DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendment dated 08/04/2025 has been received and entered. By the amendment, claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hirayama et al., US 2019/0011774 A1.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Hirayama et al. figures 1-2, 4 and accompanying text which discloses a light adjustment device (e.g., display device) comprising:
. a panel unit 10 in which a plurality of light adjustment panels (first light adjustment panel 12, second light adjustment panel 14), each including a first substrate 20/40 and a second substrate 21/41 on one side in a first direction (e.g., vertical direction) intersecting the first substrate are stacked in the first direction (fig 4)
. an optical sheet 35 bonded to the first light adjustment panels in a state of overlapping the light adjustment panels 12
. a light source 11
. wherein the optical sheet 35 is bonded to the second substrate 21 of a first light adjustment panel 12 positioned furthest from the light source 11 in the first direction (vertical direction) in the panel unit 10 (fig 4).
Re claim 2, wherein the optical sheet 35 includes an antireflection film ([0032]).
Re claim 3, wherein edges of the optical sheet 35 are provided along edges of a substrate 40 to which the optical sheet is bonded (fig 4).
Re claim 4, wherein the antireflection film 35 is bonded in a state of overlapping at least one of the first substrate 20/40 and the second substrate 21/41 in one of the light adjustment panels included in the panel unit 10.
Re claim 5, Hirayama et al. further disclose a frame 51/52 that holds a device body including the panel unit and the optical sheet, wherein the frame includes a frame body part that is provided at an end part of the device body in a second direction intersecting the first direction and extends in the first direction, a first leg part extending in the second direction from the frame body part along an end part of the device body on the one side in the first direction, and a second leg part extending in the second direction from the frame body part along an end part of the device body on the other side in the first direction (figs 1-2).
Re claim 6, wherein two or more terminal groups 53/54 are provided at the first substrate, and terminals included in one of the terminal groups are electrically coupled to terminals included in another one of the terminal groups, the first substrate includes a first side and a second side intersecting the first side and is shaped in a polygon having four sides, and the terminal groups are provided at a first end part of an end part along the first side of the first substrate, the first end part being on a side closer to the second side with respect to a center of the first side, and a second end part of an end part along the second side, the second end part being provided on a side closer to the first side with respect to a center of the second side (figs 1-2).
Re claim 7, wherein each of the light adjustment panels includes a liquid crystal layer 22/42 between the first substrate and the second substrate (fig 4).
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirayama et al., US 2019/0011774 A1, in view of Takamitsu et al., JP 2002-169490A
Re claim 8, Hirayama et al. disclose the panel unit 10 as described above, further including the first substrate 20/40 formed larger than the second substrate 21/41 in a plan view (fig. 2). Hirayama et al., however, do not disclose a third light adjustment panel and a fourth light adjustment panel adjacent to each other in the first direction with a bonding layer that joins the second substrate of the third light adjustment panel and the first substrate of the fourth light adjustment panel, and the bonding layer is provided on an entire surface of the first substrate of the fourth light adjustment panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ third/fourth light adjustment panels with a bonding layer therebetween, since it has been held that mere duplication and/or addition of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In addition, Takamitsu et al. do disclose bonding layers 2, each joining the second substrate S2 of one of the light adjustment panels PE and the first substrate S1 of another light adjustment panel PE in the first direction (vertical direction) and the bonding layer 2 being provided on an entire surface of the first substrate S1 of the light adjustment panel PE (fig. 3B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a plurality of bonding layers including a middle bonding layer for bonding two light adjustment panels in the middle of a panel unit and its arrangement over the modification of the Hirayama et al panel unit, as shown by Takamitsu et al., since it is a known practice in the display art to provide a multi-layer display panel in which the frame width can be made relatively small ([0012]).
Re claim 9, the modification to Hirayama et al. would result an end part of one of the first substrate and the second substrate further protrudes in a second direction (horizontal direction) than another, and the bonding layer would be provided at the end part as well.
Re claim 10, wherein the first substrate has a regular polygonal shape, and the second substrate has a shape obtained by removing part of the regular polygonal shape and has one side or a plurality of sides with a length matching at least one side or a plurality of adjacent sides constituting an outer edge of the first substrate (fig. 2).
Re claims 11 and 12, wherein when viewed in the first direction, thickness of the bonding layer provided at a site where the second substrate of the third light adjustment panel and the first substrate of the fourth light adjustment panel overlap each other can be smaller or greater than thickness of the bonding layer provided at the end part, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claim 13, the modification to Hirayama et al. would result the light adjustment panels adjacent to each other in the first direction among the plurality of light adjustment panels joined to each other through the bonding layer, and the plurality of bonding layers are thicker toward the one side in the first direction.
Re claim 14, the modification to Hirayama et al. disclose the claimed invention as described above except for the bonding layer is at ground potential. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a bonding layer at ground potential, since it was known in the display art forming a bonding layer at ground potential (e.g., bonding pad) for device grounding purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
. Applicant’s arguments are as follow:
a. Re claim 1, Hirayama et al. fails to disclose “the optical sheet is bonded to at least one of the second substrate of the first light adjustment panel positioned furthest from the light source in the first direction in the panel unit and the first substrate of the second light adjustment panel positioned closest to the light source in the first direction”.
b. Re claim 8, Hirayama et al. fails to disclose first/second/third/fourth light adjustment panels and its arrangement with bonding layers therebetween in the panel unit.
c. Re claims 11-13, Hirayama fails to disclose, teach, or suggest thickness of the middle bonding layer (smaller or larger than thickness of the bonding layers other than the middle bonding layer or thicker in the first direction).
. The examiner’s response are as follow:
a. The Examiner is not convinced by this argument since the same is true of the Hirayama et al. optical sheet position as shown in fig. 4 (the optical sheet 35 bonded to the second substrate 21 of a first light adjustment panel 12 that positioned is furthest from the light source 11 in the vertical direction in the panel unit 10).
b. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. As stated above, the modification to the Hirayama et al. to include first/second/third/fourth light adjustment panels would involve only routine skill in the art on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In addition, Takamitsu et al. disclose a plurality of bonding layers and its arrangement in a panel unit. Therefore the modification of Hirayama et al. and combined with the Takamitsu et al. boding layers would result the claimed limitations as well.
c. The Examiner again respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. The limitations of “thickness” in claims 11-13 has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, to result the claimed limitations.
Accordingly, claims 1-14 stand rejected as stated above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, 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 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871