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
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the embodiment of figure 12A in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the classifications of the Inventions 1-11 and species 1-11 are similar, so that a single search can cover all inventions without placing a serious burden on the examiner”.
This is not found persuasive because even if “the classifications of the Inventions 1-11 and species 1-11 are similar”, the search and examination of two different and distinct inventions does create a serious burden on the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 of this title, 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2012/0127148).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text a display device comprising an array substrate having a plurality of sub-pixel regions PX1, PX2 (see figure 1), the array substrate comprising:
a first substrate 111 (see figure 3B); and
a first electrode 614_1and a second electrode 613_1 that are disposed on the first substrate and located in a sub-pixel region;
wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a plurality of electrode strips; every two adjacent electrode strips in the first electrode and the second electrode have a slit 615_3 therebetween; the slit includes a first end portion 615_4a), a straight portion and a second end portion 615_1b (all the portions are arbitrarily chosen) connected in sequence;
a bend (located in 615_3) is formed at a connection position of the first end portion and the straight portion, and the second end portion is formed by protruding from the straight portion in an extending direction of the straight portion;
wherein the straight portion includes a first edge and a second edge parallel to each other (arbitrarily chosen), and an average width of the first end portion in a direction perpendicular to the first edge appears to be less than a width of the straight portion (chosen as such).
Lee et al. do not explicitly state that an average width of the first end portion in a direction perpendicular to the first edge appears is less than a width of the straight portion.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form an average width of the first end portion in a direction perpendicular to the first edge appears is less than a width of the straight portion in Lee et al.’s device, in order to form the device as intended by Lee et al.
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. do not explicitly state that a maximum width of the first end portion in the direction perpendicular to the first edge is less than the width of the straight portion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a maximum width of the first end portion in the direction perpendicular to the first edge is less than the width of the straight portion in Lee et al.’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the device characteristics.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that the first end portion includes a third edge and a fourth edge that are parallel to each other and respectively connected to the first edge and the second edge of the straight portion, and a fifth edge connected to the third edge and the fourth edge; wherein an included angle between the third edge and the first edge is an obtuse angle; and/or
the second end portion includes a sixth edge and a seventh edge; the sixth edge and the first edge are located on a same straight line, and the seventh edge and the second edge are located on a same straight line.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that in the slit, the fifth edge of the first end portion is a convex curve or a convex broken line protruding in a direction away from the straight portion.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that the sub-pixel region is provided with a plurality of slits therein; straight portions of the plurality of slits are parallel to each other, and first end portions of the plurality of slits are located on a same end side of respective straight portions connected to the first end portions.
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that the sub-pixel region, connection positions of the first end portions and the straight portions of the plurality of slits are on a straight line.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text that in the sub-pixel region, the first end portions of the plurality of slits are bent toward a same side of the respective straight portions connected to the first end portions.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. teach in figure 16A and related text that the plurality of sub-pixel regions are arranged in a plurality of rows, and in two adjacent sub-pixel regions in a same row, first end portions of slits are bent toward a same side of respective straight portions connected to the first end portions of the slits in the two adjacent sub-pixel regions.
Lee et al. do not teach that a row direction is parallel to an arrangement direction of the plurality of slits in the sub-pixel region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a row direction is parallel to an arrangement direction of the plurality of slits in the sub-pixel region in Lee et al.’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. teach in figure 16A and related text that the plurality of sub-pixel regions are arranged in a plurality of columns, and in two adjacent sub-pixel regions in a same column, first end portions of a plurality of slits in a sub-pixel region are respectively close to second end portions of a plurality of slits in another sub-pixel region.
Lee et al. do not teach that a column direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of slits in the sub- pixel region.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a column direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of slits in the sub- pixel region in Lee et al.’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device.
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. teach in figure 16A and related text that the plurality of sub-pixel regions are arranged in a plurality of columns, and a column direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of slits in the sub- pixel region (see claim 9); and in two adjacent sub-pixel regions in a same column, a straight line where first edges of a plurality of slits in a sub-pixel region are located is obtained by rotating the column direction clockwise by an acute angle, and a straight line where first edges of a plurality of slits in another sub-pixel region are located is obtained by rotating the column direction counter clockwise by an acute angle.
Regarding the claimed limitations of “a straight line where first edges of a plurality of slits in a sub-pixel region are located is obtained by rotating the column direction clockwise by an acute angle, and a straight line where first edges of a plurality of slits in another sub-pixel region are located is obtained by rotating the column direction counter clockwise by an acute angle”, these are process limitations which would not carry patentable weight in this claim drawn to a structure, because distinct structure is not necessarily produced.
The formation of “a straight line where first edges of a plurality of slits in a sub-pixel region are located is obtained by rotating the column direction clockwise by an acute angle, and a straight line where first edges of a plurality of slits in another sub-pixel region are located is obtained by rotating the column direction counter clockwise by an acute angle”, by rotation does not produce a structure which is different from a structure which is formed without rotation.
Note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. teach in figure 16A and related text that the array substrate further comprises: a plurality of first signal lines DL1 and a plurality of second signal lines DL2 configured to define the plurality of sub-pixel regions; wherein in the sub-pixel region, first edges of the straight portions of the plurality of slits are parallel to a portion of a first signal line for defining the sub-pixel region.
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. teach in figure 19A and related text that the second signal lines DL2 (or GL1) are straight lines; and the first signal line DL1 includes a plurality of first line segments and a plurality of second line segments (arbitrarily chosen) that are alternately arranged, and an extending direction of a first line segment is different from an extending direction of a second line segment; any first line segment and any second line segment adjacent to the any first line segment in the first signal line DL1 are axisymmetric about a second signal line DL2 disposed between the any first line segment and the any second line segment.
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. teach in figure 19A and related text that the first signal lines DL1 are data lines, and the second signal lines GL1 are gate lines.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Lee et al. teach in figure 11B and related text that the array substrate comprises a black matrix BM disposed on a side of the first electrode and the second electrode in the array substrate away from the first substrate 711.
Lee et al. do not explicitly state that an orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first substrate covers at least a portion of an orthographic projection, on the first substrate, of the first end portion included in the slit in the array substrate, and covers an orthographic projection, on the first substrate, of the second end portion included in the slit, and wherein the orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first substrate covers the orthographic projection, on the first substrate, of the first end portion included in the slit in the array substrate; and a portion of an edge of the black matrix is flush with a boundary line between a first end portion and a straight portion of each of at least one slit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form an orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first substrate covers at least a portion of an orthographic projection, on the first substrate, of the first end portion included in the slit in the array substrate, and covers an orthographic projection, on the first substrate, of the second end portion included in the slit, and the orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first substrate covers the orthographic projection, on the first substrate, of the first end portion included in the slit in the array substrate; and a portion of an edge of the black matrix is flush with a boundary line between a first end portion and a straight portion of each of at least one slit in Lee et al.’s device, in order to optimize the protection provided to the device by the black matrix.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. do not teach that a covering depth of the black matrix to the second end portion is no less than 2 microns. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a covering depth of the black matrix to the second end portion is no less than 2 microns in Lee et al.’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the device characteristics.
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. teach in figure 10 and related text at least one spacer disposed on the side of the first electrode (being part of the first electrode) and the second electrode away from the first substrate, but do not explicitly state that the orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first substrate covers an orthographic projection of a spacer in the at least one spacer on the first substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the orthographic projection of the black matrix on the first substrate covers an orthographic projection of a spacer in the at least one spacer on the first substrate in Lee et al.’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the device characteristics.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. do not teach that a distance between an orthographic projection of an edge of the black matrix on the first substrate and an edge of the orthographic projection of the spacer on the first substrate is not less than 4 microns.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a distance between an orthographic projection of an edge of the black matrix on the first substrate and an edge of the orthographic projection of the spacer on the first substrate is not less than 4 microns in Lee et al.’s device, in order to adjust and optimize the device characteristics.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. 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).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
2/7/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800