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 § 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.
Claim(s) 11 - 17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al (US 2019/0353973).
With regards to claim 11, Gu teaches a method for integrating a layer of microcells with an electrode (Abstract), the method comprising:
Providing a first substrate (paragraph 80)
Depositing an electrically-conductive material onto the first substrate (paragraph 80)
Forming a first electrode on the first substrate from the electrically-conductive material (paragraph 80)
Depositing an adhesive material onto the first electrode (paragraph 81)
Forming a tie layer on the first electrode from the adhesive material (paragraph 81)
Bonding a microcell precursor material to the tie layer (paragraphs 80 – 82)
Embossing the microcell precursor material to create a layer of microcells, where the microcells have a bottom, walls and a top opening (paragraphs 65 and 81)
Filling the microcells with an electrophoretic medium through the top opening (paragraphs 65, 81 and 82)
Sealing off the top opening of the filled microcells with a water-soluble polymer to create a sealing layer (paragraphs 81 and 82)
With regards to claim 12, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the first substrate is a release film (paragraph 82).
With regards to claims 13 and 14, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the electrically-conductive material comprises a light-transmissive polymer that comprises PEDOT:PSS (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 15, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the light-transmissive conductive polymer further comprises a crosslinker (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 16, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the light-transmissive conductive polymer comprises an aqueous solution comprising PEDOT:PSS (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 17, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that depositing the electrically-conductive material onto the first substrate comprises using a slot die or gravure coating (paragraph 53).
With regards to claim 21, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the adhesive material comprises a mixture of acrylates, polyurethane and a solvent based on methyl ethyl ketone (paragraphs 65 and 80).
With regards to claim 22, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that forming the tie layer on the first electrode comprises curing the adhesive material with electromagnetic radiation (paragraph 80).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US 2019/0353973).
With regards to claim 1, Gu teaches a method for integrating a layer of piezoelectric material with an electrode (Abstract), the method comprising:
Providing a first substrate (paragraph 80)
Depositing an electrically-conductive material onto the first substrate (paragraph 80)
Forming a first electrode on the first substrate from the electrically-conductive material (paragraph 80)
Depositing an adhesive material onto the first electrode (paragraph 81)
Forming a tie layer on the first electrode from the adhesive material (paragraph 81)
Depositing a piezoelectric material comprising PVDF solution on the tie layer to produce a piezoelectric layer (paragraphs 63 and 80 – 82)
Gu states that the layer is less than 10 microns in thickness (paragraph 80). While Gu fails to explicitly disclose that the layer is less than 5 micron, Gu’s range overlaps the claimed range, which would indicate that a prima facie case of obviousness exists, as per section 2144.05 of the MPEP and as per In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
With regards to claim 2, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the first substrate is a release film (paragraph 82).
With regards to claims 3 and 4, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the electrically-conductive material comprises a light-transmissive polymer that comprises PEDOT:PSS (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 5, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the light-transmissive conductive polymer further comprises a crosslinker (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 6, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the light-transmissive conductive polymer comprises an aqueous solution comprising PEDOT:PSS (paragraph 80).
With regards to claim 7, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that depositing the electrically-conductive material onto the first substrate comprises using a slot die or gravure coating (paragraph 53).
With regards to claim 8, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the PVDF solution is an aqueous solution (paragraphs 63 and 64).
With regards to claim 9, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that the adhesive material comprises a mixture of acrylates, polyurethane and a solvent based on methyl ethyl ketone (paragraphs 65 and 80).
With regards to claim 10, the teachings of Gu are presented above. Additionally, Gu teaches that forming the tie layer on the first electrode comprises curing the adhesive material with electromagnetic radiation (paragraph 80).
Claim Objections
Claims 18 - 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHEL RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)270-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12pm - 8pm.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/JOSHEL RIVERA/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
