`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`
`13/025,287
`
`02/11/2011
`
`Tomio YAGUCHI
`
`1508.51421X00
`
`2377
`
`20457
`
`7590
`
`02/14/2013
`
`ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
`1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
`SUITE 1800
`ARLINGTON,VA 22209-3873
`
`ARENDT,PAISLEY L
`
`2871
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`02/14/2013
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`
` 13/025,287 YAGUCHI ET AL.
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`PAISLEY L. ARENDT
`2871
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY(30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s)filed on 11 February 2011.
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b) This action is non-final.
`3)L]
`Anelection was made bythe applicant in responseto a restriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`___; the restriction requirement and election have beenincorporated into this action.
`4)L] Sincethis application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5) Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claims)
`is/are allowed.
`7)X] Claim(s) 1-20is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s) ___ is/are objected to.
`
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may beeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program ata participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http/www.usoto.qov/patents/init events/pph/index isp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.qov.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)] The drawing(s)filed on 11 February 2011 is/are: a)X] accepted or b)[] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)] Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)XJ All
`b)L] Some * c)L] None of:
`1.X] Certified copiesof the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copiesof the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Attachment(s)
`1) x Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) X Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 02/7 1/2011.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) | Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`4) Cc] Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20130208
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Priority
`
`1.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers
`
`have been placed of record in thefile.
`
`Specification
`
`2.
`
`Thetitle of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
`
`indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`3.
`
`Claims 3-5 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`a.
`
`Claim 3 — “‘the surface energy of the display cell and the surface energy of the
`
`plate” lack antecedentbasis.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 4, 5 and 19 — “the difference in the index ofrefraction” lack antecedent
`
`basis.
`
`c.
`
`Claims 17 and 18 — “the center portion” and “the peripheral portion” lack
`
`antecedentbasis.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 3
`
`4,
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which formsthe basis forall
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained thoughthe inventionis not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 ofthistitle, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented andthe prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obviousat the time the invention was madeto a person
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1-3 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Sumi (US 6,582,789) in view of Kreckel et al. (US 5,516,581).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sumi discloses a display device (see abstract), comprising a display
`
`cell on which an image can be displayed anda plate pasted to at least one side of said displaycell
`
`(col. 2, lines 13-67).
`
`Sumidoes not explicitly disclose an adhesiveness of the display cell to the plate in a
`
`direction perpendicular to a surface of the display cell that faces the plate is greater than an
`
`adhesiveness in a direction parallel to the surface.
`
`However, Kreckel discloses a display device (see Figs. 1-12), characterized in that an
`
`adhesiveness of a display cell to a plate in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the display
`
`cell that faces the plate is greater than an adhesivenessin a direction parallel to the surface (see
`
`Fig. 13, Table 2 and abstract).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate an adhesivenessof the display cell to the plate in a
`
`direction perpendicular to a surface of the display cell that faces the plate being greater than an
`
`adhesivenessin a direction parallel to the surface, as in Kreckel, into the display device of Sumi
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 4
`
`to securely adhere the plate to the display cell, while having the ability to release the plate from
`
`the display cell when desired with no damage (Kreckel, col. 2, lines 30-36).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Sumi discloses a liquid is intervened between the display cell and the
`
`plate (col. 9, lines 53-63).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Sumi discloses the liquid is a viscous fluid (col. 14, lines 12-18 and
`
`col. 15, lines 30-42), has surface energy that is lower than the surface energy of the display cell
`
`and the surface energy of the plate (col. 9, lines 1-21).
`
`Sumidoes not explicitly disclose the liquid has a boiling point of 200°C or higher.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate the liquid having a boiling point of 200°C or
`
`higher into the display device of Sumi and Kreckel so that the liquid will effectively function as
`
`an adhesive at normal operating temperatures and even extreme temperatures. Furthermore,it
`
`would have been obviousto one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s
`
`invention was madeto incorporate the liquid having a boiling point of 200°C or higher, sinceit
`
`has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosedin the priorart,
`
`discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP
`
`2144.05.
`
`Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sumi discloses a main componentofthe liquid is a phthalate-
`
`based material or benzyl benzoate (col. 8, line 38 — col. 9, line 21).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 5
`
`Regarding claims 8 and 9, Sumidiscloses the plate is a polarizing plate (col. 3, lines 1-
`
`20).
`
`Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sumidiscloses the display cell has a substrate and the
`
`substrate is a plastic substrate (col. 13, lines 42-46).
`
`Regarding claims 12-14, Sumi discloses the display cell has a substrate and the substrate
`
`is a glass substrate (col. 5, lines 35-58 and col. 12, lines 11-27).
`
`Sumidoesnot explicitly disclose the glass substrate having a thickness of 100 um orless,
`
`and a thickness of 50 um orless.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`the applicant’s invention was made to incorporate the glass substrate having a thickness of 100
`
`um orless, and a thickness of 50 um orless, into the display device of Sumi and Kreckel to
`
`produce a very thin and light-weight display device. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to
`
`one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate
`
`the glass substrate having a thickness of 100 um orless, and a thickness of 50 um orless, since it
`
`has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosedin the priorart,
`
`discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP
`
`2144.05.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 6
`
`Regarding claims 15 and 16, Sumi discloses a support member that makes contact with
`
`the plate through at least two points (col. 9, line 64 — col. 10, line 11).
`
`6.
`
`Claims4 and5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumi (US
`
`6,582,789) and Kreckel et al. (US 5,516,581), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view
`
`of Sharp et al. (US 6,638,583).
`
`Regarding claims 4 and 5, Sumi discloses the display cell has a substrate (see abstract).
`
`Sumi and Kreckel do not explicitly disclose the difference in the index of refraction
`
`between the liquid and the substrate is 0.2 orless.
`
`However, Sharp discloses a display device (col. 2, line 61 — col. 3, line 7), characterized
`
`in that a difference in an index of refraction between a liquid and a substrate is 0.2 or less (col. 1,
`
`lines 41-47),
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate the difference in the index of refraction between
`
`the liquid and the substrate being 0.2 or less, as in Sharp, into the display device of Sumi and
`
`Kreckel to attain an acceptable level of performance (Sharp, col. 1, lines 41-47).
`
`7.
`
`Claims 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Sumi (US 6,582,789) and Kreckelet al. (US 5,516,581), as applied to claims 1-3 above, and
`
`further in view of Nishizawaet al. (US 2009/0015747), of record in the IDS.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 7
`
`Regarding claim 17, Sumi and Kreckel do not explicitly disclose the support memberis a
`
`frame from which the center portion of the plate is exposed and which coversthe peripheral
`
`portion of the plate and has two or moreprotrusions that make contact with the plate.
`
`However, Nishizawadiscloses a display device (see Figs. 1-6 and 9), characterized in that
`
`a support member (11) is a frame from which a center portion of a plate (8) is exposed and which
`
`covers a peripheral portion of the plate (see Figs. 1, 3 and 5) and has two or moreprotrusions
`
`that make contact with the plate (see 11, Fig. 5, and/or 64, Fig. 9).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate the support memberbeing a frame from which the
`
`center portion of the plate is exposed and which covers the peripheral portion of the plate and has
`
`two or moreprotrusions that make contact with the plate, as in Nishizawa,into the display device
`
`of Sumi and Kreckel to secure the plate to the display cell while allowing viewing of image
`
`displays.
`
`Regarding claim 18, Sumidiscloses the plate is a polarizing plate (col. 3, lines 1-20), and
`
`the display device has a support member which makescontact with the polarizing plate through
`
`at least two points (col. 9, line 64 — col. 10, line 11).
`
`Sumi and Kreckel do not explicitly disclose the support memberis a frame from which
`
`the center portion of the plate is exposed and whichcovers the peripheral portion of the plate and
`
`has two or more protrusions which make contact with the plate.
`
`However, Nishizawadiscloses a display device (see Figs. 1-6 and 9), characterized in that
`
`a support member (11) is a frame from which a center portion of a plate (8) is exposed and which
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 8
`
`covers a peripheral portion of the plate (see Figs. 1, 3 and 5) and has two or moreprotrusions
`
`that make contact with the plate (see 11, Fig. 5, and/or 64, Fig. 9).
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate the support memberbeing a frame from which the
`
`center portion of the plate is exposed and which covers the peripheral portion of the plate and has
`
`two or moreprotrusions that make contact with the plate, as in Nishizawa,into the display device
`
`of Sumi and Kreckel to secure the plate to the display cell while allowing viewing of image
`
`displays.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Sumi discloses a main componentofthe liquid is a phthalate-based
`
`material or benzyl benzoate (col. 8, line 38 — col. 9, line 21).
`
`8.
`
`Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sumi (US
`
`6,582,789), Kreckel et al. (US 5,516,581) and Nishizawaet al. (US 2009/0015747), as applied to
`
`claim 18 above, and further in view of Sharp et al. (US 6,638,583).
`
`Regarding claim 19, Sumidiscloses the display cell has a substrate (see abstract).
`
`Sumi, Kreckel and Nishizawa do notexplicitly disclose the difference in the index of
`
`refraction between the liquid and the substrate is 0.2 orless.
`
`However, Sharp discloses a display device (col. 2, line 61 — col. 3, line 7), characterized
`
`in that a difference in an index of refraction between a liquid and a substrate is 0.2 or less (col. 1,
`
`lines 41-47),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 9
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`applicant’s invention was madeto incorporate the difference in the index of refraction between
`
`the liquid and the substrate being 0.2 or less, as in Sharp, into the display device of Sumi,
`
`Kreckel and Nishizawato attain an acceptable level of performance (Sharp, col. 1, lines 41-47).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L. ARENDT whosetelephone numberis (571)270-
`
`5023. The examiner can normally be reached on MON- FRI, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Bumsuk Woncan be reached on 571-272-2713. The fax phone numberfor 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 applications
`
`maybe 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 hitp://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 Service Representative or access to the
`
`automated information system,call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA)or 571-272-1000.
`
`/Paisley L Arendt/
`Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`/Lucy P Chien/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
`
`Page 10
`
`