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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 36-55 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-35 are canceled; claims 36-38 and 40-46 are currently amended; claims 39 and 47-54 are previously presented; and claim 44 is newly added. The amendment dated July 1, 2026 has been entered into the record.
The examiner notes that the 07/01/2026 amendment includes claim language, such as a clearance gap, which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification. With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.") (MPEP 2163 IIA).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature, “the first spacer structures are brought into contact with the opposing surface of the second component and are compressed” and “the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 44 and 52 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 55 and 46, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 46-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[A] The 07/01/2026 amendment to claim 46 specifies “pressing opposing surfaces of first and second components together in a vacuum chamber, such that: the first spacer structures are brought into contact with the opposing surface of the second component and are compressed and the second spacer structures are positioned with respect to the opposing surface of the first component such that the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap”. Remarks filed with the amendment is silent regarding support in the specification and it appears the specification does not explicitly teach this feature.
Note that Pages 12-14 of the specification states:
“According one example embodiment, the starting heights of the spacer structures are configured such that, in the cell after compression and bonding, the “tall” set of the spacer structures (on one half-cell component) contacts the opposing half-cell component, and the other “short” set of spacer structures have a height between about 50% and 98% of the compressed height of the “tall” spacers.”
where claim 46 requires:
“pressing opposing surfaces of first and second components together in the vacuum chamber, such that: ... the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap”
The examiner notes that the specification does not disclose the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap during pressing opposing surfaces of first and second components together in a vacuum chamber. Rather, a clearance gap is formed after compression and bonding and when the assembled LC cell is removed from the vacuum chamber based on the originally-filed specification (see above). The specification merely states h2>h1, where h2 may be greater than the average thickness of LC material, but it does not explicitly disclose the starting height of h1 of the smaller spacer structures is always less than the average thickness of LC material during compressing and bonding.
Claims 47-54 are rejected because they depend upon claim 46; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 46.
[B] The 07/01/2026 amendment to claim 46 specifies “A method of producing a liquid crystal (LC) cell, comprising: … 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, the greater area occupied by the first and second spacer structures rendering the LC cell less susceptible to localized compression under the larger forces associated with a touch action of a user of the device”.
Note that “A method of producing a liquid crystal (LC) cell” cannot require “larger forces associated with a touch action of a user” because the LC cell is already produced when it is removed from a vacuum chamber. The originally filed specification does not disclose the features of claim 46 with the amended claim limitations as a whole, and cannot be used to support the newly added clam limitations.
Claims 47-54 are rejected because they depend upon claim 46; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 46.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the opposing surface" in lines 25 and 28-29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because in claim 46, there are "the opposing surface of the first component” and "the opposing surface of the second component”, it is unclear which opposing surface it refers to. Thereby as being indefinite, claim 46 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "the opposing surface" in line 25 to be “the opposing surface of the second component” and "the opposing surface" in lines 28-29 to be “the opposing surface of the first component”.
Claims 47-54 are rejected because they depend upon claim 46; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 46.
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 36-37, 39-40, 42-44 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2009/0275256) and Li (US 2017/0242286), and in further view of Chuang (US 2019/0285928).
Regarding claim 55, Lee discloses a device comprising a liquid crystal (LC) cell (Figs. 2-3; Paras. [0019]-[0020]), wherein the LC cell comprises LC material contained between opposing surfaces of first and second components (Para. [0025]), the device comprising:
first spacer structures (500 on 210) defined by the first component, the first spacer structures having lateral sidewall surfaces and a first height (see Fig. 2); and
second spacer structures (400 on 110) defined by the second component, the second spacer structures having a second height (see Fig. 2), the second spacer being configured to: i) form a clearance gap with the opposing surface of the first component that prevents the second spacer structures from contacting the opposing surface of the first component when under the action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell (see Fig. 2; the examiner considers Fig. 2 describes the product after the manufacturing, which is generally used under the action of air pressure),
wherein the lateral sidewall surfaces of the first spacer structures engage regions of the opposing surface of the second component such that first spacer structures intermesh with the second spacer structures (see Fig. 2 and Para. [0023]).
Lee does not necessarily disclose the first spacer structures being configured to: i) contact the opposing surface of the second component and compress to a reduced height when under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, and ii) undergo further compression in response to larger forces associated with a touch action of a user to provide resistance to reduction in thickness of the LC cell;
the second height being smaller than the first height, the second spacer being configured to: ii) undergo compression in response to the larger forces associated with the touch action of the user to provide resistance to reduction in thickness 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, and wherein the first spacer structures exhibit greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures.
However, Li teaches first spacer structures and second spacer structures (MCS and SCS in Fig. 4) having different heights, the first spacer structures (MCS) being configured to: i) contact the opposing surface of a second component (see Fig. 4) and compress to a reduced height when under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell (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, Li teaches MCS which is capable of being compressed with large enough forces; see Para. [0048] teaching the material for MCS), and ii) undergo further compression in response to larger forces associated with a touch action of a user to provide resistance to reduction in thickness of the LC cell (MCS is capable of being compressed in response to larger forces; see Paras. [0023] and [0048] teaching the material for MCS and a touch action);
the second height being smaller than the first height (Fig. 4), the second spacer being configured to: ii) undergo compression in response to the larger forces associated with the touch action of the user to provide resistance to reduction in thickness of the LC cell (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, Li teaches SCS which is capable of being compressed with large enough forces; see Paras. [0048] and [0050] teaching the material for SCS), wherein the first spacer structures exhibit greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures (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), and larger forces associated with a touch action of a user of the device under such touch action of a user (Para. [0023]); 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 (Figs. 3D and 4 teaching the top view and the side view of spacer structures on each component; Paras. [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, to have the first spacer structures be configured to: i) contact the opposing surface of the second component and compress to a reduced height when under an action of air pressure on outsides of the LC cell, and ii) undergo further compression in response to larger forces associated with a touch action of a user to provide resistance to reduction in thickness of the LC cell; the second height be smaller than the first height, the second spacer be configured to: ii) undergo compression in response to the larger forces associated with the touch action of the user to provide resistance to reduction in thickness 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, and wherein the first spacer structures exhibit greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures, for the purpose of defining the thickness of a liquid crystal layer (Li: Para. [0042]) and restricting the movements of the upper and lower substrates (Chuang: Para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 36, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the intermeshing spacer structures are defined by patterned layers (see patterned layers in Fig. 2; Para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 37, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 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 (Fig. 2 and Para. [0022]), and at least a portion of the intermeshing spacer structures being located in black matrix regions of the LC cell (Fig. 2 and Para. [0027]), the intermeshing spacer structures being selectively located in black matrix regions of the LC cell (Fig. 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 55 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 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 40, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 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 Fig. 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 (Para. [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 (Paras. [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 55 above, and Lee further discloses wherein at least one of the first and second components defines an array of color filters (Para. [0022]), and at least the other of the first and second components comprises a corresponding array of pixel electrodes (Para. [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 Fig. 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 (Parag. [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figs. 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Para. [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: Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 43, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 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 Fig. 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 (Para. [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figs. 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Para. [0029]) (the examiner also considers Para. [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: Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 44, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 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 (Fig. 2; the examiner considers Fig. 2 describes 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).
Regarding claim 38, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 above.
Lee does not necessarily disclose the intermeshing spacer structures comprise spacer structures of differing white-light transmittance.
However, Kim teaches spacer structures (Fig. 11), wherein upper spacer structures exhibit a higher light transmittance than lower spacer structures (see G1 and G2; Paras. [0128] “G2 may contain the light-shielding material” and [0130] “G1 may be made of an organic insulating material”; the 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; Para. [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: Fig. 11).
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).
Regarding claim 41, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 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 (Fig. 6), wherein first spacer structures and/or the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases towards opposing half-cell component (Fig. 6 and Para. [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: Para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 45, Lee as modified by Li and Chuang discloses the limitations of claim 55 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 (Fig. 6), having a cross-sectional area decreasing in a direction towards an opposite substrate (Fig. 6 and Para. [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: Para. [0077]).
Claims 46-50, 52 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Li, and in further view of Chuang and Liao (US 2004/0114093).
Regarding claim 46, Lee discloses a method of producing a liquid crystal (LC) cell (Figs. 2-3; Paras. [0019]-[0020]), comprising:
forming first spacer structures of a first height (see 500 in Fig. 2) defined by a first component (500 on 210);
forming second spacer structures of a second height (see 400 in Fig. 2) defined by the second component (400 on 110);
pressing opposing surfaces of first and second components together in a vacuum state (see Para. [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), 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 (Para. [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),
under larger forces, the first spacer structures and the second spacer structures facilitate compression of the LC cell, the greater area occupied by the first and second spacer structures rendering the LC cell less susceptible to localized compression under the larger forces, to prevent excessive localized changes in the thickness of the liquid crystal LC material (see 112(a) rejections above) (see Fig. 2; the examiner considers first and second spacer structures of Lee render the cell less susceptible to localized compression under larger forces, to localized compression and prevent excessive localized changes in the thickness of the liquid crystal LC material. See Pages 12-13 of the specification stating it is the greater area occupied by all spacer structures (including the “short” and “tall” spacer structures) renders the cell less susceptible to localised compression).
Lee does not necessarily 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 are brought into contact with the opposing surface of the second component and are compressed and the second spacer structures are positioned with respect to the opposing surface of the first component such that the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap; under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, the first spacer structures are in contact with the opposing surface and are compressed so as to reduce their height relative to their uncompressed height, and the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap such that the second spacer structures do not contact the opposing surface, the first spacer structures thereby exhibiting greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures, the larger forces being larger forces associated with a touch action of a user of the device under such touch action of a user (see 112(a) rejections above).
However, Li teaches a first height being larger than a second height (Fig. 4; see the heights of MCS and SCS) such that the first spacer structures are brought into contact with the opposing surface of the second component and are compressed and the second spacer structures are positioned with respect to the opposing surface of the first component such that the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap (see 112(a) rejections above) (Fig. 4; MCS being first spacer structures and SCS being second spacer structures; see Para. [0046] teaching force applied to 14); under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, the first spacer structures are in contact with the opposing surface and are compressed so as to reduce their height relative to their uncompressed height, and the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap such that the second spacer structures do not contact the opposing surface (see Fig. 4 and Para. [0023] indicating 14 is outside the chamber and under action of pressure on 14 and may be further compressed; regarding “so as to …”, the examiner considers MCS and SCS are made of the same material but having different heights), the first spacer structures thereby exhibiting greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures (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), and larger forces associated with a touch action of a user of the device under such touch action of a user (Para. [0023]); 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 (Figs. 3D and 4 teaching the top view and the side view of spacer structures on each component; Paras. [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 be 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 are brought into contact with the opposing surface of the second component and are compressed and the second spacer structures are positioned with respect to the opposing surface of the first component such that the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap; under action of air pressure on outsides of the assembled LC cell outside the vacuum chamber, the first spacer structures are in contact with the opposing surface and are compressed so as to reduce their height relative to their uncompressed height, and the second spacer structures are spaced from the opposing surface by a clearance gap such that the second spacer structures do not contact the opposing surface, the first spacer structures thereby exhibiting greater compressive strain than the second spacer structures, the larger forces being larger forces associated with a touch action of a user of the device under such touch action of a user, for the purpose of defining the thickness of a liquid crystal layer (Li: Para. [0042]) and restricting the movements of the upper and lower substrates (Chuang: Para. [0034]).
Lee further fails to 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 (Para. [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: Para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 47, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao discloses 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 (Figs. 3B-3D and Para. [0038]).
Lee does not explicitly disclose 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 Fig. 2) may comprise 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 (Para. [0030]) and the range of relative movement cannot exceed a predetermined value in at least one axis (see Figs. 2A-2B where 231 cannot be further moved when it is accommodated within the opening 23A having the width Wu1; Para. [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: Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 48, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao discloses 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 (Fig. 2; Para. [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 (Para. [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; Para. [0029]) (the examiner also considers Para. [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: Para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 49, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao discloses the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses squeezing a controlled volume of the LC material between the opposing surfaces (Para. [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 (Paras. [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: Paras. [0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 50, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao discloses the limitations of claim 46 above, and Lee further discloses wherein the area density of the first spacer structures is less than the area density of the second spacer structures (Fig. 2; each unit of the spacer structures comprising one 400 and two 500).
Regarding claim 52, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao discloses 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 (see Fig. 2; the examiner considers Fig. 2 describes 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 discloses 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 Fig. 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 (Para. [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 (Paras. [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 discloses 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 (Fig. 6), wherein first spacer structures and/or the second spacer structures have a cross-sectional area that decreases towards opposing half-cell component (Fig. 6 and Para. [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: Para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 53, Lee as modified by Li, Chuang and Liao discloses 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 (Fig. 6), having a cross-sectional area decreasing in a direction towards an opposite substrate (Fig. 6 and Para. [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: Para. [0077]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights