DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed November 10, 2025. Claims 1-5 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered are appreciated. Namely, applicant argues that Seok et al. fails to disclose “when viewed in the first direction: the first alignment mark surrounds the third alignment mark; or the third alignment mark surrounds the first alignment mark; and the second alignment mark surrounds the fourth alignment mark, or the fourth alignment mark surrounds the second alignment mark.” However, Seok et al. discloses the first alignment mark 501 surrounds the third alignment mark 506 (see e.g. paragraphs [0038]-[0039] where it is noted that 501 and 506 are a square outline and cross shape, respectively), as cited below. Seok et al. does further discloses similarly shaped marks (i.e. 502-505, see e.g. Figures 1-4). One of ordinary skill would recognize using a similar shape configuration for alignment marks on the stacked panels in order to provide a simplified manufacture process. It is further noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a configuration in which the second alignment mark surrounds the fourth alignment mark, or the fourth alignment mark surrounds the second alignment mark, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2008/0273159 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Seok et al. discloses a light adjustment device (including at least 901 denoted “display apparatus”, see e.g. paragraph [0028]) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
a panel unit 901 (denoted “display apparatus”, see e.g. paragraph [0029]) including a plurality of light adjustment panels 910, 920 (denoted “main display panel” and “sub-display panel”, see e.g. paragraph[0028]-[0029]) stacked in a first direction, each light adjustment panel 910, 920 including a first substrate 200, 700, a second substrate 100, 600, and a plurality of alignment marks 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506 provided at least one of the first substrate 200, 700 and the second substrate 100, 600 (see e.g. paragraphs [0028]-[0031] and Figures 1 and 2),
wherein when two light adjustment panels 910, 920 adjacent to each other in the first direction among the light adjustment panels are one light adjustment panel 910 or 920 disposed on one side in the first direction and another light adjustment panel (i.e. the other of 910 or 920) disposed on the other side in the first direction (see e.g. Figures 1-4),
the one light adjustment panel 910 includes the alignment marks including a first alignment mark 501 and a second alignment mark 502 or 503,
the other light adjustment panel 920 includes the alignment marks including:
a third alignment mark 506 corresponding to the first alignment mark 501; and
a fourth alignment mark 504 or 505 corresponding to the second alignment mark 502 or 503, and
when viewed in the first direction:
the first alignment mark 501 surrounds the third alignment mark 506 (see e.g. paragraphs [0038]-[0039] where it is noted that 501 and 506 are a square outline and cross shape, respectively); or
the third alignment mark surrounds the first alignment mark.
Seok et al. fails to explicitly disclose
the second alignment mark surrounds the fourth alignment mark, or
the fourth alignment mark surrounds the second alignment mark.
However, Seok et al. does disclose similarly shaped marks (i.e. 502-505, see e.g. Figures 1-4). Further, one of ordinary skill would recognize using a similar shape configuration for alignment marks on the stacked panels in order to provide a simplified manufacture process.
It is further noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a configuration in which the second alignment mark surrounds the fourth alignment mark, or the fourth alignment mark surrounds the second alignment mark, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
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 device of Seok et al. with the second alignment mark surrounds the fourth alignment mark, or the fourth alignment mark surrounds the second alignment mark.
Providing the second and fourth alignment marks such that one surrounds the other would provide a means for alignment of the panels, and further, using a shape similar to that of other alignment marks on the panels would result in a simplified manufacturing process.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2008/0273159 A1) in view of Hasegawa (US 2019/0107743 A1) and further in view of Ma et al. (CN 108663852).
In regard to claim 2, Seok et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the alignment marks of one of the light adjustment panels are disposed on a circumference of a circle at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, the circle being centered at a central part of the light adjustment panel, and
among two alignment marks adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, an alignment mark on one side in the circumferential direction has an annular shape surrounding the other alignment mark on the other side in the circumferential direction.
However, Hasegawa discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
wherein the alignment marks 14, 15 are disposed on a circumference of a circle at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, the circle being centered at a central part of the display device.
Given the teachings of Hasegawa, 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 device of Seok et al. with wherein the alignment marks of one of the light adjustment panels are disposed on a circumference of a circle at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, the circle being centered at a central part of the light adjustment panel.
Doing so would provide an equal distribution of alignment marks around a circular shaped display device that allows more accurate alignment of the display components.
Seok et al., in view of Hasegawa, fails to disclose
among two alignment marks adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, an alignment mark on one side in the circumferential direction has an annular shape surrounding the other alignment mark on the other side in the circumferential direction.
However, Ma et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 11-13):
among two alignment marks GX, GS, an alignment mark GX, GS on one side in the circumferential direction has an annular shape surrounding the other alignment mark GX, GS on the other side in the circumferential direction (see e.g. page 9, first full paragraph for at least an octagonal ring structure).
Given the teachings of Ma et al., 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 device of Seok et al., in view of Hasegawa, with among two alignment marks adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction, an alignment mark on one side in the circumferential direction has an annular shape surrounding the other alignment mark on the other side in the circumferential direction.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent shape for creating alignment marks that is a matter of design choice.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2008/0273159 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 109445172).
In regard to claim 3, Seok et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose
wherein each alignment mark has an outer edge in a square shape when viewed in the first direction.
However, Zhang et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
wherein each alignment mark 111, 211, has an outer edge in a square shape when viewed in the first direction.
Given the teachings of Zhang et al., 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 device of Seok et al. with wherein each alignment mark has an outer edge in a square shape when viewed in the first direction.
Doing so would provide a change in shape of the alignment mark that may be easier to fabricate than a circular shape, and is also a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2008/0273159 A1) in view of Ma et al. (CN 108663852).
In regard to claim 4, Seok et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each alignment mark has an outer edge in a circular shape when viewed in the first direction.
However, Ma et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 11-13):
wherein each alignment mark GS, GX has an outer edge in a circular shape when viewed in the first direction (see e.g. page 9, first full paragraph for at least an octagonal ring structure).
Given the teachings of Ma et al., 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 device of Seok et al. with wherein each alignment mark has an outer edge in a circular shape when viewed in the first direction.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent shape for creating alignment marks that is a matter of design choice.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seok et al. (US 2008/0273159 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN 1004536181).
In regard to claim 5, Seok et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein each alignment mark has an outer edge in a cross shape when viewed in the first direction.
However, Xu et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 6 and paragraph [0044]):
wherein each alignment mark 20,30 has an outer edge in a cross shape when viewed in the first direction.
Given the teachings of Xu et al., 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 device of Seok et al. with wherein each alignment mark has an outer edge in a cross shape when viewed in the first direction.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent shape for creating alignment marks that is a matter of design choice.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871