Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the limitation as amended in claims 1, 7, and 19. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hidehira et al. (figure 3) teaches a first protrusion having a convex shape, the first protrusion being a part of the pixel electrode (7), the convex shape protruding in a first one of the first direction and the second direction, and the convex shape not overlapping the thin film transistor and that overlaps none of the signal lines (upper left corner of the pixel electrode 7). 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 pixel electrode as taught by Hidehira et al. in order to improve the response time of the IPS LCD.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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, 3-5, 7, 9, 11, 18-19, 21-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2008/0204648) in view of Hidehira et al. (US 2002/0033922).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses a liquid crystal display device comprising:
a substrate (10);
a liquid crystal layer (30);
pixels each having a pixel electrode (16) between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate, and a thin film transistor (1) connected to the pixel electrode;
a counter electrode (14) over the pixels;
scanning lines (11) each having a longitudinal direction along a first direction;
signal lines (12) each having a longitudinal direction along a second direction.
Tanaka et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Tanaka et al. is silent regarding the base part of the pixel electrode. Hidehira et al. (figure 3) teaches
a first protrusion having a convex shape, the first protrusion being a part of the pixel electrode (7), the convex shape protruding in a first one of the first direction and the second direction, and the convex shape not overlapping the thin film transistor and that overlaps none of the signal lines (upper left corner of the pixel electrode 7),
wherein
the pixel electrode has a base part that has a quadrangle shape and that includes slits each having a closed shape,
an area of the base part is more than half of a whole area of the pixel electrode,
the convex shape is located outside the base part, and is connected to the base part, the convex shape has a convex length that is a length in a second one of the first direction and the second direction, the second one being different of the first one,
the convex shape has:
first sides extending in the first one; and
a second side extending in the second one and being connected to the first sides, the first sides and the second side being a part of a circumference of the pixel electrode,
the pixel electrode has a whole length in the second one, and
the convex length is smaller than the whole length in the second one.
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 pixel electrode as taught by Hidehira et al. in order to improve the response time of the IPS LCD.
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses wherein the first protrusion is located at a corner of the pixel electrode.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses a second protrusion (upper left corner of the pixel electrode 16) being a part of the pixel electrode, protruding in the one of the first direction and the second direction, and not overlapping the thin film transistor, wherein the first protrusion is opposed to the second protrusion in another of the first direction and the second direction.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses wherein a short direction of the pixel electrode is the one of the first direction and the second direction, and a longitudinal direction of the pixel electrode is another of the first direction and the second direction.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses a liquid crystal display device comprising:
a substrate (10);
a liquid crystal layer (30);
pixels each having a pixel electrode (16) between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate, and a thin film transistor (1) connected to the pixel electrode, the pixel electrode having electrode branches and slits each located between corresponding two of the electrode branches;
a counter electrode (14) over the pixels;
scanning lines (11) each having a longitudinal direction along a first direction;
signal lines (12) each having a longitudinal direction along a second direction.
Tanaka et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above. However, Tanaka et al. is silent regarding the base part of the pixel electrode. Hidehira et al. (figure 3) teaches
a first protrusion having a convex shape, the first protrusion being a part of the pixel electrode (7), the convex shape protruding in a first one of the first direction and the second direction, and the convex shape not overlapping the thin film transistor and that overlaps none of the signal lines (upper left corner of the pixel electrode 7),
wherein
the pixel electrode has a base part that has a quadrangle shape and that includes slits each having a closed shape,
an area of the base part is more than half of a whole area of the pixel electrode,
the convex shape is located outside the base part, and is connected to the base part, the convex shape has a convex length that is a length in a second one of the first direction and the second direction, the second one being different of the first one,
the convex shape has:
first sides extending in the first one; and
a second side extending in the second one and being connected to the first sides, the first sides and the second side being a part of a circumference of the pixel electrode,
the pixel electrode has a whole length in the second one, and
the convex length is smaller than the whole length in the second one.
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 pixel electrode as taught by Hidehira et al. in order to improve the response time of the IPS LCD.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses wherein the first protrusion protrudes in one of the first direction and the second direction.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses a second protrusion being a part of the pixel electrode and not overlapping the thin film transistor, wherein the second protrusion from an other of the first connection portion and the second connection portion (upper left corner of the pixel electrode 16).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses a first pixel and a second pixel included in the pixels (the pixel to the left or the right of the current pixel), the first pixel being adjacent to the second pixel in one of the first direction and the second direction, wherein the first protrusion protrudes in the one of the first direction and the second direction, and the first pixel and the second pixel have a mirror structure with respect to one line interposed therebetween, the one line being one of the scanning lines or one of the signal lines.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses a liquid crystal display device comprising:
a substrate (10);
a liquid crystal layer (30);
pixels each having a pixel electrode (16) between the liquid crystal layer and the substrate, the pixel electrode having electrode branches and slits each located between corresponding two of the electrode branches;
a counter electrode (14) over the pixels;
scanning lines (11) each having a longitudinal direction along a first direction;
signal lines (12) each having a longitudinal direction along a second direction; and
a protrusion (upper right corner of the pixel electrode 16) being a part of the pixel electrode,
wherein the electrode branches have respective first ends and respective second ends, each of the respective second ends being opposed to a corresponding one of the respective first ends,
the pixel electrode has a first connection portion connecting the respective first ends and a second connection portion connecting the respective second ends, and
the protrusion has a convex shape that protrudes from one of the first connection portion and the second connection portion, in the first direction.
Tanaka et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Tanaka et al. is silent regarding the base part of the pixel electrode. Hidehira et al. (figure 3) teaches
a first protrusion having a convex shape, the first protrusion being a part of the pixel electrode (7), the convex shape protruding in a first one of the first direction and the second direction, and the convex shape not overlapping the thin film transistor and that overlaps none of the signal lines (upper left corner of the pixel electrode 7),
wherein
the pixel electrode has a base part that has a quadrangle shape and that includes slits each having a closed shape, and the pixel electrode incudes both the electrode branches and the slits,
an area of the base part is more than half of a whole area of the pixel electrode,
the convex shape is located outside the base part, and is connected to the base part, the convex shape has a convex length that is a length in a second one of the first direction and the second direction, the second one being different of the first one,
the convex shape has:
first sides extending in the first one; and
a second side extending in the second one and being connected to the first sides, the first sides and the second side being a part of a circumference of the pixel electrode,
the pixel electrode has a whole length in the second one, and
the convex length is smaller than the whole length in the second one.
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 pixel electrode as taught by Lee et al. in order to improve the response time of the IPS LCD.
Regarding claim 21, Tanaka et al. (figures 1A-1B) discloses wherein the width of the convex shape is smaller than a width of the scanning lines, and smaller than a width of the signal lines (figure 1B).
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 21 above. However, Tanaka et al. is silent regarding wherein the width of the convex shape is smaller than one tenth of the whole length. Hidehira et al. (figure 3) discloses the width of the convex shape is smaller than one tenth of the whole length (portion of the convex shape). 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 pixel electrode as taught by Hidehira et al. in order to achieve a liquid crystal display device that is allowed to have an enhanced aperture ratio and suppressed parasitic capacitance.
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.
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. in view of Hidehira et al. and Nagano (US 2007/0268440).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above. However, Tanaka et al. is silent regarding wherein a longitudinal direction of one of the slits is different from the second direction (65 and 91). Nagano (figure 8) teaches wherein a longitudinal direction of one of the slits is different from the second direction. 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 pixel electrode as taught by Nagano in order to increase the aperture ratio.
Regarding claim 14, Nagano (figure 8) teaches a first slit included in the slits, wherein the first slit is closest to the first protrusion among all the slits, and a longitudinal direction of the first slit is different from the second direction (65 and 91).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 19 above. However, Tanaka et al. is silent regarding an outermost end of the protrusion in the first direction is located outside an entirety of the electrode branches. Nagano (figure 8) teaches wherein the electrode branches includes an outermost electrode branch that is outermost of all the electrode branches and is located closest to the first protrusion in the first direction, the protrusion protrudes from an area of the one of the first connection portion and the second connection portion, the area being connected to an end of the outermost electrode branch, toward an outside of the pixel in the first direction, and an outermost end of the protrusion in the first direction is located outside an entirety of the electrode branches. 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 pixel electrode as taught by Nagano in order to increase the aperture ratio.
Conclusion
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 571-272-97911. 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