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 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that none of the cited references teaches the density of the spacer as presented in claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Li (figures 4-5) teaches wherein the spacer has a density of 100/mm2 to 500/mm2 (250/mm2; see at least page 5, 1st 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 modify the spacers as taught by Li in order to achieve a display device capable of the virtual area by the force larger than the effective display area, a transition column spacer can be compressed by itself counteract the difference acting force suffered by the virtual area of the effective display region by the force between the box thickness of the liquid crystal panel uniformly, eliminating peripheral aberration.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
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.
The applicant should note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Even though Li teaches the column spacer 30 further comprises a transition column spacer 33, the transition column spacer 33 as shown in Li does not function as a main spacer. 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 112327546) in view of Li (CN 105116628).
Regarding claim 1, Ge et al. (figures 6-8) discloses a liquid crystal writing screen, comprising a first substrate, a second substrate, and a bistable liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (see at least abstract), wherein the first substrate comprises:
a first base substrate (103);
a plurality of pixel units on a side of the first base substrate proximate to the second substrate (202), wherein each of the plurality of pixel units comprises a thin film transistor (102), and a pixel electrode (101) electrically connected to a first electrode of the thin film transistor;
a passivation layer (108) on a side of the thin film transistor distal from the first base substrate and in contact with the thin film transistor, wherein the pixel electrode is between the first base substrate and the passivation layer; and a spacer (400) on a side of the passivation layer distal from the first base substrate and in contact with the passivation layer,
wherein the second substrate comprises a second base substrate and a common electrode (201) on a side of the second base substrate facing the first substrate; and
the second base substrate is a flexible substrate (202; the material of the second substrate 202 may include: polyethylene glycol terephthalate; see at least page 9, second paragraph).
Ge et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Ge et al. is silent regarding the density of the spacer. Li (figures 4-5) teaches wherein the spacer has a density of 100/mm2 to 500/mm2 (250/mm2; see at least page 5, 1st 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 modify the spacers as taught by Li in order to achieve a display device capable of the virtual area by the force larger than the effective display area, a transition column spacer can be compressed by itself counteract the difference acting force suffered by the virtual area of the effective display region by the force between the box thickness of the liquid crystal panel uniformly, eliminating peripheral aberration.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
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.
Regarding claim 2, Ge et al. (figures 6-8) discloses wherein the thin film transistor comprises a gate, an active layer, the first electrode, and a second electrode (102d, 102a, 102b), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are on a side of the active layer distal from the first base substrate; and the passivation layer is in contact with the first electrode and/or the second electrode (102 and 108).
Regarding claim 3, Ge et al. (figures 6-8) discloses wherein the gate is on a side of the active layer proximate to the first base substrate, and a gate insulating layer (102f) is between the gate and the active layer; and the pixel electrode (101) is between the gate insulating layer and the passivation layer, or between the gate insulating layer and the first base substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Ge et al. (figures 6-8) discloses wherein the pixel electrode is on a side of the gate proximate to the first base substrate.
Claims 5, 7, 10, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 112327546) in view of Wang et al. (CN 109752891).
Regarding claim 5, Ge et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above. However, Ge et al. is silent regarding a first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer on a side of the first conductive layer distal from the first base substrate. Wang et al. (figures 3-6) teaches wherein the first substrate comprises a first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer on a side of the first conductive layer distal from the first base substrate; the first conductive layer comprises the pixel electrode and a first conductive structure in the same layer as the pixel electrode; the second conductive layer comprises the gate and a second conductive structure in the same layer as the gate; and an orthographic projection of the first conductive layer on the first base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the second conductive layer on the first base substrate (50 and 11). 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 electrodes as taught by Ge et al. in order to effectively reduce the number of the contact holes and increase the aperture ratio of the display panel.
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. (figures 3-6) discloses wherein the pixel electrode is electrically connected to the corresponding first electrode through a first conductive connection structure; the passivation layer (16) comprises a via into which at least part of the first conductive connection structure is received; and an orthographic projection of the first conductive connection structure on the first base substrate has an area less than an area of an orthographic projection of the pixel electrode connected to the first conductive connection structure on the first base substrate (50 and 60).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. (figures 3-6) discloses wherein the passivation layer (16) is formed with a second via set comprising at least two second vias (figure 4), wherein at least one second via in the second via set is communicated from a side surface of the passivation layer distal from the first base substrate to the first electrode, and at least one second via in the second via set is communicated from the side surface of the passivation layer distal from the first base substrate to the pixel electrode corresponding to the first electrode;
the first conductive connection structure is in one-to-one correspondence with the second via set, and comprises at least two first conductive connection sub-structures and a second conductive connection sub-structure;
the first conductive connection sub-structures are in one-to-one correspondence with the second vias in the corresponding second via set, and each of the first conductive connection sub-structures is in a corresponding one of the second vias, and in contact with the first electrode or the pixel electrode; and
the second conductive connection sub-structure is on a side of the passivation layer distal from the first base substrate, and connected to the first conductive connection sub-structures to electrically connect the first electrode to the pixel electrode.
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al. (figures 3-6) teaches wherein an orthographic projection of the active layer on the first base substrate covers orthographic projections of the first electrode and the second electrode on the first base substrate.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Li; further in view of Mao et al. (CN 107065347).
Regarding claim 11, Ge et al. (figures 6-8) discloses the distance range between the plurality of block-shaped pixel electrode 101 can be 18 microns to 22 microns (see at least page 8, 1st paragraph). Ge et al. is silent regarding the distance. Mao et al. (figures 2-2A) teaches wherein for any second via in the second via set, the second via has a first orthographic projection on the first base substrate, and the first conductive connection structure corresponding to the second via has a second orthographic projection on the first base substrate. 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 distance as taught by Ge et al. in order to improve the display effect of the liquid crystal handwriting board. In addition, 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 electrodes as taught by Gao et al. in order to improve the aperture ratio of the pixel.
Therefore, Ge et al. as modified by Wang et al. and Mao et al. teaches
the first orthographic projection is in a coverage area of the second orthographic projection, and a distance from any point on an edge of the first orthographic projection to any point on an edge of the second orthographic projection is greater than or equal to 1 mu.m, and/or
for any second via in the second via set that is communicated from the side surface of the passivation layer distal from the first base substrate to the first electrode, the second via has a third orthographic projection on the first base substrate, and the first electrode corresponding to the second via has a fourth orthographic projection on the first base substrate, and
the third orthographic projection is in a coverage area of the fourth orthographic projection, and a distance from any point on an edge of the third orthographic projection to any point on an edge of the fourth orthographic projection is greater than or equal to 1 mu.m; and/or
for any second via in the second via set that is communicated from the side surface of the passivation layer distal from the first base substrate to the pixel electrode. The second via has a fifth orthographic projection on the first base substrate, and the pixel electrode corresponding to the second via has a sixth orthographic projection on the first base substrate, and
the fifth orthographic projection is in a coverage area of the sixth orthographic projection, and a distance from any point on an edge of the fifth orthographic projection to any point on an edge of the sixth orthographic projection is greater than or equal to 1 mu.m.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
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.
Regarding claim 11, Ge et al. (figures 6-8) discloses the distance range between the plurality of block-shaped pixel electrode 101 can be 18 microns to 22 microns (see at least page 8, 1st paragraph). Ge et al. is silent regarding the material of the electrodes. Mao et al. (figures 2-2A) teaches wherein the first conductive connection structure is made of a material comprising a transparent conductive material comprising a metal oxide. 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 distance as taught by Ge et al. in order to improve the display effect of the liquid crystal handwriting board. In addition, 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 electrodes as taught by Gao et al. in order to improve the aperture ratio of the pixel.
Therefore, Ge et al. as modified by Wang et al. and Mao et al. teaches
a total contact surface area between the first conductive connection structure and the first electrode connected to the first conductive connection structure is in a range of 100 μm2 to 400 μm2; and
a total contact surface area between the first conductive connection structure and the pixel electrode connected to the first conductive connection structure is in a range of 100 μm2 to 400 μm2 or
wherein the first conductive connection structure is made of a material,
a total contact surface area between the first conductive connection structure and the first electrode connected to the first conductive connection structure is in a range of 100 μm2 to 400 μm2; and
a total contact surface area between the first conductive connection structure and the pixel electrode connected to the first conductive connection structure is in a range of 100 μm2 to 400 μm2
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by 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).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. in view of Wang et al. in view of Li; further in view of Lim et al. (US 2007/0002222).
Regarding claim 16, Ge et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 7 above. However, Ge et al. is silent regarding a first conductive layer, and a second conductive layer on a side of the first conductive layer distal from the first base substrate. Lim et al. (figures 2A-2F) teaches a plurality of pads in a peripheral region of the liquid crystal writing screen and in the same layer as the gate of the thin film transistor; the passivation layer is formed with a third via communicated to the pad, and a second conductive connection structure is formed on a side wall of the third via and on a surface of the pad distal from the first base substrate; and the second conductive connection structure is in the same layer as the first conductive connection structure (222). 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 electrodes as taught by Lim et al. in order to reduce the manufacturing costs.
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