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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 7-12, and 15-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 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 1-2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 2015/0268504) in view of Kim et al. (US 2012/0008085).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi et al. (figures 1-3) discloses a display panel having a display area and a non-display area, wherein the display comprises:
a first substrate (10);
a second substrate (20), configured opposite to the first substrate;
an encapsulation glue (SE), configured between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a first signal line layer (CN and DL), configured on a side of the first substrate facing the second substrate, and comprising a first signal line and a second signal line, wherein a width of the first signal line is greater than a width of the second signal line, the first signal line being configured on the non-display area, and the second signal line being configured on the display area (CN and DL; figures 1-3); and
support posts (MS1 and SS1) configured between the first signal line layer and the second substrate, and comprising a main support post and an auxiliary support post, wherein a height of the auxiliary support post is less than a height of the main support post (MS1 and SS1; figure 3); and
wherein the first signal line does not overlap with the main support post and the first signal line overlaps with the auxiliary support post in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the display panel (MS1 and SS1; CN and DL; figure 3);
wherein an area between a side of the first signal line away from the display area and a side of the encapsulation glue adjacent to the display area is configured with the main support post; and in a direction parallel to the plane of the display panel, the first signal line overlaps with the main support post (in a direction parallel to the display surface);
wherein a film layer (12) on the first substrate nearest to the second substrate is a first film layer, a film layer (OC) on the second substrate nearest to the first substrate is a second film layer; one end of the main support post is in contact with the first film layer, and another end of the main support post is in contact with the second film layer (MS1).
Kobayashi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kobayashi et al. is silent wherein an orthographic projection shape of the main support post is square or circular in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the display panel and regarding the encapsulation glue is located at an end of the non-display area away from the display area.
Kobayashi et al. (figures 1-3) discloses main spacer MS2 and sub-spacer SS2 are shaped in a pillar; and main spacer MS1 and sub-spacer SS1 can be formed in the same process used for main spacer MS2 and sub-spacer SS2 (see at least paragraphs 0029 and 0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an orthographic projection shape of the main support post being square or circular in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the display panel, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed shape of the opening was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape of the opening was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The applicant has not provided any criticality for the orthographic projection shape of the main support post to be square or circular in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the display panel.
Kim et al. (figures 4-5 and 9-10) teaches the encapsulation glue is located at an end of the non-display area away from the display area or between the areas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation glue as taught by Kim et al. in order to prevent electrical short due to particles going to the gate driver. Therefore, Kobayashi et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the encapsulation glue is located at an end of the non-display area away from the display area; wherein the main support post and the auxiliary support post are configured in a region between the encapsulation glue and the display area, and the first signal line is configured between the encapsulation glue and the display area.
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi et al. (figures 1-3) discloses wherein the first signal line is located at an area least partially around the display area.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi et al. (figures 1-3) discloses a display device comprising a display panel having a display area and a non-display area, wherein the display comprises:
a first substrate (10);
a second substrate (20), configured opposite to the first substrate;
an encapsulation glue (SE), configured between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a first signal line layer (CN and DL), configured on a side of the first substrate facing the second substrate, and comprising a first signal line and a second signal line, wherein a width of the first signal line is greater than a width of the second signal line, the first signal line being configured on the non-display area, and the second signal line being configured on the display area (CN and DL; figures 1-3); and
support posts (MS1 and SS1) configured between the first signal line layer and the second substrate, and comprising a main support post and an auxiliary support post, wherein a height of the auxiliary support post is less than a height of the main support post (MS1 and SS1; figure 3); and
wherein the first signal line does not overlap with the main support post and the first signal line overlaps with the auxiliary support post in a direction perpendicular to a plane of the display panel (MS1 and SS1; CN and DL; figure 3);
wherein an area between a side of the first signal line away from the display area and a side of the encapsulation glue adjacent to the display area is configured with the main support post; and in a direction parallel to the plane of the display panel, the first signal line overlaps with the main support post (in a direction parallel to the display surface);
wherein a film layer (12) on the first substrate nearest to the second substrate is a first film layer, a film layer (OC) on the second substrate nearest to the first substrate is a second film layer; one end of the main support post is in contact with the first film layer, and another end of the main support post is in contact with the second film layer (MS1).
Kobayashi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 20 above. However, Kobayashi et al. is silent wherein an orthographic projection shape of the main support post is square or circular in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the display panel and regarding the encapsulation glue is located at an end of the non-display area away from the display area.
Kobayashi et al. (figures 1-3) discloses main spacer MS2 and sub-spacer SS2 are shaped in a pillar; and main spacer MS1 and sub-spacer SS1 can be formed in the same process used for main spacer MS2 and sub-spacer SS2 (see at least paragraphs 0029 and 0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have an orthographic projection shape of the main support post being square or circular in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the display panel, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed shape of the opening was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape of the opening was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The applicant has not provided any criticality for the orthographic projection shape of the main support post to be square or circular in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the display panel.
Kim et al. (figures 4-5 and 9-10) teaches the encapsulation glue is located at an end of the non-display area away from the display area or between the areas. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encapsulation glue as taught by Kim et al. in order to prevent electrical short due to particles going to the gate driver. Therefore, Kobayashi et al. as modified by Kim et al. teaches the encapsulation glue is located at an end of the non-display area away from the display area; wherein the main support post and the auxiliary support post are configured in a region between the encapsulation glue and the display area, and the first signal line is configured between the encapsulation glue and the display area.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. in view of Kim et al.; further in view of Kim et al. (KR 10-1985481; hereinafter Kim’481).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Kobayashi et al. is silent regarding a common electrode configured between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the common electrode is electrically connected to the first signal line. Kim’481 (figure 1) teaches a common electrode (41) configured between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the common electrode is electrically connected to the first signal line. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the common electrode as taught by Kim’481 in order to efficiently drive the display device, simplify the manufacturing process and achieve a slim BM structure.
Claims 7-12, 16-17, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. in view of Kim et al.; further in view of Sasanuma et al. (US 2020/0301221).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kobayashi et al. is silent regarding a minimum distance between the main support posts and the non-display area is d4, d4=d1 configured in the main support posts of the display area. Sasanuma et al. discloses wherein the display area comprises pixels, and the pixels comprise sub-pixels of different colors, and the width of the pixels is d1; and wherein the display area is configured with main support posts and auxiliary support posts. In addition, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) teaches a minimum distance between the main support posts and the non-display area is d4, d4=d1 configured in the main support posts of the display area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify distance as taught by Sasanuma et al. in order to reduce the variation in the cell gap. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a minimum distance between the main support posts and the non-display area being d4, d4=d1 configured in the main support posts of the display area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 8, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein each of the pixels includes a red sub-pixel, a green sub-pixel, and a blue sub-pixel; and one support post that is closest to the non-display area in the display area is configured between an area where the red sub-pixel is located and an area where the blue sub-pixel is located; or wherein a minimum distance between each of the main support posts configured on a periphery of the display area and the non-display area is equal to each other.
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kobayashi et al. is silent regarding n1≥n2. Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the display area is configured with the main support posts and auxiliary support posts; n1 auxiliary support posts are configured between two main support posts which are arranged along a first direction adjacently and located respectively on two sides of the first signal line, and the first direction is perpendicular to an extending direction of the first signal line; and n2 auxiliary support posts are configured between two main support posts configured along the first direction adjacently in the display area, and n1≥n2 (22-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the support posts as taught by Sasanuma et al. in order to efficiently maintain the cell gap between the substrates.
Regarding claim 10, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein n1=2*n2+1 (22-24 of the first pixel closest to the peripheral area and the adjacent pixels).
Regarding claim 11, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the main support posts and the auxiliary support posts are arranged in a same manner in the display area and the non-display area, except for the area where the first signal line is located.
Regarding claim 12, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein an orthographic projection area of the main support post adjacent to the first signal line in the non-display area is S1; and wherein an orthographic projection area of the main support post in the display area is S2; and S1≥S2 (figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein among the support posts provided on the area of first signal line away from a side of the display area, the support post adjacent to the first signal line comprises the main support post.
Regarding claim 17, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the main support post is not configured on a boundary between the display area and the non-display area.
Regarding claim 18, Sasanuma et al. discloses wherein the display area comprises color resists of different colors, and the non-display area comprises color resists of the same color; and wherein a side of the second substrate facing the first substrate comprises a black matrix, the black matrix comprises openings located in the display area; the openings are filled with the color resists. However, Sasanuma et al. is silent regarding the openings are filled with the color resists; a ratio of a color resist area in the non-display area to a color resist area in the display area is 0.4 to 0.6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have a ratio of a color resist area in the non-display area to a color resist area in the display area being 0.4 to 0.6, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Sasanuma et al. (figure 4) discloses wherein the non-display area comprises red resists (red color filter).
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights