130,774; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Albert discloses, a shuttering electrophoretic display (Figs. 1-11C) comprising:
a light-transmissive electrode (32, 40);
a back electrode (30, 34);
a layer of electrophoretic medium (20, 25, 50, 52, 54, 56) disposed between the light-transmissive electrode and the back electrode (see Figs. 8-11C), the electrophoretic medium comprising a volume of light-absorbing pigment particles that does not exceed 5% by volume of the total volume of the electrophoretic medium (Col. 8, lines 38-48; note, discloses particles are 0.1% to 20% of the volume).
Regarding claim 2, Albert discloses, the volume of charged light-absorbing pigment particles does not exceed 1% by volume of the total volume of the electrophoretic medium (Col. 8, lines 38-48; note, discloses particles are 0.1% to 20% of the volume).
Regarding claim 3, Albert discloses, the electrophoretic medium additionally comprises a charge control agent (CCA) (Cp;. 14, lines 61-62).
Regarding claim 7, Albert discloses, the electrophoretic medium is encapsuled in microcavities (20) and the light-absorbing pigment particles are packed against walls of the microcavity when the shuttering electrophoretic display is in an open state (Col. 11, lines 31-39).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 6,130,774; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Paolini et al. (US 2008/0030832).
Albert remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Albert does not disclose 85% of light incident on the shuttering electrophoretic display is transmitted through the shuttering electrophoretic display when the shuttering electrophoretic display is in an open state.
Paolini teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in shuttering electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make 85% of light incident on the shuttering electrophoretic display is transmitted through the shuttering electrophoretic display when the shuttering electrophoretic display is in an open state (Para. 0034).
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 85% of light incident on the shuttering electrophoretic display is transmitted through the shuttering electrophoretic display when the shuttering electrophoretic display is in an open state as taught by the shuttering electrophoretic display of Paolini in the shuttering electrophoretic display of Albert since Paolini teaches it is known to include this feature in a shuttering electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a shuttering electrophoretic display with an improved contrast ratio.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albert et al. (US 6,130,774; already of record) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Webber et al. (US 2004/0226820).
Albert remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Albert does not disclose the electrophoretic medium is encapsulated in gelatin microcapsules.
Webber teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a shuttering electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the electrophoretic medium is encapsulated in gelatin microcapsules (Para. 0080).
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 is encapsulated in gelatin microcapsules as taught by the shuttering electrophoretic display of Webber in the shuttering electrophoretic display of Albert since Webber teaches it is known to include this feature in a shuttering electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a shuttering electrophoretic display with improved adhesion and enhanced display performance.
Regarding claim 6, Albert in view of Webber discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Webber further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a shuttering electrophoretic display that it would have been desirable to make the light-absorbing pigment particles are positively charged and the walls of the gelatin microcapsules are negatively charged (Para. 0080).
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 shuttering electrophoretic display of Webber in the shuttering electrophoretic display of Albert since Webber teaches it is known to include this feature in a shuttering electrophoretic display for the purpose of providing a shuttering electrophoretic display with improved adhesion and enhanced display performance.
Conclusion
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 09/09/2026
Prosecution Insights