DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/19/2026 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species I, the low refractive index layer arrangements illustrated in figs. 7-10, corresponding to claims 2-9.
Species II, the dot structure and cofferdam arrangements illustrated in figs. 11-19, corresponding to claims 10-13.
Species III, the touch structure arrangements illustrated in figs. 23-29, corresponding to claims 14-19.
The species are independent or distinct because Species I is directed to a low refractive index layer arrangement associated with the functional layer; Species II is directed to dot structures and their spatial and geometrical relationships with a cofferdam structure; and Species III is directed to a touch structure or touch electrode and its positional relationship with other structures of the display module. The respective structural arrangements are neither mutually required nor necessarily present in the other species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, claims 1 and 20 are considered generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example: the species require different fields of search. Species I requires a search of low refractive index optical layers, refractive-index relationships, layer thicknesses, and total-internal-reflection arrangements; Species II requires a search of light-extraction dot structures, groove/protrusion structures, cofferdam or partition-wall structures, and dimensional, density, spacing, and geometrical relationships thereof; and Species III requires a search of touch-integrated display structures, touch electrodes, adhesive/protective layers, cover plates, and positional or overlapping relationships thereof.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with John F. Kacvinsky, the representative of applicant on 9/4/2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of specie I, claims 1-9 and 20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 10-19 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 9 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.
In claim 9, line 4 recites the limitation “n1.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because claim 9 depends from claim 1, and neither claim 1 nor claim 9 defines “n1.” Although “n1” is defined in claim 2 as the refractive index of the first low refractive index layer, claim 9 does not depend from claim 2. Accordingly, it is unclear what refractive index is represented by “n1” in claim 9. Therefore, it is indefinite.
Examiner therefore suggests that Applicant amend claim 9 to provide proper antecedent basis for “n1.” For the purposes of examination, Examiner will construe “n1” as reciting the refractive index of the first low refractive index layer. Appropriate correction is required.
Therefore, proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OIZUMI et al. (JP2003344881, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, OIZUMI teaches a display module (see figs. 1-4; abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0026]-[0031], electrophoretic display device), comprising:
a first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate including light guide plate 12, anti-reflective film 14, transparent conductive layer 3, and low refractive index layer 20) and a second substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, second substrate 2) disposed opposite to each other (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate and a second substrate 2 disposed opposite to each);
an electrophoretic layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, electrophoretic layer 8; paragraphs [0003]-[0005], electrophoretic layer 8) located between the first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate) and the second substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, second substrate 2);
wherein the first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate) comprises a functional layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate comprising light guide plate 12, wherein light guide plate 12 corresponds to the functional layer; see OIZUMI, paragraph [0026], first substrate 12 functioning as a light guide plate), the functional layer (12) comprises a first surface (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first surface) and a second surface (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, fig. 1, the second surface 12b) disposed opposite to each other (see annotated OIZUMI, fig. 1, opposed major surfaces, first surface and second surface of light guide plate 12) and comprises a first side (fig. 1, side surface 12a) located between the first surface and the second surface (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, incident side/end surface 12a of light guide plate 12 located between the opposed major surfaces), and the first surface is located on a side of the second surface facing away from the electrophoretic layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, the first surface is located on a side of the second surface facing away from the electrophoretic layer 8); and
a light source (see fig. 1, light source 11) disposed opposite to the first side surface (surface 12a; also see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0007]-[0009], light source 11 disposed opposite incident side/end surface 12a of light guide plate 12; paragraphs [0027]-[0030], OIZUMI teaches that light guide plate 12 receives light from light source 11 and guides the introduced light through the light-guiding structure).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1208
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, OIZUMI teaches a display device (see figs. 1-4; abstract, paragraphs [0003]-[0005], electrophoretic display device), comprising a display module (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, display module), comprising:
a first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate including light guide plate 12, anti-reflective film 14, transparent conductive layer 3, and low refractive index layer 20) and a second substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, second substrate 2) disposed opposite to each other (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate and a second substrate 2 disposed opposite to each);
an electrophoretic layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, electrophoretic layer 8; paragraphs [0003]-[0005], electrophoretic layer 8) located between the first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate) and the second substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, second substrate 2);
wherein the first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate) comprises a functional layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate comprising light guide plate 12, wherein light guide plate 12 corresponds to the functional layer; see OIZUMI, paragraph [0026], first substrate 12 functioning as a light guide plate), the functional layer (12) comprises a first surface (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first surface) and a second surface (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, fig. 1, the second surface 12b) disposed opposite to each other (see annotated OIZUMI, fig. 1, opposed major surfaces, first surface and second surface of light guide plate 12) and comprises a first side (fig. 1, side surface 12a) located between the first surface and the second surface (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, incident side/end surface 12a of light guide plate 12 located between the opposed major surfaces), and the first surface is located on a side of the second surface facing away from the electrophoretic layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, the first surface is located on a side of the second surface facing away from the electrophoretic layer 8); and
a light source (see fig. 1, light source 11) disposed opposite to the first side surface (surface 12a; also see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0007]-[0009], light source 11 disposed opposite incident side/end surface 12a of light guide plate 12; paragraphs [0027]-[0030], OIZUMI teaches that light guide plate 12 receives light from light source 11 and guides the introduced light through the light-guiding structure).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OIZUMI et al. (JP2003344881, English translation attached), and further in view of Wong (US20170307805).
Regarding claim 2, OIZUMI discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first substrate (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first substrate) further comprises a first low refractive index layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, first low refractive index layer 20; paragraph [0019] “a low refractive index layer 20”);
in a direction perpendicular to a plane on which the first substrate is located (see annotated OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0019] and [0030]-[0031], low refractive index layer 20 disposed, in the stacking/thickness direction of the display structure), the first low refractive index layer (20) is located on a side of the functional layer facing the electrophoretic layer (see annotated image, OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0019] and [0030]-[0031], low refractive index layer 20 is located on the electrophoretic-layer-facing side of functional/light guide plate 12, toward electrophoretic layer 8),
a refractive index of the functional layer is n0 (see OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0030]-[0031], refractive index of light guide plate 12 corresponding to n0), and a refractive index of the first low refractive index layer is n1 (see OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0030]-[0031], refractive index of low refractive index layer 20 corresponding to n1), wherein n1<n0 (see paragraphs [0030]-[0031] “a refractive index lower than that of the first substrate 12”; thus, low refractive index layer 20 having a refractive index lower than that of light guide plate 12, n1<n0).
OIZUMI does not explicitly disclose wherein the first low refractive index layer is in contact with the second surface.
However, Wong teaches the analogous light-guiding structure (see Wong, fig. 1, paragraphs [0020]-[0021], light guide plate 110 comprising light guide main body 112 having light-emitting surface SE and opposite bottom surface SB, and index matching layer 114), and further teaches wherein the first low refractive index layer (see Wong, fig. 1, index matching layer 114) is in contact with the second surface (see Wong, fig. 1, paragraph [0021], index matching layer 114 formed on bottom surface SB of light guide main body 112, wherein bottom surface SB corresponds to the claimed second surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify OIZUMI by providing low refractive index layer 20 in contact with the second surface of the functional layer, as taught by Wong, in order to provide the desired refractive-index interface and facilitate total internal reflection and efficient propagation of light within the light-guiding layer (Wong expressly teaches that the cooperation between the refractive-index difference and the thickness of index matching layer 114 facilitates generation of total internal reflection, see Wong, figs. 3-4, paragraph [0026], the greater the refractive-index difference between light guide main body 112 and index matching layer 114, the smaller the thickness H114 of index matching layer 114 required for generating total internal reflection).
Regarding claim 3, OIZUMI in view of Wong discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and Wong further teaches wherein at least one of the following configurations is satisfied:
0.2≤n0−n1≤0.5; or
a thickness of the first low refractive index layer is H1 (see Wong, fig. 1, thickness H114 of index matching layer 114 corresponding to the claimed H1), wherein 100 nm≤H1≤2000 nm (see Wong, figs. 1-4, paragraphs [0024]-[0026], wherein the thickness H114 of index matching layer 114 is greater than 500 nm under the disclosed refractive-index conditions, and Wong further teaches that the refractive-index difference between light guide main body 112 and index matching layer 114 cooperates with thickness H114 of index matching layer 114 to facilitate generation of total internal reflection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the thickness of the first low refractive index layer within the claimed range, since Wong recognizes the thickness of index matching layer 114 as affecting total internal reflection. The determination of an optimum or workable range of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify OIZUMI by providing low refractive index layer 20 to have the specific thickness range as taught by Wong, in order to provide the desired refractive-index interface and facilitate total internal reflection and efficient propagation of light within the light-guiding layer (Wong, paragraph [0026]).
Claims 4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OIZUMI et al. (JP2003344881, English translation attached) and further in view of Chen et al. (US20150331176).
Regarding claim 4, OIZUMI discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, OIZUMI does not explicitly disclose wherein the display module further comprises a second low refractive index layer;
in a direction perpendicular to a plane on which the first substrate is located, the second low refractive index layer is located on a side of the functional layer facing away from the electrophoretic layer, and the second low refractive index layer is in contact with the first surface; and
a refractive index of the second low refractive index layer is n2, wherein n2<n0.
However, Chen teaches the analogous electrophoretic display structure (see Chen, fig. 4, paragraphs [0039]-[0041], electrophoretic display 200 comprising front light guide module 100a and electrophoretic display panel 160, wherein front light guide module 100a comprises light guide plate 110, functional material layer 130, and first adhesive layer 140), and further teaches
wherein the display module (Chen, fig. 4, electrophoretic display 200) further comprises a second low refractive index layer (see Chen, fig. 4, first adhesive layer 140 corresponding to the claimed second low refractive index layer; paragraphs [0033] and [0040]-[0041], first adhesive layer 140 having a second refractive index lower than the first refractive index of light guide plate 110);
in a direction perpendicular to a plane on which the first substrate (see Chen, fig. 4, the layers 130~150 corresponding to the claimed first substrate) is located (see Chen, fig. 4, the thickness/stacking direction of electrophoretic display 200, perpendicular to the plane of layers 130~150), the second low refractive index layer (140) is located on a side of the functional layer (see Chen, fig. 4, light guide plate 110, corresponding to the claimed functional layer) facing away from the electrophoretic layer (see Chen, fig. 4, first adhesive layer 140 disposed adjacent to first surface 111 of light guide plate 110, wherein first surface 111 is opposite second surface 112, and second surface 112 is arranged adjacent to display area 162 of electrophoretic display panel 160), and the second low refractive index layer (140) is in contact with the first surface (see Chen, fig. 4, surface 111, corresponding to the claimed first surface; see paragraph [0041] wherein first adhesive layer 140 disposed between light guide plate 110 and functional material layer 130 and adhering functional material layer 130 to first surface 111 of light guide plate); and
a refractive index of the second low refractive index layer is n2, wherein n2<n0 (see Chen, fig. 4, paragraph [0033] “the first refractive index n1 is greater than the second refractive index n2”; see paragraphs [0033] and [0040], light guide plate 110 having first refractive index n1, corresponding to the claimed refractive index n0 of the functional layer, and first adhesive layer 140 having second refractive index n2, corresponding to the claimed refractive index n2 of the second low refractive index layer, wherein n1>n2; paragraphs [0029], [0035], and [0037], that the first refractive index n1 of light guide plate 110 may be about 1.4–1.7, while the second refractive index n2 of first adhesive layer 140 may be about 1.4–1.699, and in one embodiment about 1.42–1.5).
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 display module of OIZUMI by providing the second low refractive index layer on the side of the functional layer facing away from the electrophoretic layer and in contact with the first surface, with the refractive-index relationship taught by Chen, in order to provide the disclosed front-light-guide arrangement and improve the contrast ratio of the electrophoretic display when the front light is operated (Chen, paragraphs [0027] and [0034]). Chen identifies the reduction in contrast ratio caused by a conventional front light and expressly teaches that the disclosed refractive-index relationship provides an improved contrast ratio.
Regarding claim 6, OIZUMI in view of Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 4 and Chen further teaches wherein the first substrate (Chen, figs. 2 and 4, layers 130~150) further comprises a first low refractive index layer (see Chen, figs. 2 and 4, second adhesive layer 150 corresponding to the claimed first low refractive index layer), and in a direction perpendicular to a plane on which the first substrate is located (see Chen, figs. 2 and 4, the thickness/stacking direction of layers 130~150, which is perpendicular to the plane of the respective layers), the first low refractive index layer (150) is located on a side of the functional layer (see Chen, fig. 4, light guide plate 110) facing the electrophoretic layer (fig. 4, electrophoretic display panel 160), and the first low refractive index layer (150) is in contact with the second surface (see Chen, figs. 2 and 4, second surface 112 corresponding to the claimed second surface; second adhesive layer 150 disposed on second surface 112 of light guide plate 110, wherein second surface 112 is arranged adjacent to display area 162 of electrophoretic display panel 160, and front light guide module 100a is adhered to electrophoretic display panel 160 by second adhesive layer 150; Chen expressly discloses layer 150 on second surface 112 and, in the electrophoretic embodiment, between the front-light structure and electrophoretic panel);
wherein at least one of the following configurations is satisfied:
a refractive index of the functional layer is n0, and a refractive index of the first low refractive index layer is n1, wherein n1<n0, and |n2−n1|≤0.1; or
a thickness of the second low refractive index layer is greater than or equal to a thickness of the first low refractive index layer (see Chen, figs. 1, 2, and 4, paragraphs [0033], [0037], and [0041], light guide plate 110 having a first refractive index, corresponding to claimed n0; second adhesive layer 150 having a refractive index substantially equal to the second refractive index of first adhesive layer 140, corresponding to claimed n1; and first adhesive layer 140 having the second refractive index, corresponding to claimed n2, wherein the first refractive index of light guide plate 110 is greater than the second refractive index of first adhesive layer 140; Accordingly, because Chen teaches that the refractive index of second adhesive layer 150 is substantially equal to the refractive index of first adhesive layer 140, the refractive-index difference between the claimed first and second low refractive index layers may be substantially zero and therefore satisfies |n2−n1|≤0.1. Further, because the first refractive index of light guide plate 110 is greater than the second refractive index of first adhesive layer 140, and the refractive index of second adhesive layer 150 is substantially equal thereto, n1<n0 is satisfied. Thus, n1<n0, and |n2−n1|≈0≤0.1).
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 display module of OIZUMI to provide the first and second low refractive index layers on opposite sides of the functional/light-guiding layer with the same or substantially equal refractive indices, as taught by Chen, in order to provide the disclosed front-light-guide arrangement having the refractive-index relationship associated with improved contrast ratio of the electrophoretic display when the front light is operated (Chen, paragraphs [0027], [0034], [0037], and [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, OIZUMI in view of Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 4 and Chen further teaches wherein the first substrate further comprises a first low refractive index layer (see Chen, figs. 2 and 4, second adhesive layer 150 corresponding to the claimed first low refractive index layer), and in a direction perpendicular to a plane on which the first substrate is located (see Chen, figs. 2 and 4, the thickness/stacking direction of layers 130~150, which is perpendicular to the plane of the respective layers), the first low refractive index layer (150) is located on a side of the functional layer (see Chen, fig. 4, light guide plate 110) facing the electrophoretic layer (fig. 4, electrophoretic display panel 160), and the first low refractive index layer (150) is in contact with the second surface (see Chen, figs. 2 and 4, second surface 112 corresponding to the claimed second surface; second adhesive layer 150 disposed on second surface 112 of light guide plate 110, wherein second surface 112 is arranged adjacent to display area 162 of electrophoretic display panel 160, and front light guide module 100a is adhered to electrophoretic display panel 160 by second adhesive layer 150; Chen expressly discloses layer 150 on second surface 112 and, in the electrophoretic embodiment, between the front-light structure and electrophoretic panel); and
a refractive index of the functional layer is n0, and a refractive index of the first low refractive index layer is n1, wherein n1<n0, and n0−n2≥n0−n1, or, n1<n0, and n0−n2≤n0−n1 (see Chen, figs. 1, 2, and 4, paragraphs [0033], [0037], and [0041], Chen teaches light guide plate 110 having the first refractive index, corresponding to claimed n0; second adhesive layer 150 having a refractive index substantially equal to the second refractive index of first adhesive layer 140, corresponding to claimed n1; and first adhesive layer 140 having the second refractive index, corresponding to claimed n2, wherein the first refractive index of light guide plate 110 is greater than the second refractive index of first adhesive layer 140; because Chen teaches: n1≈n2, then: n0−n2≈n0−n1, and therefore: n0−n2≥n0−n1 when the substantially equal refractive indices are selected to be equal. Thus, the first alternative of claim 7 is satisfied).
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 display module of OIZUMI to provide the first and second low refractive index layers on opposite sides of the functional/light-guiding layer with the same or substantially equal refractive indices, as taught by Chen, in order to provide the disclosed front-light-guide arrangement having the refractive-index relationship associated with improved contrast ratio of the electrophoretic display when the front light is operated (Chen, paragraphs [0027], [0034], [0037], and [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, OIZUMI in view of Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 7 and Chen further teaches wherein |n1−n2|≤|n0−n1| and/or |n1−n2|≤|n0−n2| (see Chen, figs. 1, 2, and 4, second adhesive layer 150, corresponding to the claimed first low refractive index layer having refractive index n1, having a refractive index substantially equal to the second refractive index of first adhesive layer 140, corresponding to the claimed second low refractive index layer having refractive index n2, while light guide plate 110, corresponding to the claimed functional layer having refractive index n0, has a refractive index greater than the refractive indices of adhesive layers 140 and 150; accordingly, because Chen teaches that the refractive indices of second adhesive layer 150 and first adhesive layer 140 may be substantially equal: |n1−n2|≈0, while: |n0−n1|>0. Therefore: |n1−n2|≤|n0−n1|).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second low refractive index layers with the same refractive index, consistent with Chen's express teaching that the refractive index of second adhesive layer 150 may be substantially equal to the refractive index of first adhesive layer 140, thereby providing the disclosed front-light-guide arrangement while maintaining the refractive-index relationship associated with improved contrast ratio of the electrophoretic display when the front light is operated (Chen, paragraphs [0034], [0037], and [0041]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OIZUMI et al. (JP2003344881, English translation attached) in view of Chen et al. (US20150331176), and further in view of Kim et al. (US20200209463).
Regarding claim 5, OIZUMI in view of Chen discloses the invention as described in Claim 4, OIZUMI does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.2≤n0−n2≤0.5.
However, Kim teaches the analogous light-guiding structure (see Kim, fig. 2, paragraphs [0058] and [0113]-[0114], light guide plate 1 and first low refractive index layer 20 disposed on and directly in contact with light guide plate 1), and further teaches wherein 0.2≤n0−n2≤0.5 (see Kim, fig. 2, n0−n2 = 1.51-1.25; paragraphs [0117]-[0120], light guide plate 1 having a refractive index of about 1.51, corresponding to the claimed n0, and first low refractive index layer 20 having a refractive index of 1.2–1.4, including about 1.25, corresponding to the claimed n2, wherein the difference between the refractive index of light guide plate 1 and the refractive index of first low refractive index layer 20 is greater than 0.2. For example, using Kim's expressly disclosed refractive indices of about 1.51 for light guide plate 1 and about 1.25 for first low refractive index layer 20: n0−n2 = 1.51−1.25 = 0.26,which falls within the claimed range of 0.2≤n0−n2≤0.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the refractive indices of the functional/light-guiding layer and the second low refractive index layer of the modified OIZUMI display such that the refractive-index difference falls within the claimed range of 0.2≤n0−n2≤0.5, as taught by Kim, in order to facilitate total reflection at the interface between the functional/light-guiding layer and the low refractive index layer and thereby effectively guide light through the functional/light-guiding layer (see Kim, paragraphs [0114]-[0120]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OIZUMI et al. (JP2003344881, English translation attached), and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US20150077836) and Kim et al. (US20130095308, hereinafter called Kim’308).
Regarding claim 9, OIZUMI discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, OIZUMI does not explicitly disclose wherein the first substrate further comprises a common electrode layer (OIZUMI, fig. 1, paragraphs [0005] “the upper and lower electrodes 3 and 4 of the electrophoresis display device are held with a small gap between them, it functions as a kind of capacitor”), and the common electrode layer is located on a side of the functional layer facing the electrophoretic layer; and
a refractive index of the common electrode layer is n3, wherein n3>n1 and 0.2≤n3−n1≤0.5.
However, Yamazaki teaches the analogous electrophoretic display structure (see Yamazaki, fig. 1, electrophoretic display apparatus 100, counter substrate 2, common electrode 5, electrophoretic layer 11, and optical element/refractive index variation layer 12), and further teaches wherein the first substrate further comprises a common electrode layer (see Yamazaki, fig. 1, common electrode 5 formed on the electrophoretic-layer side of counter substrate 2), and the common electrode layer is located on a side of the functional layer facing the electrophoretic layer (see Yamazaki, fig. 1 and claim 10, common electrode 5 arranged between refractive index variation layer 12 and electrophoretic layer 11).
Also, Yamazaki further teaches in paragraph [0037] that common electrode 5 is a transparent electrode that may be formed of ITO.
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 display module of OIZUMI by providing a common electrode layer on the side of the functional layer facing the electrophoretic layer, as taught by Yamazaki, in order to provide a common electrode cooperating with the pixel electrodes for applying an electric field to the electrophoretic layer (Yamazaki, paragraph [0044]).
OIZUMI in view of Yamazaki does not expressly teach a refractive index of the common electrode layer is n3, wherein n3>n1 and 0.2≤n3−n1≤0.5.
However, Kim’308 teaches the analogous transparent conductive optical structure (see Kim’308, fig. 1, transparent film, first low refractive index layer, and transparent conductive layer), and further teaches a first low refractive index layer having a refractive index corresponding to the claimed n1 and an ITO transparent conductive layer having a refractive index corresponding to the claimed n3 (see Kim’308, Example 1, first low refractive index silicon oxide layer having a refractive index of 1.47 and an ITO transparent conductive layer having a refractive index of 1.95 formed thereon; accordingly, n3 = 1.95 > n1 = 1.47, and n3−n1 = 1.95−1.47 = 0.48, such that 0.2≤n3−n1≤0.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the transparent common electrode of the modified OIZUMI electrophoretic display from ITO and to employ the refractive-index relationship between the ITO transparent conductive layer and the low refractive index layer as taught by Kim’308, in order to improve the visibility of the transparent conductive optical structure. Kim’308 expressly teaches that its transparent conductive film employs the low-refractive-index layer together with the conductive layer to improve visibility, and Example 1 provides the specific 1.47/1.95 combination (see Kim’308, Example 1 and their descriptions).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chang US20240385489 teaches features of instant invention, such as a first substrate and a second substrate disposed opposite to each other; an electrophoretic layer located between the first substrate and the second substrate (see figs. 1-2 and their descriptions), and Duthaler et al. US20030214697 teaches features of instant invention, such as a first substrate and a second substrate disposed opposite to each other; an electrophoretic layer located between the first substrate and the second substrate (see figs. 18-26 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights