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 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Masaki does not disclose the limitations as presented in claims 1 and 22. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Masaaki (figures 4-5) teaches wherein a first acute angle directly between a side surface of the gap column spacer and the first end portion of the gap column spacer directly on a bottom surface of the counter substrate is smaller than a second acute angle directly between a side surface of the press column spacer and the third end portion of the press column spacer directly on the bottom surface of the counter substrate, and wherein the first acute angle and the second acute angle face, but are physically spaced apart from, the common electrode (the acute angles formed by the side surface of 210a with the horizontal line defined by the substrate 10 or 116 is smaller than the acute angle formed by the side surface of 210b with the horizontal line defined by the substrate 10 or 116). 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 spacers as taught by Masaaki in order to increase in the volume of the liquid crystal at the high temperature, thus achieving high image quality. The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4, 7, 9-10, 22-26, 28-31 are 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. The specific limitation “wherein a first acute angle directly between a side surface of the gap column spacer and the first end portion of the gap column spacer directly on a bottom surface of the counter substrate is smaller than a second acute angle directly between a side surface of the press column spacer and the third end portion of the press column spacer directly on the bottom surface of the counter substrate, and wherein the first acute angle and the second acute angle face, but are physically spaced apart from, the common electrode” as presented in claims 1 and 22 appear to be unclear. The examiner is not sure acute angles being referred to. As shown in figure 2 of the instant application, the end portions of the spacers are directly on the overcoat layer 230, not the substrate 211. In addition, the acute angles are connected to the spacers CS and are therefore not physically spaced apart from the common electrode 171. The acute angles are, in fact, directly connected to the common electrodes 171. Appropriate correction is required.
Being dependent on claims 1 and 22, claims 2-4, 7, 9-10, 23-26, 28-31 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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, 7, 9-10, 22-26, 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamitani et al. (US 2020/0326576) in view of Masaaki (JP 2010-072572).
Regarding claim 1, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses a display device, comprising:
an array substrate (30) in which a pixel region is disposed, the pixel region including a transistor, a pixel electrode connected to the transistor (60 and70), and a common electrode (75);
a counter substrate (20) facing the array substrate;
a liquid crystal layer (LC) interposed between the array substrate and the counter substrate;
a gap column spacer (50M) which maintains a cell gap between the array substrate and the counter substrate, and includes a bottom first end portion having a first width, and a top second end portion having a second width smaller than the first width, the top second end portion of the gap column spacer in direct contact with the common electrode and the first end portion in direct contact with the counter substrate (50M); and
a press column spacer (50SA) having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the gap column spacer, wherein the press column spacer includes a bottom third end portion having a third width and a top fourth end portion having a fourth width smaller than the third width, the fourth end portion of the press column spacer spaced apart from the array substrate and the third end portion of the press column spacer in direct contact with the counter substrate.
Kamitani et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kamitani et al. is silent regarding wherein a first acute angle directly between a side surface of the gap column spacer and the first end portion of the gap column spacer directly on a bottom surface of the counter substrate is smaller than a second acute angle directly between a side surface of the press column spacer and the third end portion of the press column spacer directly on the bottom surface of the counter substrate, and wherein the first acute angle and the second acute angle face, but are physically spaced apart from, the common electrode. Masaaki (figures 4-5) teaches wherein a first acute angle directly between a side surface of the gap column spacer and the first end portion of the gap column spacer directly on a bottom surface of the counter substrate is smaller than a second acute angle directly between a side surface of the press column spacer and the third end portion of the press column spacer directly on the bottom surface of the counter substrate, and wherein the first acute angle and the second acute angle face, but are physically spaced apart from, the common electrode (the acute angles formed by the side surface of 210a with the horizontal line defined by the substrate 10 or 116 is smaller than the acute angle formed by the side surface of 210b with the horizontal line defined by the substrate 10 or 116). 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 spacers as taught by Masaaki in order to increase in the volume of the liquid crystal at the high temperature, thus achieving high image quality.
Regarding claim 2, Kamitani et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kamitani et al. is silent regarding widths of the spacers. Kobayashi discloses a gap column spacer which maintains a cell gap between the array substrate and the counter substrate, and includes a bottom end portion having a first width, and a top end portion having a second width smaller than the first width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of the second width to the first width being 0.55 or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 3, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the gap column spacer has a frustum of a cone shape with the first width of the bottom first end portion being greater than the second width of the top second end portion.
Regarding claim 4, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the first end portion of the gap column spacer is located on a side of the counter substrate, and the second end portion of the gap column spacer is located on a side of the array substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the press column spacer has a frustum of a cone shape with the third width of the bottom third end portion being greater than the fourth width of the fourth end portion.
Regarding claim 9, Kamitani et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kobayashi is silent regarding widths of the spacers. Kamitani et al. discloses the ratio of fourth width to the third width as shown in figure 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wherein a ratio of the fourth width to the third width being 0.65 to 0.95, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 10, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the counter substrate includes a color filter pattern corresponding to the pixel region.
Regarding claim 22, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses a display device, comprising:
a gap column spacer and a press column spacer on a first substrate (50M and 50SA), the press column spacer having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the gap column spacer; and
a second substrate facing the first substrate (20 and 30) with a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate, the second substrate including a common electrode (75),
wherein each of the gap column spacer and the press column spacer has a shape with a bottom end portion having a width greater than a top end portion, the bottom end of the gap column spacer and the bottom end of the press column spacer being in direct contact with the first substrate,
wherein the top end portion of the gap column spacer is in direct contact with the common electrode, and the top end portion of the press column spacer overlaps but is spaced apart from the common electrode,
wherein a ratio of a second width of the top end portion of the gap column spacer to a first width of the bottom end portion of the gap column spacer is smaller than a ratio of a fourth width of the top end portion of the press column spacer to a third width of the bottom end portion of the press column spacer.
Kamitani et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Kamitani et al. is silent regarding wherein a first acute angle directly between a side surface of the gap column spacer and the first end portion of the gap column spacer directly on a bottom surface of the counter substrate is smaller than a second acute angle directly between a side surface of the press column spacer and the third end portion of the press column spacer directly on the bottom surface of the counter substrate, and wherein the first acute angle and the second acute angle face, but are physically spaced apart from, the common electrode. Masaaki (figures 4-5) teaches wherein a first acute angle directly between a side surface of the gap column spacer and the first end portion of the gap column spacer directly on a bottom surface of the counter substrate is smaller than a second acute angle directly between a side surface of the press column spacer and the third end portion of the press column spacer directly on the bottom surface of the counter substrate, and wherein the first acute angle and the second acute angle face, but are physically spaced apart from, the common electrode (the acute angles formed by the side surface of 210a with the horizontal line defined by the substrate 10 or 116 is smaller than the acute angle formed by the side surface of 210b with the horizontal line defined by the substrate 10 or 116). 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 spacers as taught by Masaaki in order to increase in the volume of the liquid crystal at the high temperature, thus achieving high image quality.
Regarding claim 23, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the gap column spacer has a frustum of a cone shape with the first width of the bottom first end portion being greater than the second width of the top second end portion.
Regarding claim 24, Kamitani et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 22 above. However, Kamitani et al. is silent regarding widths of the spacers. Kamitani et al. discloses a gap column spacer which maintains a cell gap between the array substrate and the counter substrate, and includes a bottom end portion having a first width, and a top end portion having a second width smaller than the first width. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of the second width to the first width being 0.55 or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 25, Kamitani et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 22 above. However, Kobayashi is silent regarding widths of the spacers. Kamitani et al. discloses the ratio of fourth width to the third width as shown in figure 2. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have wherein a ratio of the fourth width to the third width being 0.65 to 0.95, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. 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 26, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein a transistor, a pixel electrode connected to the transistor, and the common electrode facing the pixel electrode are formed on the second substrate, and wherein a color filter pattern is formed on the first substrate.
Regarding claim 28, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses herein the bottom plane of the counter substrate faces a top plane of the array substrate.
Regarding claim 29, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the bottom plane of the first substrate faces a top plane of the second substrate.
Regarding claim 30, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the gap column spacer is formed of the same material as the press column spacer, and wherein the gap column spacer is monolithic, and the press column spacer is monolithic (see at least paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 31, Kamitani et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the gap column spacer is formed of the same material as the press column spacer, and wherein the gap column spacer is monolithic, and the press column spacer is monolithic (see at least paragraph 0047).
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
Prosecution Insights