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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed February 17, 2026. Claims 1-11, 15, and 16 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 12-14 and 17-20 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 12, applicant’s arguments, on pages 5-7 of the Remarks, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that Matsushima et al. and Choo et al. may not be combined because Matsushima discloses the alignment of the liquid crystal material in the transmissive and reflective display areas are different while the Choo et al. references was used to disclose the alignment of the liquid crystal being twisted in both reflective and transmissive areas (see e.g. page 7 of applicant’s Remarks and rejection set forth below). Applicant further asserts that regarding the Choo et al. reference, “those skilled in the art would have realized that the modification runs counter to the subject-matter of Matsushima and thus, causing Matsushima’s configuration impracticable.” The examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Mainly, Matsushima et al. discloses or makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1, as set forth below, except “the liquid crystal layer takes a twist alignment in both of the reflective display region and the transmissive display region in the voltage non-applied state.” It is noted that Choo et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0077]): the liquid crystal layer 200 takes a twist alignment in both of the reflective display region RA and the transmissive display region TA in the voltage non-applied state. It is further noted that using the Choo et al. reference’s alignment of the liquid crystal would have an advantage of allowing an easier processing of the alignment film, while providing an art recognized equivalent alternative for using the liquid crystal material as a switching layer in a display device. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Matsushima et al. may not be combined with Choo et al., the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the alignment scheme of Choo et al. is more easily manufactured because a single alignment is applied to the substrates, rather than providing different alignment directions to different areas which requires extra time and cost. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the alternative liquid crystal alignment of Choo et al. would still allow the device to operate as a switchable display device.
Therefore claims 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 12, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima et al. (US 2007/0013835 A1) in view of Choo et al. (US 2006/0125986 A1).
In regard to claim 12, Matsushima discloses a liquid crystal display device including a plurality of pixels (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0035]), the liquid crystal display device comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
a first substrate 10a (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0047]);
a second substrate 20a facing the first substrate 10a (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0054]); and
a liquid crystal layer 50 provided between the first substrate 10a and the second substrate 20a (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0046]),
wherein each of the plurality of pixels includes a reflective display region R and a transmissive display region T (see e.g. Figures 2a, 3),
wherein the first substrate 10a includes a reflective layer 19 configured to reflect light and formed in the reflective display region R (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0042]), a first electrode 19 (denoted “common electrode”) and a second electrode 9 (denoted “pixel electrode”) configured to generate a transverse electrical field in the liquid crystal layer 50 (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0060]), and a first horizontal alignment film 18 being in contact with the liquid crystal layer (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0052]),
one (i.e. 9) of the first electrode 19 and the second electrode 9, disposed on a side of the liquid crystal layer 50, includes a plurality of belt-shaped portions and a slit positioned between two adjacent belt-shaped portions of the plurality of belt-shaped portions (see e.g. Figure 2a and paragraph [0040]),
each of the plurality of belt-shaped portions (i.e. of 9, see e.g. Figure 2a) has a linear shape extending substantially parallel to other linear shapes of other belt-shaped portions in the plurality of belt-shaped portions and in an identical direction (see e.g. Figure 2a and paragraph [0040]),
the liquid crystal layer 50 is formed by a liquid crystal material including a liquid crystal molecule (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0046]),
the liquid crystal material is a positive type (see e.g. paragraph [0056]),
the second substrate includes a second horizontal alignment film 28 being in contact with the liquid crystal layer 50 (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0054]),
a state, in which a voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer 50 is less than a threshold voltage is a voltage non-applied state, and a state, in which voltage applied to the liquid crystal layer 50 is the threshold voltage or higher is a voltage applied state (see e.g. Figure 5 and paragraph [0065]),
an extending direction of the plurality of belt-shaped portions of one of the plurality of pixels positioned in a central portion of the liquid crystal layer, in a plan view, in the voltage non-applied state, is positioned between (i) a long axis direction of a first liquid crystal molecule, of a plurality of liquid crystal molecules, including the liquid crystal molecule, on a side of the first substrate (i.e. direction 161 of Figure 2b is an initial rubbing direction of the first substrate, see e.g. paragraph [0060]) and (ii) a long axis direction of a second liquid crystal molecule, of the plurality of liquid crystal molecules, on a side of the second substrate (i.e. direction 162 of Figure 2b is an initial rubbing direction of the second substrate, see e.g. paragraph [0060] and note that the direction of belt electrodes of 9 extend in a y-direction which falls between 161 and 162 in a counter clockwise direction), and
in the voltage applied state, at third liquid crystal molecule, of the plurality of liquid crystal molecules, positioned in center between the first and second liquid crystal molecules, is rotated, in a direction identical to a twist direction (see e.g. Figure 2b and paragraph [0060] and note that the liquid crystals will to rotate to a direction 157).
Matsushima et al. fails to disclose
the liquid crystal layer takes a twist alignment in both of the reflective display region and the transmissive display region in the voltage non-applied state, and a twist angle in the twist alignment is equal to or more than 78 or is equal to or less than 90 in the voltage non-applied state.
However, Matsushima et al. discloses a twist angle is equal to or more than 0° and equal to or less than 80° when no voltage is applied (see e.g. paragraph [0064]), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using and a twist angle in the twist alignment is equal to or more than 78 or is equal to or less than 90 in the voltage non-applied state, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsushima et al. with and a twist angle in the twist alignment is equal to or more than 78 or is equal to or less than 90 in the voltage non-applied state.
Doing so would provide an improved reflective display characteristic (see e.g. paragraph [0064] of Matsushima et al.). Further, optimizing the twist angle of the liquid crystal material would have predictable results.
Matsushima et al. fails to disclose
the liquid crystal layer takes a twist alignment in both of the reflective display region and the transmissive display region in the voltage non-applied state.
However, Choo et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0077]):
the liquid crystal layer 200 takes a twist alignment in both of the reflective display region RA and the transmissive display region TA in the voltage non-applied state.
Given the teachings of Choo et al. , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsushima et al. with the liquid crystal layer takes a twist alignment in both of the reflective display region and the transmissive display region in the voltage non-applied state.
Doing so would provide art recognized equivalent modes of operation for the liquid crystal device applied to both regions which would allow easier processing of alignment films.
In regard to claim 14, Matsushima et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
a light source 90 (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0035]).
In regard to claim 17, Matsushima et al., in view of Choo et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the liquid crystal material has a ratio of a birefringence index Δn60 at 60° C to a birefringence index Δn20 at 20° C (Δn60/Δn20) being equal to or more than 0.84.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the liquid crystal material has a ratio of a birefringence index Δn60 at 60° C to a birefringence index Δn20 at 20° C (Δn60/Δn20) being equal to or more than 0.84, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsushima et al., in view of Choo et al., with wherein the liquid crystal material has a ratio of a birefringence index Δn60 at 60° C to a birefringence index Δn20 at 20° C (Δn60/Δn20) being equal to or more than 0.84.
Doing so would provide a liquid crystal material that is optimized for the operating temperatures of the device where the response of liquid crystal to external factors such as temperature is well known to result in changes in material properties such as birefringence in a predictable manner.
In regard to claim 18, Matsushima et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
wherein the liquid crystal layer has a single domain alignment (see e.g. Figures 1-3 and note that the display has at least one single domain alignment feature in the reflective region).
In regard to claim 19, Matsushima et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
wherein the liquid crystal display operates in a normally black mode (see e.g. paragraphs [0013]-[0014]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima et al. (US 2007/0013835 A1) in view of Choo et al. (US 2006/0125986 A1) and further in view of Fukunaga et al. (US 2015/0002796 A1).
In regard to claim 13, Matsushima et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
a first polarizer 14 disposed outside the first substrate 10a (see e.g. paragraph [0056]);
a second polarizer 24 disposed outside the second substrate 20a (see e.g. paragraph [0056]).
Matsushima et al., in view of Choo et al., fails to disclose
a first phase difference layer disposed between the first substrate and the first polarizer; and
a second phase difference layer disposed between the second substrate and the second polarizer,
wherein each of the first and second phase difference layers includes a λ/4 plate and a λ /2 plate.
However, Fukunaga et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 11a):
a first phase difference layer 12, 13 disposed between the first substrate 14 and the first polarizer 11 (see e.g. paragraph [0097]); and
a second phase difference layer 24, 25 disposed between the second substrate 23 and the second polarizer 26 (see e.g. paragraph [0101]),
wherein each of the first and second phase difference layers 12, 13, 24, 25 includes a λ/4 plate and a λ /2 plate (see e.g. paragraphs [0097] and [0101]).
Given the teachings of Fukunaga et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsushima et al., in view of Choo et al., with a first phase difference layer disposed between the first substrate and the first polarizer; and a second phase difference layer disposed between the second substrate and the second polarizer, wherein each of the first and second phase difference layers includes a λ/4 plate and a λ /2 plate.
Doing so provide a means for compensating for the birefringent nature of the liquid crystal, allowing for an improved display quality.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima et al. (US 2007/0013835 A1) in view of Choo et al. (US 2006/0125986 A1) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2013/0257794 A1).
In regard to claim 20, Matsushima et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 12 above, and
wherein one of the first electrode 9 and the second electrode is a pixel electrode 9 provided in each of the plurality of pixels (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0060]).
Matsushima et al., in view of Choo et al., fails to disclose
the other one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a common electrode including a plurality of segments, each of which is configured to function as a touch sensor electrode, and the first substrate includes a plurality of touch wiring lines, each of which is connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of touch sensor electrodes.
However, Lee et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 2-5):
the other of the first electrode and the second electrode is a common electrode 180 including a plurality of segments, each of which is configured to function as a touch sensor electrode (see e.g. Figures 2-5 and paragraph [0072]), and the first substrate 100 includes a plurality of touch wiring lines 160, each of which is connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of touch sensor electrodes (see e.g. Figures 2-5 and paragraphs [0053]).
Given the teachings of Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Matsushima et al., in view of Choo et al., with the other one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a common electrode including a plurality of segments, each of which is configured to function as a touch sensor electrode, and the first substrate includes a plurality of touch wiring lines, each of which is connected to a corresponding one of the plurality of touch sensor electrodes.
Doing so would allow the display panel to have an integrated touch panel function that advantageously uses one component to have multiple functions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights