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
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 February 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 23 September 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the display panel is of a second size and formed by cutting a display panel of a first size” recites “a second size” prior to the recitation of “a first size.” Typically, reciting a second object prior to reciting a first objection subjects a claim to being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. However, the present specification has specific components that are identified as being “a first size” and “a second size” such that claiming the components utilizing different identities may cause confusion. Hence, the noted limitation intentionally has not be rejected as indefinite.
Applicant is respectfully reminded to review withdrawn claims for potential issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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) 1-4, 8, 10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (US 20210208457).
Re: claim 1, Son discloses a display panel (Figs. 1, 11) comprising a display region DA and a selected frame region (Figs. 1, 11, the region located outwardly from the outward perimeter of the sealant SEAL and inwardly from structure CS1, CS2) located on at least one side of the display region (Fig. 1), wherein the display panel comprises: a display substrate BS1 (Fig. 11) and an opposite substrate BS2 opposite with each other (opposite disclosed in Fig. 11), wherein both the display substrate and the opposite substrate cover the display region and the selected frame region (coverage disclosed in Fig. 11); a liquid crystal layer LC between the display substrate and the opposite substrate (between disclosed in Fig. 11), wherein the liquid crystal layer LC is at least located in the display region DA (Fig. 11 discloses location); a first polarizer POL2 on one side of the opposite substrate BS2 facing away from the liquid crystal layer LC (disposition disclosed in Fig. 11), wherein the first polarizer POL2 covers the display region DA and the selected frame region (coverage disclosed in Fig. 11); and a second polarizer POL1 on one side of the display substrate BS1 facing away from the liquid crystal layer LC (disposition disclosed in Fig. 11), wherein the second polarizer POL1 covers the display region and the selected frame region (coverage disclosed in Fig. 11), a light transmission axis of the second polarizer is crossed with a light transmission axis of the first polarizer (para. 91 “An absorption axis of …POL1 may be perpendicular to an absorption axis of…POL2”); and at least one of the second polarizer, the first polarizer or the liquid crystal layer is configured to shield the selected frame region to shield light (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 11 & para. 91 where both polarizers overlap the frame region and the polarizers have transmission axes that are perpendicular to one another).
While Son does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the display panel is of a second size and formed by cutting a display panel of a first size, and the selected frame region is formed after the cutting, the limitation is drafted in a product-by-process format. A product-by-process limitation is where a product is claimed in terms of the method used to manufacture it. While claiming subject matter using a product-by-process limitation in an apparatus claim is permissible, the determination of the patentability of the claim does not depend upon the method of the product’s production unless the applicant can show that the product has unobvious structural differences that are the result of the product being subject to the identified process. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP § 2113). In the present case, there is currently no evidence of record that the product has unobvious structural differences that are the result of the product being subject to the identified process. Thus, at least because there are no structural differences in the product made by the claimed process and the prior art discloses all of the claimed structure of the apparatus, the present limitation does not determine the patentability of the claimed apparatus.
Re: claim 2, Son discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Son further discloses a first sealant SEAL and a second sealant CS1, CS2 (Fig. 11); wherein the first sealant surrounds the display region and an edge of the selected frame region adjacent to the display region (surrounding disclosed in Figs. 6, 11; para. 163-164); and the second sealant separates the display region DA from the selected frame region (separation disclosed in Figs. 1, 11, where the selected frame region is the region located outwardly from the outward perimeter of the sealant SEAL and inwardly from structure CS1, CS2).
Re: claim 3, Son discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Son further discloses that the liquid crystal layer has no pattern in the selected frame region (Fig. 11, where no pixel electrode exists in the selected frame region).
Re: claim 4, Son discloses the limitations of claim 3, and Son further discloses that the opposite substrate BS2 comprises a black matrix BM arranged towards the liquid crystal layer LC (arrangement disclosed in Fig. 11), the black matrix extends from the display region to the selected frame region (extension disclosed in Fig. 11); and, in the selected frame region, the black matrix is disconnected along an extending direction of the selected frame region (Fig. 11 discloses the disconnection at the inwardly-facing side of CS1, CS2).
Re: claim 8, Son discloses the limitations of claim 2, and Son further discloses a first frame region (Fig. 1, either the far left or right sides of device 1 or the upper side of device 1) provided with a gate driving circuit and a second frame region configured to bond chips (para. 64 discloses driving circuits & configuration to bond using circuit films), the first frame region is adjacent to the second frame region (Fig. 1); the selected frame region is located on one side of the display region away from the first frame region, and/or, the selected frame region is located on one side of the display region away from the second frame region (Figs. 1, 11 where the selected frame region is located inside the inner edge of CS1).
Re: claim 10, Son discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Son further discloses that at least one of the first polarizer or the second polarizer comprises a light-shielding structure (light-shielding capability disclosed in at least Fig. 11 & para. 91 where both polarizers overlap the frame region and the polarizers have transmission axes that are perpendicular to one another); and the light-shielding structure at least partially overlaps the selected frame region (overlap disclosed in Fig. 11).
Re: claim 18, Son discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Son further discloses a display apparatus (para. 56).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son.
Re: claim 11, Son discloses the limitations of claim 10, and while Son does not explicitly disclose that the first polarizer and the second polarizer comprise polarizing base layers; and the light shielding structure is embedded in at least one of the polarizing base layers, a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date would have known that polarizers typically include protective layers, such as TAC or PET, to protect the polarizing layer from physical or environmental damage. Furthermore, the inclusion of a light block to prevent light leakage is also well-known in the art. Thus, the claim is the obvious application of known techniques to a known device that yields predictable results.
Re: claim 19, Son discloses the limitations of claim 2, and while Son does not explicitly disclose that a width of the first sealant and a width of the second sealant each are greater than or equal to 0.6 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05).
Re: claim 20, Son discloses the limitations of claim 1, and while Son does not explicitly disclose that a width of the selected frame region is in the range of 1 mm to 3 mm, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM 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, 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871