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 .
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) 1 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106200095 A (CHEN, GUI et al.) in view of US 20070121051 A1 (Yokoyama; Naoto et al.), US 20050117092 A1 (Park, Jong Jin et al.), US 20090225103 A1 (Shiomi; Makoto), and US 20170168340 A1 (Dong; Anxin et al.)
PNG
media_image1.png
461
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
436
461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Per claims 1, 7, 17, and 20, Chen teaches a display substrate [30], comprising: a color filter layer [32-34], comprising a display sub-pixel [pixel located in display region 38] and a dummy sub-pixel [pixels located in the non-display region 39], the display sub-pixel being located in a display region [38] of a first base substrate [30], the display sub-pixel comprising a first display sub-pixel, a second display sub-pixel, and a third display sub-pixel, [32-34], colors of emitted light of the first display sub-pixel, the second display sub-pixel, and the third display sub-pixel being different from each other [shown at non-display region 39, but not labeled]; the dummy sub-pixel being located in a periphery region of the first base substrate [see background of the invention: Liquid crystal display panel in the normal display, the panel gap between the two layers of glass substrates on a certain degree, mainly depends on the pad of the middle (PS). are located on the black matrix and RGB (red green blue) color-display area pad, the non-display region at the periphery of the display area], the periphery region being at least located at one side of the display region [inherent, see figure 3], the periphery region comprising a dummy region close to the display region and an edge region away from the display region, the dummy sub-pixel being located in the dummy region, the dummy sub-pixel comprising a first dummy sub-pixel, a second dummy sub-pixel, and a third dummy sub-pixel [see figure 3, the dummy pixels are defined by the color filter layers], materials of the first dummy sub-pixel, the second dummy sub-pixel, and the third dummy sub-pixel, being the same as materials of the first display sub-pixel, the second display sub-pixel, the third display sub-pixel and the fourth display sub-pixel, respectively [see figure 3]; and a spacer [36], comprising a plurality of first spacers and a plurality of second spacers, the plurality of first spacers being located in the periphery region, the plurality of second spacers being located in the display region [see figure 3], wherein the first display sub-pixel comprises a red sub-pixel, the second display sub-pixel comprises a green sub-pixel, and the third display sub-pixel comprises a blue sub-pixel [32-34].
Chen lacks wherein the plurality of first spacers comprise first spacers located in the dummy region, a density of the first spacers located in the dummy region is less than that of the plurality of second spacers located in the display region. However, Yokoyama teaches at the paragraph 0027 that “The column spacers are arranged such that a number density of the columnar spacers gradually decreases as the position moves from a center of a display region toward an outer periphery. Employment of this structure can provide the liquid crystal display panel that does not complicate the adhering operations, and prevents lowering of the display quality.” Hence, it would have been obvious increase the spacer density at the display region to reduce optical noise due to compression. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yokoyama with Chen.
Chen et al. lack the fourth white subpixel and dummy subpixel. However, Park, Shiomi and Dong teach four pixels including a white pixel for improved display brightness. Hence it would have been obvious to include a white pixel in the display region and for simplified manufacturing in the periphery region. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Park, Shiomi, and Dong with Chen.
Per claim 8, Chen et al. teach the display substrate according to claim 7, but lack the first display sub-pixel, the second display sub-pixel, the third display sub-pixel, and the fourth display sub-pixel are arranged sequentially in a first direction and constitute one pixel, two pixels adjacent in a second direction are staggered in the first direction by a distance of two display sub-pixels, the first direction is intersected with the second direction. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the first display sub-pixel, the second display sub-pixel, the third display sub-pixel, and the fourth display sub-pixel are arranged sequentially in a first direction and constitute one pixel, two pixels adjacent in a second direction are staggered in the first direction by a distance of two display sub-pixels, the first direction is intersected with the second direction to improve display color fidelity. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 13, Chen et al. teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, wherein the first spacer and each of the plurality of second spacers have a same size in a direction perpendicular to the first base substrate, and a distance from a surface of the first spacer away from the first base substrate to the first base substrate is smaller than a distance from a surface of the second spacer away from the first base substrate to the first base substrate [see figure 5].
Per claim 14, Chen et al. teaches the display substrate according to claim 1, further comprising an optical clear adhesive layer located on the first base substrate, wherein the optical clear adhesive layer covers the display sub-pixel and the dummy sub-pixel [35].
Per claim 15, Chen et al. teach the display substrate according to claim 1. Chen lacks a first alignment layer located on the first base substrate, wherein the first alignment layer covers the display sub-pixel and the dummy sub-pixel. However, it was common knowledge to incorporate a first alignment layer located on the first base substrate, wherein the first alignment layer covers the display sub-pixel and the dummy sub-pixel. Reduced optical noise would have been an expected benefit. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 16, Chen et al. teach the display substrate according to claim 1, but lack the plurality of first spacers comprise first spacers located in the edge region, a density of the first spacers located in the dummy region is less than that of the first spacers located in the edge region. However, official notice is taken that it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to form the plurality of first spacers comprise first spacers located in the edge region, a density of the first spacers located in the dummy region is less than that of the first spacers located in the edge region to reduce display weight. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 18, Chen et al. teaches the display panel according to claim 15, further comprising an array substrate, wherein the array substrate comprises a plurality of pixel electrodes, and the orthographic projection of the dummy sub-pixel on the first base substrate has no overlap with orthographic projections of the plurality of pixel electrodes on the first base substrate [37]. Chen et al. does not explicitly teach the plurality of second spacers are in contact with the array substrate. However, it would have been a matter of routine skill in the art to use pads 36 to maintain cell gap thickness as it common in the art. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per claim 19, Chen et al teaches the display panel according to claim 16, further comprising an array substrate, wherein the array substrate comprises a plurality of pixel electrodes, and the orthographic projection of the dummy sub-pixel on the first base substrate has no overlap with orthographic projections of the plurality of pixel electrodes on the first base substrate [see the above figures], wherein a gap is provided between the first spacer and the array substrate [see figure 3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 9-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per claim 2, the prior art teaches the display substrate according to claim 1. In combination with the limitations supra, the prior does not teach the dummy region comprises a plurality of blank sub-pixels, the color filter layer is hollowed-out at a position of each of the plurality of blank sub-pixels, a plurality of dummy sub-pixels are provided, wherein at least part of the plurality of blank sub-pixels and at least part of the plurality of dummy sub-pixels are alternatively arranged in a column direction.
Per claim 9, the prior art teaches the display substrate according to claim 7. In combination with the limitations above, the prior art does not teach the edge region comprises a blank region sub-pixel, the color filter layer is hollowed-out at a position of the blank region sub-pixel; the second spacer located in the display region and the first spacer located in the edge region at one side of the display region are spaced apart by three display sub-pixels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES A DUDEK whose telephone number is (571)272-2290. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30 MT.
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 on 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.
/JAMES A DUDEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights