DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s response dated 11/11/2025 has also been received and entered. Claims 1-6 are remaining pending in the application. Claims 7-20 stand withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the new limitation of “a liquid crystal layer disposed between the display portion and the second substrate, and directly contacting one surface of the second substrate” (emphasis added) that is not disclosed in the original specification. The added the new limitation may change the scope of the invention, and adding a new matter as well.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear and confusing how the liquid crystal layer can be directly contacting one surface of the second substrate. It is also noted that although figure 3 does show the liquid crystal layer LCL is directly contacting one surface of the second substrate SUB2, the specification gave no indication that the drawings were exactly and accurately drawn as claimed as well; it is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to claim the limitation of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are that the Applicant’s specification discloses that the liquid crystal layer LCL may contact one surface of the second substrate SUB2, as stated in the paragraph [0076], the plurality of liquid crystal molecules LCM may be vertically aligned or randomly horizontally aligned by forming the liquid crystal layer LCL on one surface of the second substrate SUB2, as stated in the paragraph [0079] without any intervening element therebetween, as well as the drawings are considered part of the disclosure and can be used to provide the written description support for a claim limitation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. Particularly, the Applicant’s specification clearly discloses “the liquid crystal layer LCL may contact one surface of the second substrate SUB2” ([0076]) and “an alignment layer may be disposed on and/or under the liquid crystal layer LCL” ([0079]) rather than “a liquid crystal layer …directly contacting one surface of the second substrate” (emphasis added) as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Applicant also state that an alignment layer disposed on and/or under the LCL ([0079]) implied to an intervening element (alignment layer) therebetween. In addition, according to a liquid crystal display panel, an alignment layer is a must element (the essential working parts) for display driving purposes. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the display art would not be abled to merely find how to connected to and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the such feature of liquid crystal layer directly contact one surface of the substrate as claimed. Furthermore, the examiner agrees that the drawings would be considered part of the disclosure; however, as stated above, the specification gave no indication that the drawings were exactly and accurately drawn as claimed as well.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 stand rejected as stated above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871