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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation “wherein the pixel electrode comprises one said edge electrode disposed between the data line and the branch electrode; and wherein in the extension direction of the branch electrode, a length of the edge electrode is less than half a length of the branch electrode” appears to be a duplicate of claim 3, to which claim 7 depends through claim 4.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 104793401 A) (English Translation PDF) [Hereafter “Li”].
Regarding claims 1-2, Li [Fig.2] discloses a display panel, comprising a plurality of data lines [23] and a plurality of scan lines [24], wherein the plurality of data lines and the plurality of scan lines enclose a plurality of pixel units [25], and each of the pixel units comprises a pixel electrode [21], and
wherein the pixel electrode comprises a plurality of slits and a plurality of branch electrodes [211] disposed between the plurality of slits, and an included acute angle between a branch electrode [211] of the plurality of branch electrodes and an adjacent data line [23] of the data lines is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 7° [Page 5, lines 36-41 of English Translation PDF];
wherein an included acute angle between the branch electrode [211] and a first direction [Y direction] is 7°, an included acute angle between the data line [23] and the first direction is greater than or equal to 0° and less than 7°, and the first direction is perpendicular to the scan lines [24] [Fig.2 shows data line 23 is parallel with the axis in the Y direction].
Regarding claims 9-10, Li [Fig.5] discloses a display panel
wherein the branch electrode [511] comprises a first branch [x1] and a second branch [x2], and the first branch and the second branch are disposed at an included angle [Fig.5]; and
wherein an included acute angle between the first branch and the first direction is the same as an included acute angle between the second branch and the first direction [Page 6, lines 27-34 of English Translation PDF];
wherein the data line [53] comprises a plurality of data segments located between two adjacent pixel units of the pixel units, each of the data segments comprise a first connection segment [d1] and a second connection segment [d2] disposed at an included angle, the first branch [x1] is corresponding to the first connection segment [d1], and the second branch [x2] is corresponding to the second connection segment [d2]; and
wherein an included acute angle between the first connection segment [d1] and the first direction [Y] is different from an included acute angle between the second connection segment [d2] and the first direction [Page 6, lines 35-39 of English Translation PDF].
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(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 104793401 A) (English Translation PDF) in view of Wan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0134406) [Hereafter “Wan”].
Regarding claim 15, Li [Discussed above] discloses the display panel as claimed below. Wan [Fig.16] discloses and makes obvious a display apparatus comprising a display panel and a backlight module disposed on one side of the display panel [Para.95];
wherein the display panel comprises a plurality of data lines and a plurality of scan lines, the plurality of data lines and the plurality of scan lines enclose a plurality of pixel units, and each of the pixel units comprises a pixel electrode; and
wherein the pixel electrode comprises a plurality of slits and a plurality of branch electrodes disposed between the plurality of slits, and an included acute angle between a branch electrode of the plurality of branch electrodes and an adjacent data line of the data lines is greater than 0° and less than or equal to 7° [disclosed by Li as presented above].
It would have been obvious to provide the display apparatus comprising a display panel and a backlight module disposed on one side of the display panel as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 16-18, Li [Figs.2,5] [Discussed above in the treatment of claims 2,9-10] and Wan disclose the display apparatus
wherein an included acute angle between the branch electrode and a first direction is 7°, an included acute angle between the data line and the first direction is greater than or equal to 0° and less than 7°, and the first direction is perpendicular to the scan lines [Discussed above in the treatment of claims 2,9-10];
wherein the branch electrode comprises a first branch and a second branch, and the first branch and the second branch are disposed at an included angle; and
wherein an included acute angle between the first branch and the first direction is the same as an included acute angle between the second branch and the first direction [Discussed above in the treatment of claims 2,9-10];
wherein the data line comprises a plurality of data segments located between two adjacent pixel units of the pixel units, each of the data segments comprise a first connection segment and a second connection segment disposed at an included angle, the first branch is corresponding to the first connection segment, and the second branch is corresponding to the second connection segment; and
wherein an included acute angle between the first connection segment and the first direction is different from an included acute angle between the second connection segment and the first direction [Discussed above in the treatment of claims 2,9-10].
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 104793401 A) (English Translation PDF) in view of Wan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0134406).
Regarding claim 3, Li fails to explicitly disclose the display panel
wherein in one of the pixel units, the pixel electrode further comprises an edge electrode disposed between the data line and the branch electrode, and the edge electrode and the branch electrode are electrically connected; and
wherein the edge electrode and the branch electrode are disposed in parallel and separately, and a length of the edge electrode is less than a length of the branch electrode in an extension direction of the branch electrode.
However, Wan [Fig.2] discloses a display panel [Para.53]
wherein in one of the pixel units, the pixel electrode [310] further comprises an edge electrode [shorter strip electrode on upper left side] disposed between the data line [360] and the branch electrode [311], and the edge electrode and the branch electrode are electrically connected; and
wherein the edge electrode and the branch electrode are disposed in parallel and separately, and a length of the edge electrode is less than a length of the branch electrode in an extension direction of the branch electrode [Readily apparent in Fig.2].
It would have been obvious to provide the edge electrode as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Wan [Fig.2] discloses a display panel
wherein in the pixel unit, the pixel electrode further comprises a first transverse electrode and a second transverse electrode [upper and lower horizontal portions of pixel electrode 310]; and
wherein a first end of each of the plurality of branch electrodes [311] is connected to the first transverse electrode, a second end of each of the plurality of branch electrodes is connected to the second transverse electrode, a first end of the edge electrode [shorter strip electrode on upper left side] is connected to the first transverse electrode [upper horizontal portion of pixel electrode 310], and a second end of the edge electrode and the second transverse electrode [lower horizontal portions of pixel electrode 310] are disposed separately;
wherein the pixel electrode comprises one said edge electrode disposed between the data line and the branch electrode; and
wherein in the extension direction of the branch electrode, a length of the edge electrode is less than half a length of the branch electrode [Wan; Discussed above in the treatment of claim 3].
It would have been obvious to the transverse electrodes as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 104793401 A) (English Translation PDF) in view of Wan et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0134406), as applied above, and further in view of Song et al. (U.S. Pub. 20170160584) [Hereafter “Song”].
Regarding claim 5, Wan fails to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the first transverse electrode and a length of the second transverse electrode in the extension direction of the scanning line are equal. However, Song [Fig.4] discloses a display panel wherein a length of the first transverse electrode and a length of the second transverse electrode [upper and lower horizontal electrodes 11] in the extension direction of the scanning line [21] are equal. It would have been obvious to the transverse electrodes as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 11-14, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
[Claim 6] wherein a spacing between the edge electrode and an adjacent one of the branch electrodes is less than a width of one of the slits.
[Claim 8] wherein the pixel electrode comprises two said edge electrodes disposed between the data line and the branch electrode; and
wherein in the extension direction of the branch electrode, lengths of the two edge electrodes are less than a length of the branch electrode, and the length of the edge electrode close to the branch electrode is greater than the length of the edge electrode away from the branch electrode.
[Claims 11-13] wherein the display panel comprises a central area and a peripheral area located at a periphery of the central area, a plurality of first pixel units among the pixel units are disposed in the central area, and a plurality of second pixel units among the pixel units are disposed in the peripheral area; and
wherein an included acute angle between the branch electrode in the first pixel unit and an adjacent one of the data lines is less than an included acute angle between the branch electrode in the second pixel unit and an adjacent one of the data lines.
[Claim 14] wherein the display panel further comprises a light shielding layer covering the data lines and some of the pixel units; and
wherein a boundary of the light shielding layer and a boundary of an adjacent one of the branch electrodes are not disposed in parallel.
[Claim 19] wherein the display panel further comprises a light shielding layer covering the data lines and some of the pixel units; and
wherein a boundary of the light shielding layer and a boundary of an adjacent one of the branch electrodes are not disposed in parallel.
[Claim 20] wherein in one of the pixel units, the pixel electrode further comprises an edge electrode disposed between the data line and the branch electrode, and the edge electrode and the branch electrode are electrically connected; and
wherein the edge electrode and the branch electrode are disposed in parallel and separately, and a length of the edge electrode is less than a length of the branch electrode in an extension direction of the branch electrode, and a spacing between the edge electrode and an adjacent one of the branch electrodes is less than a width of one of the slits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898