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 device claims in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “this application was filed under 35 U.S.C @ 371. As such, 35 U.S.C @ 121 is not available to the application, and the "patentably distinct" standard does not apply to the application”.
Applicants are correct that 35 U.S.C @ 121 is not available to the application. The reliance on 35 U.S.C @ 121 was inadvertently issued. The correct Election/Restrictions follows:
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention’). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 11-20 drawn to the preparation method of a display panel.
Group II, claim(s) 1-10, drawn to a display panel.
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
1. Embodiment of figure 2, which does not include a third electrode 962, and is thus distinct from species 2-4.
2. Embodiment of figure 6, which includes a third electrode 962, is thus distinct from species 1 and 3-4.
3. Embodiment of figure 7, wherein an orthographic projection of the third electrode 962 covers an orthographic projection of the data line 93, and is thus distinct from species 1-2 and 4.
4. Embodiment of figure 8, wherein the orthographic projection of the third electrode 962 covers the orthographic projection of the data line 93, and the third electrode 962 includes at least two first electrode parts 962a and a second electrode part 962b, and is thus distinct from species 1-3.
The above species are independent and distinct and are mutually exclusive from each other because said species have mutual exclusive characteristics for the reasons provided above. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, none is generic.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Species 1-4 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of light shielding layer, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of CH114967252A. CH114967252A teaches in related text the technical feature of a light shielding layer 22, such that the shared technical feature of the present invention lacks novelty or inventive step.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all
product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
The current requirement is 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 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over song et al. (2014/0159016) in view of Ono et al. (5,760,854).Regarding claim 1, Song et al. teach in figure 2 and related text a display panel, comprising:
an array substrate, wherein the array substrate comprises:
a first substrate 1;
a common electrode layer disposed on the first substrate and comprising a common electrode 2, a first electrode 2’, and a groove (in-between), wherein the groove is disposed between the common electrode and the first electrode; and
an opposite substrate disposed opposite to the array substrate, wherein the opposite substrate comprises:
a second substrate; and
a light-shielding layer 8 disposed on a side of the second substrate close to the array substrate and comprising a light-shielding part 8, wherein an orthographic projection of the light-shielding part on the first substrate covers an orthographic projection of the first electrode 2’ on the first substrate, an orthographic projection of the second electrode (i.e. the common electrode) 2 on the first substrate, and an orthographic projection of the groove on the first substrate.
Song et al. do not teach a first metal layer disposed on a side of the common electrode layer away from the first substrate and comprising a gate and a second electrode, wherein the gate is disposed on the first electrode, and the second electrode is disposed on the common electrode. That is, Song et al. do not teach forming the common electrode and the first electrode of two materials/layers.
Song et al. also do not teach using the structure in a liquid crystal display application such that the display panel comprises an opposite substrate disposed opposite to the array substrate, wherein the opposite substrate comprises a second substrate.
Ono et al. teach in figure 1 and related text using the structure in a liquid crystal display application such that the display panel comprises an opposite substrate SUB2 disposed opposite to the array substrate SUB1, wherein the opposite substrate comprises a second substrate SUB2, wherein a first metal layer d2 disposed on a side of the common electrode layer away from the first substrate and comprising a gate d2 and a second electrode (another d2), wherein the gate d2 is disposed on the first electrode d1, and the second electrode is disposed on the common electrode (another d1).
Song et al. and Ono et al. are analogous art because they are directed to display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Song et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.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 first semiconductor layer of the first transistor of polycrystalline silicon and the second semiconductor layer of the second transistor of an oxide semiconductor, as taught by Ono et al., in Song et al.’s device, in order to improve the device characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, in the combined device the common electrode layer (as taught by Ono et al. in figures 1 and 2) comprises a plurality of common electrodes d1 disposed at intervals, and the first electrode (another d1) is disposed between adjacent two of the common electrodes arranged along a first direction; wherein two opposite sides of the first electrode are respectively provided with the groove, and the orthographic projection of the light-shielding part (as taught by Song et al.) on the first substrate covers an orthographic projection of two grooves (since the combined device comprises plurality of grooves) on the first substrate.
Regarding claim 3, 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 width of a cross- sectional surface of the light-shielding part along the first direction ranges from 40 microns to 45 microns, in prior art’s device, in order to adjust the light reflection characteristics of the device according to the requirement of the application in hand.
Regarding claim 4, Song et al. teach in figure 2 and related text that the array substrate further comprises a gate insulation layer 3, a semiconductor layer 4, and a second metal layer 6, wherein the gate insulation layer covers the common electrode layer and the first metal layer; the semiconductor layer is disposed on a side of the gate insulation layer away from the first substrate, and an orthographic projection of the semiconductor layer on the first substrate covers an orthographic projection of the gate on the first substrate; and the second metal layer (another element 6) is disposed on a side of the semiconductor layer away from the first substrate and comprises a source, a drain, and a data line (part of gate 4); wherein the source and the drain are disposed at intervals, and the data line is disposed at a side of the source away from the drain and connected to the source; wherein the data line extends along the first direction.
Regarding claim 5, Song et al. teach in figure 2 and related text that the array substrate further comprises a passivation layer 7, and the passivation layer covers the semiconductor layer and the second metal layer; wherein the passivation layer is provided with a via hole disposed corresponding to the drain.
Regarding claim 6, Song et al. teach in figure 2 and related text that the array substrate further comprises a pixel electrode layer 11 disposed on a side of the passivation layer away from the first substrate; wherein the pixel electrode layer comprises a pixel electrode 11, and the pixel electrode is connected to the drain through the via hole.
Regarding claim 10, 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 width of a cross- sectional surface of the groove along the first direction ranges from 7 microns to 8 microns, in prior art’s device, in order to reduce the size of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References C-F are cited as being related to display devices comprising DM.
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/
1/27/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800