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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2013/0169913) in view of Mori et al. (US 2005/0052607) and Baek et al. (US 2005/0128382); further in view of Haruhisa et al. (JPH 09244015)).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. (figure 5) discloses a liquid crystal phase modulation device, comprising:
a liquid crystal phase modulation device, comprising:
a first substrate having a first electrode layer (110);
a second substrate opposite to the first substrate;
a light shielding layer (BP) defining the active region of the liquid crystal modulation device, wherein the light shielding layer has an opening, and an area of the opening is equal to that of the active region, so as to prevent the sealant from being observed;
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate and in the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device;
a first spacer (131) between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a second spacer (131 of the neighboring pixels) between the first substrate and the second substrate; and
a third spacer (132) between the first spacer and the second spacer, wherein a bottom surface of the second spacer is aligned to bottom surfaces of the first and third spacers (figure 5), and the first to third spacers are in the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device and the opening overlaps the first, second, and third spacers in the top view (figure 4);
wherein the liquid crystal layer and the first to third spacers (131, 131 of the neighboring pixels, and 132) are not in the seal region.
The limitations “so as to prevent the sealant from being observed” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Lee et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding a first alignment layer adjacent to the liquid crystal layer and having a first alignment direction and a sealant and wherein the first spacer has a diamond shape in a top view; and wherein the light shielding layer is located on the second substrate and in a seal region which is adjacent to the active region, wherein the light shielding layer overlaps the sealant.
Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses a first alignment layer (20) adjacent to the liquid crystal layer and having a first alignment direction; a first spacer (24-25 of the first pixel as shown in figure 2) between the first substrate and the second substrate, the first spacer has a first length in the first alignment direction and a second length in a direction perpendicular to the first alignment direction in the top view, and the first length is greater than the second length (see at least paragraphs 0099-0102). 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 spacer as taught by Mori et al. in order to positively secure a desired cell gap and improve the open area ratio effective for display for improved display quality.
Baek et al. (figures 1-2) teaches a sealant between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the sealant surrounds an active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device (see at least paragraph 0008) and wherein the first spacer has a diamond shape in a top view (130). 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 spacer as taught by Baek et al. in order to increase the reliability of the panels and increase the strength of the seal area.
In addition, Haruhisa et al. (figures 1a-1b) teaches wherein the light shielding layer is located on the second substrate and in a seal region which is adjacent to the active region, wherein the light shielding layer overlaps the sealant (15-16) and the light shielding layer does not overlap the liquid crystal layer and the spacers (see at least page 4, 6th 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 display device as taught by Haruhisa et al. in order to prevent direct visibility of vertical scanning circuits and image driving circuits.
Therefore, Lee et al. as modified by Mori et al., Baek et al. and Haruhisa et al. teaches the light shielding layer does not overlap the liquid crystal layer and the first to third spacers.
Regarding claim 2, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses wherein the first spacer has a top, a bottom, and a straight side extending straight from the top to the bottom from a cross-sectional view.
Regarding claim 6, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses a second alignment layer adjacent to the liquid crystal layer and on a side of the liquid crystal layer opposite to the first alignment layer, wherein the second alignment layer has a second alignment direction substantially parallel with the first alignment direction (see at least paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 7, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses wherein the second spacer is immediately adjacent to the first and third spacers along a direction parallel with an edge of the first substrate (24-25 of the second pixel and the adjacent pixel as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses wherein the first electrode layer comprises a plurality of electrodes in the active region liquid crystal phase modulation device (14a and 14b).
Regarding claim 10, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses wherein the second substrate has a second electrode layer (22) covering the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device.
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. (figure 5) discloses a liquid crystal phase modulation device, comprising:
a liquid crystal phase modulation device, comprising:
a first substrate having a first electrode layer (110);
a second substrate opposite to the first substrate;
a light shielding layer (BP) defining the active region of the liquid crystal modulation device, wherein the light shielding layer has an opening, and an area of the opening is equal to that of the active region, so as to prevent the sealant from being observed;
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate and in the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device;
a first spacer (131) between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a second spacer (131 of the neighboring pixels) between the first substrate and the second substrate; and
a third spacer (132) between the first spacer and the second spacer, wherein a bottom surface of the second spacer is aligned to bottom surfaces of the first and third spacers (figure 5), and the first to third spacers are in the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device and the opening overlaps the first, second, and third spacers in the top view (figure 4);
wherein the liquid crystal layer and the first to third spacers (131, 131 of the neighboring pixels, and 132) are not in the seal region.
The limitations “so as to prevent the sealant from being observed” are regarded as intended use limitations. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Lee et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding a first alignment layer adjacent to the liquid crystal layer and having a first alignment direction and a sealant and wherein the first spacer has a diamond shape in a top view; and wherein the light shielding layer is located on the second substrate and in a seal region which is adjacent to the active region, wherein the light shielding layer overlaps the sealant.
Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses a first alignment layer (20) adjacent to the liquid crystal layer and having a first alignment direction; a first spacer (24-25 of the first pixel as shown in figure 2) between the first substrate and the second substrate, the first spacer has a first length in the first alignment direction and a second length in a direction perpendicular to the first alignment direction in the top view, and the first length is greater than the second length (see at least paragraphs 0099-0102). Mori et al. further discloses the columnar spacer 25 is arranged with the long side thereof at right angles to the rubbing direction, and can also be arranged with the short side thereof at right angles to the rubbing direction (see at least paragraphs 0099-0102). 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 spacer as taught by Mori et al. in order to positively secure a desired cell gap and improve the open area ratio effective for display for improved display quality.
Baek et al. (figures 1-2) teaches a sealant between the first substrate and the second substrate, wherein the sealant surrounds an active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device (see at least paragraph 0008) and wherein the first spacer has a diamond shape in a top view (see at least paragraph 0062). 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 spacer as taught by Baek et al. in order to increase the reliability of the panels and increase the strength of the seal area. Therefore, Lee et al. as modified by Mori et al. and Baek et al. teaches wherein the spacer has two acute angles and two obtuse angles in a top view, the two acute angles are aligned with each other in the first alignment direction in the top view, and the two obtuse angles are aligned with each other in a direction perpendicular to the first alignment direction in the top view.
In addition, Haruhisa et al. (figures 1a-1b) teaches wherein the light shielding layer is located on the second substrate and in a seal region which is adjacent to the active region, wherein the light shielding layer overlaps the sealant (15-16) and the light shielding layer does not overlap the liquid crystal layer and the spacers (see at least page 4, 6th 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 display device as taught by Haruhisa et al. in order to prevent direct visibility of vertical scanning circuits and image driving circuits.
Therefore, Lee et al. as modified by Mori et al., Baek et al. and Haruhisa et al. teaches the light shielding layer does not overlap the liquid crystal layer and the first to third spacers.
Regarding claim 13, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses wherein the acute angles and the two obtuse angles form a diamond shape in the top view.
Regarding claim 14, Mori et al. (figures 1-5B and 8) discloses a second alignment layer adjacent to the liquid crystal layer and on a side of the liquid crystal layer opposite to the first alignment layer, wherein the second alignment layer has a second alignment direction substantially parallel with the first alignment direction (see at least paragraph 0080).
Claim 4-5 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Mori et al., Baek et al., and Haruhisa et al.; further in view of Sugita et al. (US 2012/0314144).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding the length and height of the spacer. Sugita et al. (figures 16-17) discloses wherein a height of the spacers is in a range from 10 micrometers to 50 micrometers (see at least paragraph 0007). Note that the height of the spacer disclosed by Sugita et al. is within the range of 10 micrometers to 50 micrometers. Therefore, the height of the spacer recited in claim 2 would have been obvious in view of the thickness disclosed by Sugita et al. (See In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 197, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974)). 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 size of the spacer as taught by Sugita et al. in order to achieve a thinner display device.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Sugita et al. (figures 16-17) discloses wherein the first length of the first spacer is greater than 5 micrometers in the top view.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. teaches the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 12 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding thickness of the sealant. Sugita et al. (figures 16-17) discloses wherein a thickness of the sealant is in a range from 10 micrometers to 50 micrometers (see at least paragraphs 0007 and 0045). Therefore, the thickness of the esalant recited in claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the thickness disclosed by Sugita et al. (See In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 197, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974)). 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 thickness of the sealant as taught by Sugita et al. in order to achieve a thinner display device.
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). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Mori et al., Baek et al., and Haruhisa et al.; further in view of Izawa et al. (US 2010/0033669).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above. However, Lee et al. is silent regarding wherein a length or a width of the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device is in a range of 1 inch to 2 inches. Izawa et al. (figures 1A and 7) teaches wherein a length or a width of the active region of the liquid crystal phase modulation device is in a range of 1 inch to 2 inches. 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 display device as taught by Izawa et al. in order to uniformly maintain a gap between the substrates is by arranging columnar spacers in a display area so that an area density of the spacers continuously changes from an edge portion to an predetermined central portion in the display area. In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a length or a width of the active region being in a range of 1 inch to 2 inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/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)).
Conclusion
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 571-272-97911. 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