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
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 1-11, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al. (US 20220082896 A1) in view of Amundson et al. (US 20070085818 A1) and Tam (US 20080238871 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Telfer discloses an electrophoretic display (Figs. 2A and 4; paragraphs 55-56 and 94) comprising: a control substrate (substrate 202) comprising a plurality of thin film transistors (“TFT”, paragraph 95), a plurality of pixel electrodes (pixel electrodes 15 and 204), a plurality of storage capacitors, wherein one of the storage capacitors is arranged with one of the capacitance electrodes (Fig. 3, paragraph 89-90); a charge balance substrate (transparent substrate 222); a charge balance electrode (transparent electrode layer 220) arranged on a side close to the charge balance substrate; a display layer (see Fig. 4) arranged on one side of the control substrate and comprising a plurality of microcontainers (microcells formed by walls 212), the microcontainers being filled with a colloidal solution (electrophoretic fluid 214 ), and the colloidal solution containing at least one charged color particle (see Fig. 2A, paragraph 65).
Telfer does not explicitly disclose a plurality of capacitance electrodes electrically connected to each other.
However, Amundson (reference WO 01/07961 of Telfer) teaches circuitry used in addressing pixels of similar devices to Telfer, where capacitance electrodes (Fig. 1 capacitor regions 12, 12’) are formed by pixel electrodes (14, 14’) and capacitance electrodes (gate lines 10, 10’) and capacitance electrodes are electrically connected to each other (see Fig. 1; paragraphs 33-34; “An additional such capacitor region corresponding to 12' can be understood to be present for each gate line/pixel electrode pair along each data line of the electronic display”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to include the circuitry taught by Amundson in the device of Telfer to improve the performance of the electrophoretic display.
Telfer modified by Amundson discloses all of the claim limitations except for a charge balance enhancing circuit as claimed.
Tam, however, teaches a charge balance enhancing circuit (charge integrator 190, Figs. 8A and 9A) comprising: a charge-voltage conversion capacitor (capacitor 194) having a first terminal and a second terminal (see Fig. 8A), for use in bi-stable displays (paragraph 12),and that is capable of transferring electrical charge from an electrically connected pixel (paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Telfer in view of Amundson to include the charge balance enhancing circuit of Park. One would have been motivated to include the circuit of Park to probe the charge of pixels in the device.
Regarding claim 2, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses the first terminal of the charge-voltage conversion capacitor (capacitor 194, Fig. 8A of Tam) is electrically connected to one input end of the charge balance enhancing circuit, the second terminal of the charge-voltage conversion capacitor is electrically connected to an output end of the charge balance enhancing circuit (see Fig. 8A of Tam).
Regarding claim 3, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses a bypass switch (reset switch 192, Fig. 8A of Tam) arranged between the first terminal and the second terminal of the charge-voltage conversion capacitor (see Fig. 8A of Tam).
Regarding claim 4, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 3 discloses all of the claim limitations except for the bypass switch as short circuited before screen update and is open circuited after screen update is started.
However, Tam teaches the bypass switch as short circuited before screen update and as open circuited after screen update is started (Tam: paragraphs 55-57, see Figs. 8B-C and 9B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to operate the bypass switch as prescribed by Tam. One would have been motivated to do so to effectively operate the charge-voltage conversion capacitor of Telfer device as modified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses the microcontainer as comprising a microcapsule structure (Telfer discloses microcapsules may be used, paragraph 94).
Regarding claim 6, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses the microcontainer as comprising micro-cup structure (Telfer: microcells formed by walls 212).
Regarding claim 7, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses the microcontainer as comprising micro partition structure (Telfer: electrophoretic fluid is partitioned by walls 212, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses all of the claim limitations except for a gain of the charge balance enhancing circuit as equal to or larger than one.
Tam, however, discloses a gain of the charge balance enhancing circuit as equal to or larger than one (Tam: see Figure 8B-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to operate the charge balance enhancing circuit with a gain of one or more. One would have been motivated to do so to operate the circuit as an active circuit.
Regarding claim 9, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses the charge balance enhancing circuit as comprising an operational amplifier (see Fig. 8A of Tam).
Regarding claim 10, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses the charge balance substrate as a transparent substrate (Telfer: transparent substrate 222).
Regarding claim 11, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 10 discloses the charge balance electrode as a transparent electrode (Telfer: transparent electrode layer 220).
Regarding claim 16, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 would have rendered obvious the plurality of thin film transistors are amorphous silicon thin film transistors or organic thin film transistors (Telfer discloses that amorphous silicon may be used to form the transistors, paragraph 89).
Regarding claim 22, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses a colloidal solution of the display layer as comprising a plurality of charged white particles, a plurality of charged yellow particles, a plurality of charged magenta particles, and a plurality of charged cyan particles (Telfer: paragraph 59).
Claims 12-15, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al. (US 20220082896 A1) in view of Amundson et al. (US 20070085818 A1), Tam (US 20080238871 A1), and Machida et al. (US 20020033793 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as previously described above for claim 11 discloses all of the claim limitations except for a color filter layer arranged on one side of the charge balance electrode.
Machida, however, teaches an electrophoretic display comprising a color filter layer (color resin layer 27) disposed toward the bottom of a charge balance electrode (transparent second display electrode 22b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device as previously described for claim 11 to include a color filter arranged on one side of the charge balance electrode. One would have been motivated to include a color filter in this way to produce a broader spectrum of pixel colors.
Regarding claim 13, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 12 discloses all of the claim limitations except for the control substrate as a transparent substrate.
However, Machida teaches a transparent control substrate (Figs. 17-18, back substrate 23, paragraphs 151 and 155) with transparent capacitance electrodes (transparent second back electrode 25b) to allow transmission of light from a light source (light source 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device as previously described for claim 12 to include a transparent control substrate. One would have been motivated to do so to make use of a backlight in the device.
Regarding claim 14, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 13 would have rendered obvious the plurality of pixel electrodes (Telfer: transparent electrode layer 220) and the plurality of capacitance electrodes (Machida: transparent back electrode 25b) are transparent electrodes.
Regarding claim 15, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 14 would have rendered obvious a color filter layer as arranged on one side of the control substrate (see rejection for claim 12).
Regarding claim 19, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 1 discloses all of the claim limitations except for a colloidal solution of the display layer as comprising a plurality of charged black particles and a plurality of charged white particles.
However, Machida teaches an electrophoretic display with stacked electrophoretic layers (Fig. 16A-18, display cell 13) such that the pixels may comprise any arrangement of four charged particles (Figs. 16A-18, particles 40-43) from black, white, red, yellow, blue, green, magenta, and cyan particles (paragraph 148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the four particles taught by Telfer, modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida, to include any arrangement of the colored particles taught by Machida. One would have been motivated to do so to produce a broader spectrum of pixel colors
Regarding claim 20, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 19 would have rendered obvious a colloidal solution of the display layer comprising a plurality of charged black particles, a plurality of charged white particles and a plurality of charged red particles.
Regarding claim 21, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 19 would have rendered obvious a colloidal solution of the display layer comprising a plurality of charged black particles, a plurality of charged white particles, a plurality of charged red particles, and a plurality of charged yellow particles (see rejection of claim 19).
Regarding claim 23, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Machida as described above for claim 19 would have rendered obvious a colloidal solution of the display layer comprising a plurality of charged white particles, a plurality of charged yellow particles, a plurality of charged red particles, and a plurality of charged blue particles (see rejection of claim 19).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telfer et al. (US 20220082896 A1) in view of Amundson et al. (US 20070085818 A1), Tam (US 20080238871 A1), and Crounse (US 20230351977 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Telfer modified by Amundson and Tam as described above for claim 1 discloses all of the claim limitations except for the charge balance enhancing circuit as arranged in a control integrated circuit chip, and the control integrated circuit chip is arranged on a surface of the control substrate.
However, Crounse discloses electrophoretic display similar to Telfer consisting of a control integrated circuit chip (Crounse: processor 50 with controller 60), wherein the control integrated circuit chip is arranged on a surface of the control substrate (paragraph 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device as described for claim 1 to include a charge balance enhancing circuit arranged in a control integrated circuit chip, wherein the control integrated circuit chip is arranged on a surface of the control substrate. One would have been motivated to include the circuit in this way to precisely control the voltages of the display pixels.
Regarding claim 18, Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Crounse discloses all of the claim limitations except for the control integrated circuit chip as arranged on a surface of a flexible circuit board, and one end of the flexible circuit board is pressed against one end of the control substrate.
However, Telfer and Crounse teaches that the display may be flexible (Telfer paragraph 26; Crounse, paragraph 27), reasonably suggesting the control integrated circuit chip is arranged on a surface of a flexible circuit board, and one end of the flexible circuit board is pressed against one end of the control substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Telfer modified by Amundson, Tam, and Crounse as described above for claim 17 to arrange the control integrated circuit chip on a flexible circuit board. One would have been motivated to do so to make the display foldable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS FELIX RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-0652. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900 - 1700.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/Francis F Rivera/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
