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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-10 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 26 – “the width”
Claims 2-4, line 2 – “the longitudinal direction”
Claims 5-6, lines 1-3, 5 – “the area”
Claim 6, line 3 – “the same color”
Claims 7-10 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US 2019/0043895).
Regarding claim 1, Shen discloses a display device (Figs. 1-9) comprising:
an array substrate (100); and
a counter substrate (200) facing the array substrate, wherein
the array substrate comprises:
a plurality of signal lines (DL) arrayed at intervals in a first direction (x, Figs. 2-3);
a plurality of scanning lines (GL) arrayed at intervals in a second direction (y, Figs. 2-3);
a color filter (170) disposed at a position overlapping an opening (110a) surrounded by two adjacent signal lines (DL) and two adjacent scanning lines (GL) (Figs. 1-3; para. [0024]);
a plurality of pixel electrodes (190) provided to respective pixels (paras. [0033-0034]);
a common electrode (132) serving as a translucent conductor overlapping the pixel electrodes (190) with an insulating film (194) interposed therebetween and having a slit (132a) formed corresponding to the opening (Figs. 1, 3);
an insulating film (180) that covers the color filter (170);
at least one spacer (152) that regulates a distance between the array substrate (100) and the counter substrate (200) (Fig. 1); and
a conductive layer (140) with a grid shape stacked on the common electrode (132) and extending along the signal lines (DL) and the scanning lines (GL) in plan view (Figs. 1-3),
the conductive layer (140) has a light-shielding region provided with the spacer (152) and where the width of the conductive layer is widened in at least one of the first direction (x) and the second direction (y) in plan view (Fig. 3; para. [0027]), and
the slit (132a) does not overlap the light-shielding region (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 2, Shen discloses wherein extending directions in the longitudinal direction of the slits (132a) in two pixels with which the light-shielding region overlaps and that are adjacent to each other in the first direction (x) are different (see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
724
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Shen discloses wherein extending directions in the longitudinal direction of the slits (132a) in two pixels with which the light-shielding region overlaps and that are adjacent to each other in the second direction (y) are different (annotated Fig. 3 above applied to adjacent pixels in y direction).
Regarding claim 4, Shen discloses wherein extending directions in the longitudinal direction of the slits (132a) in four pixels with which the light-shielding region overlaps and that are adjacent to each other in the first direction (x) and the second direction (y) are different (annotated Fig. 3 above applied to four adjacent pixels in x and y directions).
Regarding claim 6, Shen discloses wherein the area of the slit (132a) in a pixel with which the light-shielding region does not overlap and having the same color as a pixel with which the light-shielding region overlaps is equal to the area of the slit with which the light-shielding region overlaps (Fig. 3; areas of the slits are equal in all the pixels).
Regarding claim 7, Shen discloses wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each intersection provided with the spacer (152) out of a plurality of intersections where the signal lines (DL) and the scanning lines (GL) intersect (Figs. 2-3; para. [0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0043895).
Regarding claim 10, Shen fails to explicitly disclose a display system comprising: a lens; the display device according to claim 1; and a control device configured to output an image to the display device.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a display system comprising: a lens; the display device according to claim 1; and a control device configured to output an image to the display device, to apply the display device in a useful system of a head-up display or the like as desired for the intended purpose.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0043895), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Japan Display Inc (JP 2019-211568), translation provided herewith.
Regarding claim 5, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the area of the slit in a pixel with which the light-shielding region overlaps is different from the area of the slit in a pixel with which the light-shielding region does not overlap.
However, Japan Display discloses a display device (Figs. 1-13), wherein the area of the slit in a pixel (e.g., SPr22, Fig. 5) with which the light-shielding region (region with 21 and 30) overlaps is different from the area of the slit in a pixel (e.g., SPw1) with which the light-shielding region does not overlap (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the area of the slit in a pixel with which the light-shielding region overlaps is different from the area of the slit in a pixel with which the light-shielding region does not overlap, as in Japan Display, into the display device of Shen to adjust the position and shape of electrode sections to effectively utilize space within the area (Japan Display, para. [0045]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0043895), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0185141).
Regarding claim 8, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each portion provided with the spacer not overlapping the signal line but overlapping the scanning line.
However, Chen discloses a display device (Figs. 5-7), wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each portion provided with the spacer (42) not overlapping the signal line (33) but overlapping the scanning line (31) (Figs. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each portion provided with the spacer not overlapping the signal line but overlapping the scanning line, as in Japan Display, into the display device of Shen to not position the spacer on multiple wiring layers, while still placing it in a light-shielding area to maintain high aperture ratio.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2019/0043895), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0327824).
Regarding claim 9, Shen fails to explicitly disclose wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each portion provided with the spacer not overlapping the scanning line but overlapping the signal line.
However, Chen discloses a display device (Figs. 1-6), wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each portion provided with the spacer (MPS) not overlapping the scanning line (SL) but overlapping the signal line (DL) (Figs. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the light-shielding region is disposed at each portion provided with the spacer not overlapping the scanning line but overlapping the signal line, as in Chen, into the display device of Shen to position the spacer at a different wiring intersection, thus maintaining high aperture ratio (Chen, para. [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights