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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 35-54 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-34 are canceled; and claims 35, 39, 44, 46 and 54 are currently amended; and claims 36-38, 40-43, 45 and 47-53 are previously presented. The amendment dated March 10, 2026 has been entered into the record.
The drawings were previously objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The objections are now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claims. Claim 35 was previously objected to because of the informalities and claims 35-45 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The objections and rejections are now withdrawn as the applicant has canceled the claims.
Response to Arguments
(1) The applicant argues that “the greater area occupied by spacers is only provided when the user action is applied. The area therefore become greater” (Remarks, Pages 8-11).
The examiner considers that the applicant describes functional limitations. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2173.05(g). In this case, Lee and/or Li teaches first and second spacer structures which are capable of occupying greater area provided when a user action is applied.
(2) The applicant further argues that “Protrusions 231 and 232 of Chuang, however, are not spacers. Similarly, elements 241 and 242 … are also not "spacers" within the meaning of claim 35” (Remarks, Pages 11-12).
The examiner considers spacers, columns, protrusions, sub-spacers, sub-columns and/or sub-protrusions are spacers, wherein the terminology are consistent with accepted meaning in the art. See at least Figure 1 and 3-4 of the present application. The examiner further notes that Chuang does not need to teach all the limitations of claim 35 in light of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 35 and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 35 lines 17-18, “the liquid crystal material” should be “the LC material” since “LC material” is already stated in line 2.
In claim 46 line 31, “the liquid crystal material” should be “the LC material” since “liquid crystal (LC)” is already stated in line 1.
In claim 46 lines 19 and 24, “under action of air pressure” should be “under an action of air pressure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 35-37, 39-40 and 42-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2009/0275256), of record, in view of Li (US 2017/0242286), of record, and in further view of Chuang (US 2019/0285928), of record.
Regarding claim 35, Lee discloses a device (Figure 2; Paragraph [0019]) comprising a liquid crystal (LC) cell (300), wherein the LC cell comprises LC material (Paragraph [0025]) contained between opposing surfaces of first and second components (opposing surfaces of 210 and 110; Paragraph [0022]), the device comprising:
first spacer structures (500 on 210) of a first height (see Figure 2) defined by the first component;
second spacer structures (400 on 110) of a second height (see Figure 2) defined by the second component,
a greater area occupied by the first and second spacers rendering the cell less susceptible to localized compression, to prevent excessive localized changes in the thickness of the liquid crystal material under such touch action of a user (see Figure 2; a claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2173.05(g). In this case Lee teaches the first and second spacer structures which are capable of rendering the cell less susceptible to localized compression under the larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, to prevent excessive localized changes in the thickness of the liquid crystal material under such touch action of a user); and
the first spacer structures defined by the first component are configured to fit into spaces between the second spacer structures defined by the second component (Figure 2), such that the first and second spacers structures intermesh (see Figure 2).
Lee does not explicitly disclose, under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell;
the first height being larger than the second height, such that: under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the LC cell; under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures both facilitate compression of the LC cell,
to limit the extent to which the first and second components can slip over each other in both x-y axes of the LC cell.
However, Li teaches, under an action of air pressure on outsides of a LC cell, first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell (see Figure 4 wherein MCS, having a height greater than SCS, contacts 58, i.e., the structure is capable of facilitating compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell); the first height being larger than a second height (Figure 4, see the heights of MCS and SCS) such that: under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the LC cell (see Fig. 4 where SCS does not contact 58); under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures both facilitate compression of the LC cell (MCS and SCS are capable of contact 58 with large enough forces), and Chuang further teaches limiting the extent to which first and second components can slip over each other in both x-y axes of the LC cell (see Figures 3D and 4 teaching the top view and the side view of spacer structures on each component; Paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the LC cell as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Li and Chung, wherein under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell; the first height being larger than the second height, such that: under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the LC cell; under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures both facilitate compression of the LC cell, to limit the extent to which the first and second components can slip over each other in both x-y axes of the LC cell, for the purpose of defining the thickness of a liquid crystal layer (Li: Paragraph [0042]) while restricting the movements of the substrates (Chuang: Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 36, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the intermeshing spacer structures are defined by patterned layers (see patterned layers in Figure 2; Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 37, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above, and Lee further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second components defines an array of color filters in a black matrix (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0022]), and at least a portion of the intermeshing spacer structures being located in black matrix regions of the LC cell (Figure 2 and Paragraph [0027]), the intermeshing spacer structures being selectively located in black matrix regions of the LC cell (Figure 2, see black matrix 225 formed on a region corresponding to a non-transmission region where the thin film transistor (Tr) is formed).
Regarding claim 39, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the first spacer structures are defined by one of two half-cell components and the second spacer structures are defined by the other of the two half-cell components (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 40, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above.
Lee does not disclose a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the first and second components of the second spacer structures is between 50% and 98% of a dimension in the direction perpendicular to the first and second components of the first spacer structures.
However, Chuang teaches intermeshing structures (23 in Figure 2B) comprising first spacer structures (232) and second spacer structures (231), in which a height of a first spacer structures and a height of a second spacer structures ranges from 2.0 μm to 2.6 μm, and the difference between the height thereof ranges from 0.8 μm to 1.8 μm (Paragraph [0038]).
Because Chuang identifies the result effective variables including a height of first spacer structures, a height of second spacer structures and a difference therebetween, for the purpose of keeping the good uniformity of the overall cell gap of a curved display panel (Paragraphs [0025], [0038]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the intermeshing structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Chuang, wherein a dimension in a direction perpendicular to the first and second components of the second spacer structures is between 50% and 98% of a dimension in the direction perpendicular to the first and second components of the first spacer structures, as an optimization of a result effective variable. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and (B)).
Regarding claim 42, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above, and Lee further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second components defines an array of color filters (Paragraph [0022]), and at least the other of the first and second components comprises a corresponding array of pixel electrodes (Paragraph [0025]); wherein the individual dimension of the color filters is greater by a first amount than the individual dimension of the pixel electrodes in at least one axis (the individual dimension of the colour filters is inherently greater by a first amount than the individual dimension of the pixel electrodes, since a first amount is not further defined. For example, a first amount could be zero, or positive value(s) or negative value(s)).
Lee does not disclose the intermeshing of the first and second components limits the range of relative movement of the first and second components in the at least one axis by an amount no greater than the first amount.
However, Chuang teaches intermeshing structures (23 in Figure 2) comprising first spacer structures (232) and second spacer structures (231), in which the relative movement of the two components in the at least one axis is restricted (Paragraph [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figures 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Chuang, wherein the intermeshing of the first and second components limits the range of relative movement of the first and second components in the at least one axis by an amount no greater than the first amount, for the purpose of obtaining a good brightness uniformity (Chuang: Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 43, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above.
Lee does not disclose the intermeshing of the first and second components limits the range of relative movement of the first and second components to no more than about 20 microns in at least one axis.
However, Chuang teaches intermeshing structures of a liquid crystal panel (23 in Figure 2) comprises first spacer structures (232) and second spacer structures (231), in which the relative movement of the two components in the at least one axis is restricted (Paragraph [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figures 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Paragraph [0029]) (examiner also considers Paragraph [0034] “by the engagement, the first protruding portion 231 will not easily move in the direction parallel to a substrate extending plane” indicating the movement is considerably small given the size of the spacer structures being a few micrometers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Chuang, wherein the intermeshing of the first and second components limits the range of relative movement of the first and second components to no more than about 20 microns in at least one axis, for the purpose of obtaining a good brightness uniformity (Chuang: Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 44, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the second spacer structures are configured not to contact the opposing surface of the first component under the action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell (Figure 2; the examiner considers Figure 2 is the product after the manufacturing, which is generally used under the action of air pressure).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li and Chuang, and in further view of Kim (US 2017/0102574), of record.
Regarding claim 38, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above.
Lee does not necessarily disclose the intermeshing spacer structures comprise spacer structures of differing white-light transmittance.
However, Kim teaches spacer structures (Figure 11), wherein upper spacer structures exhibit a higher light transmittance than lower spacer structures (see G1 and G2; Paragraphs [0128] “G2 may contain the light-shielding material” and [0130] “G1 may be made of an organic insulating material”; examiner considers an organic insulating material in Kim is transparent since the passivation layer 180c in an active area is also made of the organic insulating material; Paragraph [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the intermeshing structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Kim, wherein the intermeshing spacer structures comprise spacer structures of differing white-light transmittance, for the purpose of covering a transistor using a light-shielding material and preventing a light leakage (Kim: Figure 11), and as conventionally known in the art.
Claims 41 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li and Chuang, and in further view of Miyazaki (US 2002/0171800), of record.
Regarding claim 41, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above.
Lee does not disclose the first spacer structures and/or the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases towards the opposing half-cell component.
However, Miyazaki teaches spacer structures (Figure 6), wherein first spacer structures and/or the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases towards opposing half-cell component (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shapes of the first and second structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Miyazaki, wherein the first spacer structures and/or the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases towards the opposing half-cell component, for the purpose of reducing the possibility of being electrically conductive to the common electrode by using an inversely-tapered shape (Miyazaki: Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 45, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 35 above.
Lee does not disclose the first spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the second component; and the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the first component.
However, Miyazaki teaches spacer structures (Figure 6), having a cross-sectional area decreasing in a direction towards an opposite substrate (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shapes of the first and second structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Miyazaki, wherein the first spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the second component; and the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the first component, for the purpose of reducing the possibility of being electrically conductive to the common electrode by using an inversely-tapered shape (Miyazaki: Paragraph [0077]).
Claims 46-50, 52 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li and Chuang, and in further view of Liao (US 2004/0114093), of record.
Regarding claim 46, Lee discloses a method of producing a liquid crystal (LC) cell (Figures 2-3; Paragraphs [0019]-[0020]), comprising:
forming first spacer structures of a first height (see 500 in Figure 2) defined by a first component (500 on 210);
forming second spacer structures of a second height (see 400 in Figure 2) defined by the second component (400 on 110);
pressing opposing surfaces of first and second components together in a vacuum state, such that: the first spacer structures defined by the first component are configured to guide lateral positioning of second spacer structures defined by the second component, as the first and second components are pressed together to form an assembled LC cell with the first and second spacer structures forming intermeshing spacer structures (Paragraph [0038] teaching it is the vacuum state and the pressure difference which brings the opposing surfaces of two components together to form an assembled LC cell and intermeshing spacer structures), and
the greater area occupied by the first and second spacer structures rendering the LC cell less susceptible to localized compression under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user of the device, to prevent excessive localized changes in the thickness of the liquid crystal material under such touch action of a user (see Figure 2; a claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" (e.g., as evidenced by its specific structure or specific ingredients). In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2173.05(g). In this case Lee teaches the first and second spacer structures which are capable of rendering the cell less susceptible to localized compression under the larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, to prevent excessive localized changes in the thickness of the liquid crystal material under such touch action of a user).
Lee does not necessarily disclose a vacuum chamber and removing the assembled LC cell from the vacuum chamber.
However, Liao teaches using a vacuum chamber for a vacuum state and removing an assembled LC cell (Paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Liao, to have a vacuum chamber and removing the assembled LC cell from the vacuum chamber, for the purpose of using a vacuum chamber to create a vacuum state and obtaining the assembled LC cell (Liao: Paragraph [0018]).
Lee further fails to disclose the first height being larger than the second height;
the intermeshing spacer structures which limit the extent to which the first and second components can slip over each other in both x-y axes of the LC cell,
the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell and the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the LC cell under the action of air pressure on outside of the LC cell; and
under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, the first spacer structures are configured to exhibit greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures, such that the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell and the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the assembled LC cell under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell, under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell,
under the larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures both facilitate compression of the LC cell.
However, Li teaches a first height being larger than a second height (Figure 4, see the heights of MCS and SCS); the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell (see Figure 4 wherein MCS, having a height greater than SCS, contacts 58, i.e., the structure is capable of facilitating compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell) and the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the LC cell under the action of air pressure on outside of the LC cell (see Fig. 4 where SCS does not contact 58); and
under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, the first spacer structures are configured to exhibit greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures (MCS and SCS are made of the same material but have different heights as shown in Figure 4 and Paragraph [0050], Li teaches a structure, wherein first spacer structures are capable of exhibiting greater compressive strain than that of the second spacer structures under action of air pressure or external force on outsides of the LC cell. Regarding “compressive strain”, the examiner considers Applicant’s own specification, defining “compressive strain” as change in height Δh by compression as fraction of starting height), such that the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell (see Figure 4 wherein MCS, having a height greater than SCS, contacts 58, i.e., the structure is capable of facilitating compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell) and the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the assembled LC cell under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell (see Fig. 4 where SCS does not contact 58), under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell (MCS and SCS are capable of contact 58 with large enough forces), and Chuang further teaches intermeshing spacer structures which limits the extent to which first and second components can slip over each other in both x-y axes of the LC cell (Figures 3D and 4 teaching the top view and the side view of spacer structures on each component; Paragraphs [0032]-[0033] and [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Li and Chuang, to have the first height being larger than the second height; the intermeshing spacer structures which limit the extent to which the first and second components can slip over each other in both x-y axes of the LC cell, the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell and the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the LC cell under the action of air pressure on outside of the LC cell; and under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, the first spacer structures are configured to exhibit greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures, such that the first spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell and the second spacer structures do not facilitate compression of the assembled LC cell under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell, under larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell, under the larger forces associated with a touch action of a user, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures both facilitate compression of the LC cell, for the purpose of defining the thickness of a liquid crystal layer (Li: Paragraph [0042]) and restricting the movements of the upper and lower substrates (Chuang: Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 47, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second components defines an array of color filters (220 on 210), and at least the other of the first and second components comprises a corresponding array of pixel electrodes (140 on 110); wherein an individual dimension of the color filters is greater by a first amount than an individual dimension of the pixel electrodes in at least one axis (in this case, “a first amount” is not defined. Note that the individual dimension of the color filters is greater by a first amount than that of the pixel electrodes, wherein, for example, a first amount could be zero, or positive value(s) or negative value(s)); and wherein the first spacer structures are configured to guide the lateral positioning of the second spacer structures into a final configuration (Figures 3B-3D and Paragraph [0038]).
Lee does not disclose in which the range of relative movement of the first and second components in the at least one axis is limited by an amount no greater than the first amount.
However, Chuang teaches intermeshing structures (23 in Figure 2) comprising first spacer structures (232) and second spacer structures (231), in which the relative movement of the two components in the at least one axis is restricted (Paragraph [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figures 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Paragraph [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Chuang, wherein the range of relative movement of the first and second components in the at least one axis is limited by an amount no greater than the first amount, for the purpose of obtaining a good brightness uniformity (Chuang: Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 48, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses the first spacer structures are configured to guide the lateral positioning of the second spacer structures (Figure 2; Paragraph [0038]).
Lee does not disclose into a final configuration in which the range of relative movement of the first and second half-cell components is limited to no more than about 20 microns in at least one axis.
However, Chuang teaches intermeshing structures of a liquid crystal panel (23 in Figure 2) comprises first spacer structures (232) and second spacer structures (231), in which the relative movement of the two components in the at least one axis is restricted (Paragraph [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figures 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Paragraph [0029]) (examiner also considers Paragraph [0034] “by the engagement, the first protruding portion 231 will not easily move in the direction parallel to a substrate extending plane” indicating the movement is considerably small given the size of the spacer structures being a few micrometers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Chuang, wherein the first spacer structures are configured to guide the lateral positioning of the second spacer structures into a final configuration in which the range of relative movement of the first and second half-cell components is limited to no more than about 20 microns in at least one axis, for the purpose of obtaining a good brightness uniformity (Chuang: Paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 49, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses squeezing a controlled volume of the LC material between the opposing surfaces (Paragraph [0038] teaching 300 is injected into the volume between the two components using a subsequent vacuum).
Lee doses not explicitly disclose before pressing the opposing surfaces together.
However, Liao teaches squeezing a controlled volume of the LC material between opposing surfaces before pressing the opposing surfaces together (Paragraphs [0005], [0018]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Liao, to squeeze a controlled volume of the LC material between the opposing surfaces before pressing the opposing surfaces together, for the purpose of forming an LCD panel (Liao: [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 50, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the area density of the first spacer 50. structures is less than the area density of the second spacer structures (Figure 2; each unit of the spacer structures comprising one 400 and two 500).
Regarding claim 52, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the second spacer structures are configured not to contact the opposing surface of the first half-cell component under the action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell outside the vacuum chamber (Figure 2; the examiner considers Figure 2 is the product after the manufacturing, which is generally used under the action of air pressure).
Regarding claim 54, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above.
Lee does not disclose, after removing the assembled LC cell from the vacuum chamber, the second spacer structures have a dimension in a first direction perpendicular to the first and second half-cell components that is between 50% and 98% of a dimension in the first direction of the first spacer structures compressed under the action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber.
However, Chuang teaches intermeshing structures (23 in Figure 2B) comprising first spacer structures (232) and second spacer structures (231), in which a height of a first spacer structures and a height of a second spacer structures ranges from 2.0 μm to 2.6 μm, and the difference between the height thereof ranges from 0.8 μm to 1.8 μm (Paragraph [0038]).
Because Chuang identifies the result effective variables including a height of first spacer structures, a height of second spacer structures and a difference therebetween, for the purpose of keeping the good uniformity of the overall cell gap of a curved display panel (Paragraphs [0025], [0038]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the intermeshing structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Chuang, wherein after removing the assembled LC cell from the vacuum chamber, the second spacer structures have a dimension in a first direction perpendicular to the first and second half-cell components that is between 50% and 98% of a dimension in the first direction of the first spacer structures compressed under the action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, as an optimization of a result effective variable. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II (A) and (B)).
Claims 51 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Li and Chuang, and in further view of Liao and Miyazaki.
Regarding claim 51, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above.
Lee does not disclose the first spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases in a direction towards the second half-cell component; and the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases in a direction towards the first half-cell component.
However, Miyazaki teaches spacer structures (Figure 6), wherein first spacer structures and/or the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases towards opposing half-cell component (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shapes of the first and second structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Miyazaki, wherein the first spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases in a direction towards the second half-cell component; and the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases in a direction towards the first half-cell component, for the purpose of reducing the possibility of being electrically conductive to the common electrode by using an inversely-tapered shape (Miyazaki: Paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 53, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao the limitations of claim 46 above.
Lee does not disclose the first spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the second half-cell component; and the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the first half-cell component.
However, Miyazaki teaches spacer structures (Figure 6), having a cross-sectional area decreasing in a direction towards an opposite substrate (Figure 6 and Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shapes of the first and second structures as disclosed by Lee with the teachings of Miyazaki, wherein the first spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the second half-cell component; and the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that is smallest at a location closest to the opposing surface of the first half-cell component, for the purpose of reducing the possibility of being electrically conductive to the common electrode by using an inversely-tapered shape (Miyazaki: Paragraph [0077]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H Caley can be reached on (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 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 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871