`
`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
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`wwwnsptogov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/025,287
`
`02/11/2011
`
`Tomio YAGUCHI
`
`1508.51421X00
`
`2377
`
`20457
`
`7590
`
`02/14/2013
`
`ANTONELLLTERRY, STOUT&KRAUS,LLP
`1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
`SUITE 1800
`ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873
`
`ARENDT, PAISLEY L
`
`2871
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`02/14/2013
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`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)
`
`

`

`
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`
` 13/025,287 YAGUCHI ET AL.
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`PAISLEY L. ARENDT
`2871
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS 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 () 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, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11 February 2011.
`
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)IXI This action is non-final.
`
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)|Zl Claim(s) 1-20is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:l Claim(s) _ is/are allowed.
`
`7)|Xl Claim(s) 1-_20is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:l Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway
`program at a participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`httn:,I/www usntq. quwua'ertslanr events/
`h/Indexis or send an inquiry to PPeredback us toxev.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)|ZI The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 11 February 2011 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)I:I 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)|X| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)|Z All
`
`b)|:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _
`
`3.I:I Copies of 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) IZI Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) E Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 02/11/2011.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) I] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`4) D Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 09-12)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20130208
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Priority
`
`1.
`
`Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. ll9(a)—(d), which papers
`
`have been placed of record in the file.
`
`Specification
`
`2.
`
`The title 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 antecedent basis.
`
`b.
`
`Claims 4, 5 and 19 — “the difference in the index of refraction” lack antecedent
`
`basis.
`
`c.
`
`Claims 17 and 18 — “the center portion” and “the peripheral portion” lack
`
`antecedent basis.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to 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 and a plate pasted to at least one side of said display cell
`
`(col. 2, lines 13—67).
`
`Sumi does 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 adhesiveness in 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 made to incorporate an adhesiveness of 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
`
`adhesiveness in a direction parallel to the surface, as in Kreckel, into the display device of Sumi
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`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).
`
`Sumi does 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 made to 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 obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s
`
`invention was made to incorporate the liquid having a boiling point of 200°C or higher, since it
`
`has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
`
`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 component of the liquid is a phthalate—
`
`based material or benzyl benzoate (col. 8, line 38 — col. 9, line 21).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Regarding claims 8 and 9, Sumi discloses the plate is a polarizing plate (col. 3, lines 1—
`
`20).
`
`Regarding claims 10 and 11, Sumi discloses 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).
`
`Sumi does not explicitly disclose the glass substrate having a thickness of 100 um or less,
`
`and a thickness of 50 um or less.
`
`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 or less, and a thickness of 50 um or less, 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 made to incorporate
`
`the glass substrate having a thickness of 100 um or less, and a thickness of 50 um or less, since it
`
`has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
`
`discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP
`
`2144.05.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`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.
`
`Claims 4 and 5 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 or less.
`
`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 made to 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 Kreckel et al. (US 5,516,581), as applied to claims 1—3 above, and
`
`further in view of Nishizawa et al. (US 2009/0015747), of record in the IDS.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/025,287
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Regarding claim 17, Sumi and Kreckel do not explicitly disclose the support member is 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 more protrusions that make contact with the plate.
`
`However, Nishizawa discloses 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 more protrusions
`
`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 made to incorporate the support member being 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 more protrusions 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, Sumi discloses the plate is a polarizing plate (col. 3, lines 1—20), and
`
`the display device has a support member which makes contact 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 member is 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 more protrusions which make contact with the plate.
`
`However, Nishizawa discloses 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
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`covers a peripheral portion of the plate (see Figs. 1, 3 and 5) and has two or more protrusions
`
`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 made to incorporate the support member being 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 more protrusions 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 component of the 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 Nishizawa et 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, Sumi discloses the display cell has a substrate (see abstract).
`
`Sumi, Kreckel and Nishizawa do not explicitly disclose the difference in the indeX of
`
`refraction between the liquid and the substrate is 0.2 or less.
`
`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
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`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 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 Nishizawa to 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 whose telephone number is (571)270—
`
`5023. The examiner can normally be reached on MON — FRI, 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached on 571—272—2713. 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 applications
`
`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 htt
`
`
`
`:.// air-directus togov. 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
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`/Lucy P Chien/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
`
`