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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the cancellation of claims 6 and 14 renders the previous rejection of claims 6 and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 6 and 14 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
The Examiner acknowledges that rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn based on the amendments to the current claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gu et al. (US 2010/0207857) hereinafter “Gu”.
Regarding claim 16, Figs. 10A and 10B of Gu teaches a display device comprising a display panel (Paragraph 0002), wherein the display panel comprises: a plurality of pixel electrodes (Item 110a and 110b) comprising a first pixel electrode (Item 110a) and a second pixel electrode (Item 110b) adjacent to the first pixel electrode, wherein a structure of the first pixel electrode is different from a structure of the second pixel electrode (Paragraph 0086 where the first and second pixel electrodes are asymmetric), and the first pixel electrode (Item 110a) and the second pixel electrode (Item 110b) are not symmetric to each other with respect to any axis or center.
Regarding claim 17, Fig. 10A of Gu further teaches where the first pixel electrode (Item 110a) comprises a first finger portion, a second finger portion, and a third finger portion, and the second pixel electrode (Item 110b) comprises a fourth finger portion, a fifth finger portion, and a sixth finger portion.
Regarding claim 20, Fig. 110A of Gu further teaches where the first finger portion comprises a first linear portion, a second linear portion, and a third linear portion, the first linear portion, the second linear portion, and the third linear portion have a first height ratio; the fourth finger portion comprises a fourth linear portion, a fifth linear portion, and a sixth linear portion, the fourth linear portion, the fifth linear portion, and the sixth linear portion have a second height ratio; and the first height ratio is different from the second height ratio. (See Examiner’s Note below).
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that the indication of portions of the finger electrode can be arbitrarily assigned such that the relationship between the respective first and second height ratios for the first, second third, fourth, fifth and sixth linear portions reads on the limitation in claim 20. The Examiner further notes that a recitation of “a portion” does not require that the structure or direction of the portion is different than other surrounding portions around it.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 2010/0207857) hereinafter “Gu” in view of Meng et al. (US 2022/0035207) hereinafter “Meng”.
Regarding claim 18, Gu teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 10A of Gu further teaches a first pitch between the first finger portion and the second finger portion is the same as a second pitch between the second finger portion and the third finger portion, a third distance between the fourth finger portion and the fifth finger portion is the same as a fourth pitch between the fifth finger portion and the sixth finger portion.
Gu does not teach where the first pitch is different from the third pitch.
However, the pitch is a result effective variable (Meng Paragraphs 0080-0083 where the width of electrodes and pitch are modified such that the diffraction and convergence effect is optimal). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pitch such that the first pitch is different from the third pitch because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 2010/0207857) hereinafter “Gu” in view of Zhang et al. (US 2016/0187684) hereinafter “Zhang” and in further view of Huh et al. (US 2014/0152934) hereinafter “Huh”.
Regarding claim 19, Gu further teaches where the first finger portion comprises a first linear portion (Bottom of the finger), a second linear portion (Middle of the finger), and a third linear portion (Top of the finger), the first linear portion has a first deviation angle, the second linear portion has a second deviation angle, the third linear portion has a third deviation angle; the fourth finger portion comprises a fourth linear portion (Bottom of the finger), a fifth linear portion (Middle of the finger), and a sixth linear portion (Top of the finger), the fourth linear portion has a fourth deviation angle, and the fifth linear portion has a fifth deviation angle, the sixth linear portion has a sixth deviation angle (See Examiner’s Note below).
Gu does not teach the first deviation angle, the second deviation angle, and the third deviation angle have a first increasing tendency nor the fourth deviation angle, the fifth deviation angle, and the sixth deviation angle have a second increasing tendency.
Fig. 25 of Huh teaches where pixel electrode (Item 191) has fingers (Items 192), where each finger has a first linear portion, a second linear portion and third linear portion (See Picture 4 above), where the second linear portion connects the first and third linear portions, where the first linear portion has a first deviation angle, the second linear portion has a second deviation angle and the third linear portion has a third deviation angle, where the first deviation angle, the second deviation angle and the third deviation angle have an increasing tendency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the first deviation angle, the second deviation angle, and the third deviation angle have a first increasing tendency and the fourth deviation angle, the fifth deviation angle, and the sixth deviation angle have a second increasing tendency because this allows for the inclined directions of the liquid crystal molecules to be varied thereby increasing a reference viewing angle of a liquid crystal display (Huh Paragraph 0082).
Gu does not teach the second increasing tendency is different from the first increasing tendency.
However, the deviation angle of respective portions of a finger electrode are a result effective variable (Fig. 12 of Zhang further teaches where the angle (Item α2) by which a middle portion of a finger electrode (Item 84) increases in a first pixel electrode and the angle (Item β2) by which a middle portion of a finger electrode (Item 84) increases in a second pixel electrode, the first and second pixel electrode being adjacent to each other; See also Paragraph 0055 where a middle portion is bent at a desired angle). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. (MPEP 2144.05)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the first and second increasing tendency such that the second increasing tendency is different from the first increasing tendency because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05)
Examiner’s Note: The Examiner notes that a deviation angle can be 0 degrees or 180 degrees such that a straight line can be considered to include a deviation angle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13 and 15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach, motivate or suggest one having ordinary skill in the art to have the orientation of the finger portions relative to the data line as required by claim 1 while having the respective pitches of the finger portions required by claim 1 along with the other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are also allowable as they depend from and include all of the limitations of allowable claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach, motivate or suggest one having ordinary skill in the art to have the crab portions, finger portions and respective deviation angles along with the other limitations of claim 8.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 15 are also allowable as they depend from and include all of the limitations of allowable claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gu.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims1, 8 and their respective dependents been withdrawn.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891