DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Nagayama et al. (US 6,384,882 B1).
In regard to claim 11, Nagayama et al. discloses a display device 10 (denoted “liquid crystal display device”, see e.g. Figures 1-2 and Column 3, lines 13-18) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a first substrate 5 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, lines 26-28);
a display region 40 on the first substrate 5, the display region 40 including a plurality of pixels (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and note that the pixels on the first substrate 5 correspond to the color filters 25R, 25G, 25B on the second substrate 11);
a peripheral region 16 (“denoted rectangular frame pattern, see e.g. Figure 1 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4) surrounding the display region on the first substrate 5 (see e.g. Figures 1-2);
a second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, lines 29-27) opposing the first substrate 5 and including a plurality of color filters 25R, 25G, 25B (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, lines 50-60);
a sealing material 4 bonding the first substrate 5 and the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4); and
a plurality of spacers 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4) between the first substrate 5 and the second substrate 11, wherein the plurality of spacers 3 includes a first spacer in the peripheral region 16 (see e.g. Figure 1-2 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4), the plurality of color filters 25R, 25G, 25B includes a first color filter 25R in the peripheral region 16 (see e.g. Figures 1-2),
the first spacer 3 and the first color filter 25R overlap each other in a plan view (see e.g. Figures 1-2), and
the sealing material 4 covers an edge of the first color filter 25R (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 12, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the first color filter 25R overlaps the first spacer 3 in a sectional view (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 13, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the plurality of spacers 3 is provided on the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 14, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the plurality of color filters 25R, 25G, 25B further includes a second color filter (one of 25R, 25G, 25B ) in the display region 40, and the first color filter 25R is separated from the second color filter (one of 25R, 25G, 25B ) (see e.g. Figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 15, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
the first spacer 3 is provided on the first color filter 25R (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 16, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
wherein the sealing material 4 is not provided between the first spacer 3 and the first substrate 5 (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 17, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
a protrusion 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that one of the display area spacers may be considered to be a protrusion) between the first substrate 5 and the second substrate 11, wherein the first color filter 25R is not provided between the protrusion 3 and the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that the spacer of display area 3 is not overlapping with the first color filter in the periphery).
In regard to claim 18, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, and
wherein the protrusion 3 is provided on the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 6,384,882 B1) in view of Kim (US 2003/0112404 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Nagayama et al. discloses a display device 10 (denoted “liquid crystal display device”, see e.g. Figures 1-2 and Column 3, lines 13-18) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a first substrate 5 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, lines 26-28);
a display region 40 on the first substrate 5, the display region 40 including a plurality of pixels (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and note that the pixels on the first substrate 5 correspond to the color filters 25R, 25G, 25B on the second substrate 11);
a peripheral region 16 (“denoted rectangular frame pattern, see e.g. Figure 1 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4) surrounding the display region on the first substrate 5 (see e.g. Figures 1-2);
a second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, lines 29-27) opposing the first substrate 5 and including a plurality of color filters 25R, 25G, 25B (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, lines 50-60);
a sealing material 4 bonding the first substrate 5 and the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4); and
a plurality of spacers 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4) between the first substrate 5 and the second substrate 11, wherein the plurality of spacers 3 includes a first spacer in the peripheral region 16 (see e.g. Figure 1-2 and Column 3, line 61-Column 4, line 4), the plurality of color filters 25R, 25G, 25B includes a first color filter 25R in the peripheral region 16 (see e.g. Figures 1-2), the first color filter 25R overlaps the sealing material 4 in a plan view (see e.g. Figures 1-2), and the first spacer 3 is surrounded by the sealing material 4 in the plan view (see e.g. Figures 1-2).
Nagayama et al. fails to disclose
the first spacer overlaps the sealing material in a plan view.
However, Kim discloses
the first spacer 305a overlaps the sealing material 410 in a plan view (see e.g. Figure 3b and paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Given the teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Nagayama et al. with the first spacer overlaps the sealing material in a plan view.
Selecting an angled spacer shape that overlaps with the sealant in plan view allows the spacer to maintain a cell gap when pressure is applied and distribute the stress due to the applied press throughout the spacer, allowing the display to be more resistant to mechanical stress.
In regard to claim 2, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first color filter 25R overlaps the first spacer 3 in a sectional view (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 3, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the plurality of spacers 3 is provided on the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 4, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the plurality of color filters 25R, 25G, 25B further includes a second color filter (one of 25R, 25G, 25B ) in the display region 40, and the first color filter 25R is separated from the second color filter (one of 25R, 25G, 25B ) (see e.g. Figures 1-2).
In regard to claim 5, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the first spacer 3 is provided on the first color filter 25R (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 6, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the sealing material 4 is not provided between the first spacer 3 and the first substrate 5 (see e.g. Figure 2).
In regard to claim 7, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
a protrusion 3 (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that one of the display area spacers may be considered to be a protrusion) between the first substrate 5 and the second substrate 11, wherein the first color filter 25R is not provided between the protrusion 3 and the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2 and note that the spacer of display area 3 is not overlapping with the first color filter in the periphery).
In regard to claim 8, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, and
wherein the protrusion 3 is provided on the second substrate 11 (see e.g. Figure 2).
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 6,384,882 B1) in view of Kim (US 2003/0112404 A1) and further in view of Weng et al. (US 2008/0116469 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Nagayama et al, in view of Kim, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the protrusion surrounds the display region in the plan view.
However, Weng et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
wherein the protrusion 260 (denoted “stop structure”, see e.g. paragraph [0033]) surrounds the display region in the plan view.
Given the teachings of Weng et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Nagayama et al., in view of Kim et al. with wherein the protrusion surrounds the display region in the plan view.
Providing the additional protrusion in the sealing area would provide a more rugged device.
In regard to claim 10, Nagayama et al, in view of Kim, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sealing material is between the protrusion and the first substrate.
However, Weng et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
wherein the sealing material 240 is between the protrusion 260 and the first substrate 220.
Given the teachings of Weng et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Nagayama et al., in view of Kim et al., with wherein the sealing material is between the protrusion and the first substrate.
Providing the additional protrusion in the sealing area would provide a more rugged device.
Claim 19 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nagayama et al. (US 6,384,882 B1) in view of Weng et al. (US 2008/0116469 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Nagayama et al discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the protrusion surrounds the display region in the plan view.
However, Weng et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
wherein the protrusion 260 (denoted “stop structure”, see e.g. paragraph [0033]) surrounds the display region in the plan view.
Given the teachings of Weng et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Nagayama et al. with wherein the protrusion surrounds the display region in the plan view.
Providing the additional protrusion in the sealing area would provide a more rugged device.
In regard to claim 10, Nagayama et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 7 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the sealing material is between the protrusion and the first substrate.
However, Weng et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 2-3):
wherein the sealing material 240 is between the protrusion 260 and the first substrate 220.
Given the teachings of Weng et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Nagayama et al. with wherein the sealing material is between the protrusion and the first substrate.
Providing the additional protrusion in the sealing area would provide a more rugged device.
Conclusion
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