DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received June 11, 2026. The amendment has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The previously indicated allowable subject matter is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference to Kang et al. Rejections based on the newly cited reference follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-10 are 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 1 is currently amended to recite “…in a first state, the electric field applying part…”, “…in a second state, the electric field applying part…”, and dependent claims 7-10 similarly recite “…in a third state…”, rendering the claims indefinite because the claimed “in a… state” is unclear and the specification does not describe any state(s) with respect to the claimed operations. It is unclear if a state is somehow a different physical configuration, a different condition, a different geographic location, or if this is supposed to be construed as a period of time (noting this limitation was added at the same time Applicant deleted “during a first period” and the like). The metes and bounds are not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2022/0165911), of record.
(Re Claims 1-5 and 7-10) Kang teaches (see Figs. 8-14 and 23-28, abstract, and ¶¶ 7-29,185-324) an apparatus for manufacturing a display device, comprising: a panel cell disposed on a stage and comprising a first alignment line and a second alignment line extending in at least one direction; an electric field applying part which supplies configured to supply a first alignment signal and a second alignment signal to the panel cell; a light emitting element aligned between the first and second alignment lines; a voltage output part that generates and outputs the first and second alignment signals; an amplifier that amplifies the first and second alignment signals and supplies the amplified first and second alignment signals to the electric field applying part; a controller that supplies a control signal for determining waveforms of the first and second alignment signals to the voltage output part; an emission driver that receives an emission timing signal from the controller and outputs an emission driving signal; and a light irradiation part that receives the emission driving signal from the emission driver and irradiates light to the panel cell, wherein, in a first state, the electric field applying part supplies the first and second alignment signals having a potential difference to the first and second alignment lines, respectively, wherein, in a second state, the electric field applying part supplies the first and second alignment signals having a same potential to the first and second alignment lines, respectively, wherein the electric field applying part supplies, in the first state: the first alignment signal as an alternating current (AC) signal oscillating with a frequency, and the second alignment signal as a direct current (DC) signal having a voltage, and wherein the electric field applying part supplies, in the second state, the first and second alignment signals as AC signals oscillating with a same frequency and phase (see discussion below);
(Re Claim 3) wherein the electric field applying part supplies, in the first state, the first and second alignment signals as AC signals oscillating with a frequency, and wherein the first and second alignment signals have different phases from each other; (Re Claim 5) wherein the electric field applying part supplies in the second state, each of the first and second alignment signals as one of a sine wave, a square wave, a triangle wave, a pulse wave, a sawtooth wave, a sawtooth composite wave, and a reverse sawtooth composite wave; (Re Claim 7) wherein the electric field applying part supplies the first and second alignment signals having a potential difference to the first and second alignment lines, respectively, in a third state; (Re Claim 8) wherein the electric field applying part supplies, in the third state: the first alignment signal as an AC signal oscillating with a frequency, and the second alignment signal as a DC signal having a voltage; (Re Claim 9) wherein the electric field applying part supplies, in the third state, the first and second alignment signals as AC signals oscillating with a frequency, and wherein the first and second alignment signals have different phases from each other; (Re Claim 10) wherein the electric field applying part supplies, in the third state, each of the first and second alignment signals as one of a sine wave, a square wave, a triangle wave, a pulse wave, a sawtooth wave, a sawtooth composite wave, and a reverse sawtooth composite wave.
Applicant is reminded of MPEP §2114 and §2115. The claims of the instant application are drawn to an apparatus. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Kang’s disclosed apparatus (see Figs. 8-10 and supporting text in ¶¶185-324) includes all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus: stage 1100, electric field applying parts 1500 and 1600, voltage output part 1430, amplifiers 1410-1420, controller 1900, emission drivers 1730-1732, light irradiation parts 1700-1720. While Kang is silent regarding operating the apparatus in the claimed manner, however based on the detailed description of the apparatus and its operation (see ¶¶185-324), it is obvious Kang’s apparatus further includes all of the necessary capability and functionality, e.g. the apparatus can supply two different alignment signals of different voltages, variable timing and delay (and therefore period and phase as well), AC and DC signals (and combinations thereof), various waveform shapes (e.g. square, sawtooth, reverse sawtooth, etc. and combinations thereof), and therefore may be operated in the same manner as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is reminded of MPEP §2114 and §2115. The claims of the instant application are drawn to an apparatus. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
The claims are currently amended to recite the manner in which the apparatus is operated and provide no additional structural details that distinguish the apparatus over Kang’s apparatus. Kang’s apparatus is structurally the same regardless of the manner in which it is operated. Kang’s apparatus comprises all of the same structural parts as claimed (i.e. stage, electric field applying part, voltage output part, amplifier, etc…). There is no proposed modification to Kang. Operating or using Kang’s apparatus in a particular manner by supplying AC and DC signals at various times does not result in a new, structurally distinct, apparatus. The apparatus, capable of supplying both AC and DC signals, is the same physical apparatus regardless of when an AC or DC signal is turned on or off during a first or second “state”, just as an automobile does not become a new, patentably distinct, automobile if one starts the engine, changes the radio to a different station, changes the volume, and then rolls the windows down. It is still the same automobile regardless of how it is operated or used.
It is suggested Applicant either amend to distinguish the apparatus over the prior art through clear structural differences between the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus, or perfect their foreign priority claim by providing a certified translation (this will then make Kang et al. applicable only under §102(a)(2)), and then disqualify Kang et al. as prior art by making a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights