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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 03/04/2026, applicant has made an election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1 and 14-20 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected Invention.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 2-13 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, hereafter, IDS, filed on 02/11/2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the serial number, i.e., 2014293189, of the US Publication listed in the mentioned IDS is not correct. Applicant should note that there are seven numbers follow the year of each US Publication. In the mentioned IDS, there are only six numbers following the year of 2014. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings contain sixteen sheets of figures 1-24 were received on 03/26/2024. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reasons.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature thereof “the first signal line comprises: a plurality of first parts … the second direction” as recited in claim 15 (lines 1-3) and the feature thereof “each first signal line comprises: a plurality of first parts … the second direction” recited in claim 17 (lines 1-3), see Note below, must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note: While each of figures 18-23 shows that the display panel comprises a plurality of signals lines (16) which each signal line comprises a first part (17), a second part (18) and a third path (41); however, each of the mentioned figures does not show that each of the first signal line (16) comprises a plurality of first parts, a plurality of second parts and a plurality of third parts as claimed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the following reasons:
a) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claim is rejected because the disclosure does not provide support for the feature that each first signal line comprises a plurality of first parts, a plurality of second parts and a plurality of third parts as claimed.
b) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, for the similar reason as set forth in element a) above.
c) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
10. 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.
11. Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a) Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the following reasons:
a1) the claim is indefinite because the feature thereof “the orthographic projection” (line 9) lacks a proper antecedent basis;
a2) the claim is indefinite by the feature thereof “a shape of the orthographic projection … is a folded line shape” (lines 9-10). What “first signal line” among the plurality of first signal lines (see the claim on line 6) is considered as “the first signal line” on line 9 of the claim? and
a3) the claim is indefinite because it is unclear from the claimed language the structural relationship(s) between the first base substrate to which scanning lines and signal lines are arranged/disposed on a surface thereof as recited in the claim on lines 2-8 and the plurality of sub-pixels as recited in its base claim 1 on lines 2-3.
b) Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by the feature thereof “wherein the first part, the second part and the third part … the second direction” (lines 4-6). What “first (or second or third) part” among the plurality of first (or second or third) parts is considered as “the first (or second or third) part” on line 4 of the claim?
c) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element a2) above.
d) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element b) above.
e) Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the similar reason as set forth in element b) above. In particular, because the base claim 1 recites a plurality of sub-pixels, see claim 1 on line 2, and the base claim 14 recites a plurality of first signal lines, see claim 14 on line 6, then which one is considered as “the sub-pixel” recited in claim 19 on line 2 and which one is considered as “the first signal line” as recited in claim 19 on line 4?
f) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishizumi et al (US Patent No. 7,382,426).
Ishizumi et al discloses a liquid crystal display unit.
Regarding present claim 1, the liquid crystal display unit as described in columns 4-6 and shown in figs. 1-2 and 5 comprises the following features;
a) a display panel (111) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels arrayed in an array wherein the sub-pixels have different colors, see columns 5-6 and figs 2 and 5; and
b) a moiré scattering layer (10) disposed at a light emitting side of the liquid crystal display panel (111), see columns 4-5 and fig. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 1, 14 and 19-20, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al (US Publication No. 2010/0066933) in view of Ishizumi et al (US Patent No. 7,382,426).
Oh et al discloses a liquid crystal display device.
a) Regarding present claim 1, the device as described by Oh et al in paragraphs [0030]-[0047] and shown in figs. 1-2 comprises a display panel having a plurality of sub-pixels arranged in an array wherein the sub-pixels have different colors.
The only feature missing from the device provided by Oh et al is that Oh et al does not disclose a Moiré scattering layer disposed on a light emitting surface of the display panel. However, a liquid crystal display device having a Moiré scattering layer disposed on a light emitting surface of a liquid crystal display panel is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the device provide by Ishizumi et al. In particular, as described in columns 4-6 and shown in figs. 1-2 and 5, Ishizumi et al discloses a liquid crystal display unit comprises a display panel (111) comprises a plurality of sub-pixels arrayed in an array wherein the sub-pixels have different colors, see columns 5-6 and figs 2 and 5; and a moiré scattering layer (10) disposed at a light emitting side of the liquid crystal display panel (111), see columns 4-5 and fig. 1. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device provided by Oh et al by using a moiré suppression layer disposed on a light emitting surface of the display panel as suggested by Ishizumi et al for the purpose of suppressing unnecessary light passing through the device to get images with better quality.
b) Regarding present claim 14, the display panel as described by Oh et al in paragraphs [0030]-[0038] and shown in fig. 1 comprises a first base substrate; a plurality of scanning lines (120), disposed on a side of the first base substrate facing the moiré suppression layer, extending along a first direction and arranged along a second direction; wherein the first direction intersects with the second direction; and a plurality of first signal lines (160), disposed on the side of the first base substrate facing the moiré suppression layer, arranged along the first direction, and intersecting with the scanning lines; wherein a shape of the orthographic projection of the first signal line on the first base substrate is a folded line shape.
c) Regarding present claim 19, the display panel as provided by Oh et al comprises a common electrode (123) comprising at least one slit located in the sub-pixel and running through the common electrode along a thickness direction of the common electrode; wherein the slit is parallel to the first signal line;
d) Regarding present claim 20, the plurality of first signal lines (16) comprises a plurality of data lines and a plurality of common electrode lines; wherein the data lines and the common electrode lines are arranged alternately.
Conclusion
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
18. The US Publication No. 2015/0116615 is cited as of interest in that it discloses a display device having a display panel having a plurality of sub-pixels arranged in an array wherein the sub-pixels has different colors and the display panel having a plurality of lines with folded shapes.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights