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 .
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4 and 12 have been amended to recite the limitation “a thickness of the liquid crystal layer is 10 µm or more”. Applicant cites paragraph [0063] of the specification for support. Paragraph [0063] states that “The width of the spacer SS is 10 µm or more and 20 µm or less”. However, paragraph [0063] further states that “While the length PX and the length Py of the patch electrode PE are on the order of mm, a cross-sectional diameter of the spacer SS in the first direction X is on the order of µm”. This suggests that the disclosed width of the spacer is in the direction parallel to the substrates (note the X direction in figure 4), not in the thickness direction of the liquid crystal layer. Therefore, paragraph [0063] does not appear to support the newly added claim limitation. The specification specifically discusses the thickness of the liquid crystal layer in paragraph [0044]. Paragraph [0044] discloses a thickness of 50 µm, but notes that the thickness may be less than 50 µm as long as the reflection phase of radio waves can be sufficiently adjusted. However, there is no indication from the specification that a thickness of 10 µm would allow the reflection phase of radio waves to be sufficiently adjusted. Therefore, the specification does not appear to support the newly added claim limitation. This is a new matter rejection. Claims 2-3, 5-11 and 13-17 are rejected based on their dependency.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2005/0168674) in view of Kubota et al. (US 2011/0285940).
As to claim 1, Kubo discloses in figures 2A and 7A: a first substrate 100a including a first base 11, and a plurality of patch areas including a plurality of square patch electrodes 14a’ arrayed in a matrix at regular intervals along each of a first (horizontal) and a second (vertical) direction; a second substrate 100b including a second base 21 and a common electrode 22 opposed to the plurality of patch electrodes 14a’; and a liquid crystal layer 30 sandwiched between the first substrate 100a and the second substrate 100b, wherein each of the plurality of patch areas includes the patch electrode 14a’, a first connection electrode, a second connection electrode, a third connection electrode, and a fourth connection electrode, each of the first connection electrode, a second connection electrode, a third connection electrode, and a fourth connection electrode extends from sides of the patch electrode, the first connection electrode and the third connection electrode extend parallel to the second direction, the second connection electrode and a fourth connection electrode extend parallel to the first direction, the first connection electrode and the third connection electrode are arranged linearly to extend in directions opposite to each other, the second connection electrode and the fourth connection electrode are arranged linearly to extend in directions opposite to each other, an electrode shape formed by the patch electrode, the first connection electrode, the second connection electrode, the third connection electrode, and the fourth connection electrode included in each of the plurality of patch areas has rotational symmetry having a point inside each of the plurality of patch areas as a center of rotation, and a first patch area, a second patch area adjacent to the first patch area in the second direction, a third patch area adjacent to the first patch area in the first direction, and a fourth patch area adjacent to the second patch area in the first direction and adjacent to the third patch area in the second direction, of the plurality of patch areas, have an intersection of the first patch area, the second patch area, the third patch area, and the fourth patch area as a whole as a center of rotation.
Kubo does not disclose that a thickness of the liquid crystal layer is 10 µm or more. However, this was a common and conventional thickness for a liquid crystal layer in a liquid crystal display device as evidenced by paragraphs [0089], [0137] and [0357] of Kubota. 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 Kubo wherein a thickness of the liquid crystal layer is 10 µm or more as disclosed by Kubota because conventional structures were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
As to claim 12, Kubo discloses in figures 2A and 11A: a first substrate 100a including a first base 11, and a plurality of patch areas including a plurality of square patch electrodes 14a’ arrayed in a matrix at regular intervals along each of a first (horizontal) and a second (vertical) direction; a second substrate 100b including a second base 21 and a common electrode 22 opposed to the plurality of patch electrodes 14a’; and a liquid crystal layer 30 sandwiched between the first substrate 100a and the second substrate 100b, wherein each of the plurality of patch areas includes the patch electrode 14a’, and a first connection electrode and a second connection electrode which extend from vertices of the patch electrode, and the first connection electrode and the second connection electrode are arranged linearly, extend in directions opposite to each other, and overlap with an imaginary line including one of diagonal lines of the patch electrode.
Kubo does not disclose that a thickness of the liquid crystal layer is 10 µm or more. However, this was a common and conventional thickness for a liquid crystal layer in a liquid crystal display device as evidenced by paragraphs [0089], [0137] and [0357] of Kubota. 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 Kubo wherein a thickness of the liquid crystal layer is 10 µm or more as disclosed by Kubota because conventional structures were known to be cost-effective and reliable.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2005/0168674) in view of Kubota et al. (US 2011/0285940) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeBenedetti (US 4,602,850).
Kubo in view of Kubota discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first connection electrode and the third connection electrode, or the second connection electrode and the fourth connection electrode are in a floating state. DeBenedetti discloses in column 6, lines 33-34, that the pixel electrode is electrically floating when its driving transistor is turned off. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pixel electrode 14 of Kubo is electrically floating when its driving transistor is turned off, based on the disclosure of DeBenedetti. When the pixel electrode is in an electrically floating state, each of the connection electrodes would also be in an electrically floating state.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Claims 1, 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1 and 12 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo (US 2005/0168674) in view of Kubota et al. (US 2011/0285940).
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 David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2871