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 § 102
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.
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, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Furuie (US. Pub: 2017/0194599 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Furuie discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 4-10) a display panel, comprising: a first base substrate (6; [0028]) and a second base substrate (7; [0028]) oppositely arranged; and a support pillar (9) disposed between the first base substrate and the second base substrate (see at least fig. 2), wherein: the first base substrate (6) includes a first substrate (11; [0030]) and a plurality of pixel openings (see fig. 2; the openings are formed in display region area) disposed on a side of the first substrate facing the second base substrate (see fig. 2); the second base substrate (7) includes a second substrate (61; [0029]) and a first insulation layer (65; [0029]; see fig. 2) disposed on a side of the second substrate facing the first base substrate (see fig. 2); the first insulation layer (65) includes a first insulation portion; in a first direction (see fig. 2), the first insulation portion overlaps with the support pillar (9; see at least fig. 2); the first direction is perpendicular to a plane where the first substrate (11) is located; the first insulation portion includes a first edge (see fig. 2); an orthographic projection of the first edge on the first substrate (11) is located outside an orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the first substrate (see at least fig. 2); the orthographic projection of the first edge on the first substrate (11) and the orthographic projection of the pixel opening on the first substrate have a first preset distance D; and D>0 (as evident by at least fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Furuie discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 4-10) in the first direction, the first insulation portion covers the pixel opening (see fig. 2).
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuie (US. Pub: 2017/0194599 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Furuie does not expressly disclose D≥4 μm.
However, Furuie discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 4-10) D>0.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming the distance of Future D≥4 μm through routine experimentation and optimization. Also, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Furuie does not expressly disclose a thickness of the first insulation layer is H2; and 1 μm<H2≤1.5 μm.
However, Furuie discloses (in at least fig. 2) a first insulation layer (65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the first insulation layer of Furuie with a thickness H2 in the range of 1 μm<H2≤1.5 μm through routine experimentation and optimization. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Furuie does not expressly disclose the first insulation layer further comprises: a second insulation portion located between adjacent first insulation portions and continuously disposed with the first insulation portions; wherein a thickness of the first insulation layer is H1; and 0.5 μm≤H1≤1 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to consider forming a second insulation portion located between adjacent first insulation portions of Furuie and continuously disposed with the first insulation portions; wherein a thickness of the first insulation layer is H1; and 0.5 μm≤H1≤1 μm, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Furuie does not expressly disclose in the first direction, the first insulation portion does not overlap with the pixel opening.
However, Furuie discloses (in at least fig. 2) in the first direction, the first insulation portion does overlap with the pixel opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange the first insulation portion of Furuie such that in the first direction, the first insulation portion does not overlap with the pixel opening, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Furuie discloses (in at least figs. 2 and 4-10) the orthographic projection of the first insulation portion (65) on the first substrate (9) and the orthographic projection of the support pillar on the first substrate have similar patterns (see at least fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Furuie does not expressly disclose the orthographic projection of the first insulation portion on the first substrate is a first circle; a diameter of the first circle is d1; and d1≥10 μm.
However, Furuie discloses (in at least figs. 1-2 and 4-10) the orthographic projection of the first insulation portion on the first substrate is a rectangle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to contemplate forming the orthographic projection of the first insulation portion on the first substrate of Furuie as a first circle; wherein a diameter of the first circle is d1; and d1≥10 μm instead of a rectangle, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known shape for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10-16 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the first insulation layer comprises: a first sub-insulation layer; and a second sub-insulation layer, wherein: in the first direction, the first sub-insulation layer is located between the second sub-insulation layer and the second substrate; and the first insulation portion and the second insulation portion are both located in the second sub-insulation layer.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a shape of an orthographic projection of at least one pixel opening on the first substrate is a first polygon; a shape of the orthographic projection of the first insulation portion on the first substrate is a second polygon; and in the pixel opening and the first insulation portion adjacently arranged, the first polygon includes a first sub-edge, the second polygon includes the first edge, and the first edge includes a second sub-edge, and the first sub-edge and the second sub-edge are adjacent and parallel to each other. Claims 11-16 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 10.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the second base substrate further includes a touch layer, wherein the touch layer is located between the second substrate and the first insulation layer, the touch layer includes touch electrodes, and in the first direction, the touch electrodes do not overlap with the pixel openings and do not overlap with the first insulation portion; and the first insulation layer further includes a second insulation portion, wherein the second insulation portion located between adjacent first insulation portions and arranged continuously with the first insulation portions, and in the first direction, the second insulation portion covers the touch electrode and the pixel opening.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights