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 filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Wu et al. does not disclose the limitation as presented in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses a color film substrate as claimed including a black matrix layer (221-224) comprising a plurality of shielding structures, at least one of the plurality of shielding structures shielding the second pixel in a single-domain manner or at the circumference to form an opening region (24a and 24b); wherein: the single-domain manner refers to shielding at a single side of the second pixel along a column direction of the second pixel; when the shielding structure shields the second pixel in the single-domain manner, an area of the opening region formed by the second pixel is greater than half an area of the second pixel (the light shielding structure 224 performs unilateral shielding, i.e. single-domain shielding, on the pixel 231 closer to the curved trend line 3, at least pixels 234-235; figure 6); and when the shielding structure shields the second pixel at the circumference, the opening region formed by the second pixel is concentrated in a middle portion of the second pixel (the light shielding structure 224 performs unilateral shielding, i.e. single-domain shielding, on the pixel 231 closer to the curved trend line 3, at least the left most pixels on the second row as shown in figure 6). The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretations
In claim 1, the limitation “when the shielding structure shields the second pixel in the single-domain manner, an area of the opening region formed by the second pixel is greater than half an area of the second pixel; and when the shielding structure shields the second pixel at the circumference, the opening region formed by the second pixel is concentrated in a middle portion of the second pixel” appear to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the shielding structure does not shield the second pixel in the single-domain manner (shielding at a single side of the second pixel along a column direction of the second pixel) or at the circumference. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2016/0120005).
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses a color film substrate, comprising:
a substrate base plate (21) with an irregular-shaped active area and a peripheral region surrounding the irregular-shaped active area (along the curved trend line 3; figure 6);
the irregular-shaped active area comprising a plurality of first pixels and at least one second pixel (23a and 23b), wherein the second pixel is closer to the peripheral region relative to the plurality of first pixels (23a and 23b along the curved trend line 3), and a shape of a boundary line of each second pixel close to the peripheral region is the same as a shape of a boundary line of the peripheral region (23a and 23b along the curved trend line 3; figure 6); and
a black matrix layer (221-224) comprising a plurality of shielding structures, at least one of the plurality of shielding structures shielding the second pixel in a single-domain manner or at the circumference to form an opening region (24a and 24b); wherein:
the single-domain manner refers to shielding at a single side of the second pixel along a column direction of the second pixel;
when the shielding structure shields the second pixel in the single-domain manner, an area of the opening region formed by the second pixel is greater than half an area of the second pixel (the light shielding structure 224 performs unilateral shielding, i.e. single-domain shielding, on the pixel 231 closer to the curved trend line 3, at least pixels 234-235; figure 6); and
when the shielding structure shields the second pixel at the circumference, the opening region formed by the second pixel is concentrated in a middle portion of the second pixel (the light shielding structure 224 performs unilateral shielding, i.e. single-domain shielding, on the pixel 231 closer to the curved trend line 3, at least the left most pixels on the second row as shown in figure 6).
Regarding claim 2, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein the second pixel comprises a plurality of first sub-pixels (231-233), at least one of the plurality of first sub-pixels being an irregular-shaped sub-pixel, and with the shielding structure shielding the plurality of first sub-pixels in the single-domain manner, areas of opening regions formed by each of the first sub-pixel are equal (234-236; figures 7A-8C).
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein an overlapping part of a projection of the shielding structure on the substrate base plate in a first direction and a projection of the irregular-shaped sub-pixel on the color film substrate in the first direction is a first pattern, and an area of the first pattern is less than half an area of the irregular-shaped sub-pixel (the portion where the shielding structure 224 overlaps with the pixels 234-236 and the pixels 234-236 as shown in figures 7A-8C).
Regarding claim 4, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein the overlapping part of the projection of the shielding structure on the substrate base plate in the first direction and the projection of the irregular-shaped sub-pixel on the color film substrate in the first direction is a shielded part, and areas of shielded parts of the irregular-shaped sub-pixels at different positions of the irregular-shaped active area are different, wherein the shielded position is a position of the irregular-shaped sub-pixel at either side of a centerline in a row direction of pixels (the shielding portions of the shielded portions of different areas of the irregular shaped pixels are different as shown in figures 7A-8C).
Regarding claim 9, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein the second pixel comprises a plurality of first sub-pixels, at least one of the plurality of first sub-pixels is an irregular-shaped sub-pixel, and with the shielding structure shielding the plurality of first sub-pixels at the circumference, areas of opening regions formed by each of the first sub-pixels are equal (234-236; figures 7A-8C).
Regarding claim 11, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein at least a part of a boundary of the irregular-shaped active area is an arc, and a boundary line adjacent to the arc is tangent to the arc (along the curved trend line 3; figure 6).
Regarding claim 12, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein the color film substrate further comprises a signal line; and the signal line is connected to each of the second sub-pixels in the color film substrate (the second substrate 11 can be a thin film transistor substrate, on which a thin film transistor (not shown) is disposed; and the first substrate 21 can be a color filter substrate, on which a color filter layer 250 (including a central color filter unit 251 and a border color filter unit 252) and a black matrix layer (including a first black matrix 221 and a second black matrix 222) are disposed; see at least paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 13, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein the signal line comprises a plurality of data lines and a plurality of gate lines; and wherein each of the plurality of data lines is connected to a column of the second sub-pixels, and each of the plurality of gate lines is connected to a row of the second sub-pixels (TFTs as shown in figures 7A-8C).
Regarding claim 17, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses a display substrate, comprising the color film substrate according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses a display apparatus, comprising the display substrate according to claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein the second pixel comprises a plurality of first sub-pixels, at least one of the plurality of first sub-pixels being an irregular-shaped sub-pixel, and with the shielding structure shielding the plurality of first sub-pixels in the single-domain manner, areas of opening regions formed by each of the first sub-pixel are equal (234-236; figures 7A-8C).
Regarding claim 20, Wu et al. (figures 1-8C) discloses wherein an overlapping part of a projection of the shielding structure on the substrate base plate in a first direction and a projection of the irregular-shaped sub-pixel on the color film substrate in the first direction is a first pattern, and an area of the first pattern is less than half an area of the irregular-shaped sub-pixel (the portion where the shielding structure 224 overlaps with the pixels 234-236 and the pixels 234-236 as shown in figures 7A-8C).
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2016/0120005) in view of Kai et al. (CN 211826807).
Regarding claim 5, Wu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Wu et al. is silent regarding a blind hole. Kai et al. (figures 1A-6D) teaches the blind hole can be disposed on various areas of the display device (photoelectric sensing area 20; figures 1A-6D; in the embodiment shown in FIG. 1 A, the display area 3 around the whole photoelectric sensing area 20, in other embodiments, the display area 3 also can surround a portion of the photoelectric sensing area 20. For example, as shown in FIG. 1 B, the photoelectric sensing area 20 is located at the top corner position of the display panel, the display area 3 also surrounds a portion of the photoelectric sensing area 20; as shown in FIG. 1 C, the photoelectric sensing area 20 located on the edge of the display panel, and the middle position of one side of the outer contour of the display panel, the photoelectric sensing area 20 close to one end of the edge is connected with the non-display area near the edge; see at least page 7, the last paragraph). 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 blind-hole as taught by Kai et al. in order to achieve an image capturing device having improved shooting effect of the camera module. Therefore, over Wu et al. as modified by Kai et al. teaches wherein the irregular-shaped active area is provided with a blind hole; wherein the blind hole is arranged close to the peripheral region, and the plurality of second sub-pixels is arranged around the blind hole.
Regarding claim 6, Kai et al. (figures 1A-6D) teaches wherein the blind hole comprises a first part, a second part and a third part, the second part is located between the first part and the third part, and the first part is close to the peripheral region (110; upper or left side of 110).
Regarding claim 7, Kai et al. (figures 1A-6D) teaches wherein an area of the first part is equal to an area of the second part (black matrix 5 around 110-140).
Regarding claim 8, Kai et al. (figures 1A-6D) teaches wherein the first part and the second part are both of a fan-shaped structure (circular shape), and a central angle of the first part and a central angle of the second part are both between 76° and 90° (central angle of the first parts and second parts can be in the first quadrant of the circular shape structure).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2016/0120005) in view of Kamura et al. (WO 2017/033771).
Regarding claim 10, Wu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Wu et al. is silent regarding wherein a width of the opening region formed by the shielding structure shielding the second sub-pixel is less than 10 microns, wherein the width of the opening region is a size of the opening area along a column direction of the second sub-pixel. Kamura et al. (figures 1-2) teaches wherein a width of the opening region formed by the shielding structure shielding the second sub-pixel is less than 10 microns, wherein the width of the opening region is a size of the opening area along a column direction of the second sub-pixel (the width can be along a column or row direction, depending the rotational position of the display device; a black matrix 26 having a line width of 3.5 μm and an opening of 7 μm × 28 μm; see at least page 33, 6th and 7th paragraphs). 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 opening of the black matrix as taught by Kamura et al. in order to improve the display characteristics of the display device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2016/0120005) in view of Nonaka (US 2010/0289994).
Regarding claim 14, Wu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above. However, Wu et al. is silent regarding wherein at least one of the plurality of data lines is in a bent shape, and at least one of the column of the second sub-pixels connected to the data line in the bent shape is the irregular-shaped sub-pixel. Nonaka (figures 13-17) teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of data lines is in a bent shape (47 and 47a), and at least one of the column of the second sub-pixels connected to the data line in the bent shape is the irregular-shaped sub-pixel (pixels 41 and 20). 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 data lines as taught by Nonaka in order to achieve a display device capable of displaying an image with no differences in color balance between end portions and inner portions of a non-rectangle image display region.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2016/0120005) in view of Tominaga (US 2019/0073968).
Regarding claim 15, Wu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above. However, Wu et al. is silent regarding wherein at least one of the plurality of gate lines is in a bent shape, and at least one of the row of the second sub-pixels connected to the gate line in the bent shape is the irregular-shaped sub-pixel. Tominaga (figures 1-8) teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of gate lines is in a bent shape (GL), and at least one of the row of the second sub-pixels connected to the gate line in the bent shape is the irregular-shaped sub-pixel (RGB; figure 8). 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 data lines as taught by Tominaga in order to suppress the deterioration of the display quality such as defective coloring.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2016/0120005) in view of Kim (US 2008/0018613).
Regarding claim 16, Wu et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above. However, Wu et al. is silent regarding wherein the data line comprises a touch signal line; and the touch signal line is connected in a target second sub-pixel comprised in the second pixel, wherein the target second sub-pixel is a blue sub-pixel. Kim et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the data line comprises a touch signal line; and the touch signal line is connected in a target second sub-pixel comprised in the second pixel, wherein the target second sub-pixel is a blue sub-pixel (The data line constituting a touch screen sensor may be implemented as a data line 62 of the blue (B) pixel; see at least paragraph 0059). 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 data lines as taught by Kim et al. in order to achieve a touch screen is display apparatus that is light in weight and small in size.
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