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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 5-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,164,195. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims correlate as set forth below.
In regard to claim 1, US 12,164,195 claims a display panel, comprising (see e.g. claim 1 of US 12,164,195):
an array substrate comprising a light inlet side and a light outlet side oppositely arranged (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 14-20 where the light inlet side corresponds to the backlight side of array substrate and the light outlet side is the opposite of the light inlet side), comprising a plurality of opening regions for passing though light and a plurality of non-opening regions in addition to the plurality of opening regions (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 16-20), and comprising an insulation structure comprising a first groove located in the opening regions (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 21-24),
wherein the first groove is recessed in a direction from the light outlet side toward the light inlet side (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 23-25), and the first groove is filled with insulation materials (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 25-26); and
wherein the insulation materials comprise a first insulation layer and a second insulation layer (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 27-28),
the second insulation layer is disposed on one side of the first insulation layer close to the light inlet side (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 28-30), and
the second insulation layer has a refractive index of less than a refractive index of the first insulation layer (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, lines 30-32).
In regard to claim 2, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 1, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, 5):
wherein the first groove is a table-shaped structure (see e.g. claim 5, column 19, line 64).
In regard to claim 3, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 2, but fails to claim
wherein the table-shaped structure is a truncated cone or a quadrangular frusto-pyramidal.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a configuration in which wherein the table-shaped structure is a truncated cone or a quadrangular frusto-pyramidal, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 claimed invention of US 12,164,195 with wherein the table-shaped structure is a truncated cone or a quadrangular frusto-pyramidal.
Selecting the shape of the structure would result in a desired optical light path based as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 4, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 2, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, 5):
wherein a lateral wall of the first groove and a bottom surface of the first groove form a first included angle, and the first included angle ranges from 95° to 135° (see e.g. claim 5, column 19, lines 64-67).
In regard to claim 5, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 1, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, 8):
wherein a depth of the first groove ranges from 0.2 µm to 2 µm (see e.g. claim 8, column 20, line 15).
In regard to claim 6, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 5, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, 8)
wherein the insulation structure comprises a base layer configured for defining the first groove (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 36-37 and note the base layer corresponds to the third insulation layer), the first groove is recessed inward from a side surface of the base layer (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 38-40), and the base layer has a refractive index less than the refractive index of the second insulation layer (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 41-44).
In regard to claim 7, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 1, and (see e.g. claims 1 and 2)
wherein the insulation structure comprises a base layer configured for defining the first groove (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 36-37 and note the base layer corresponds to the third insulation layer), the first groove is recessed inward from a side surface of the base layer (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 38-40), and the base layer has a refractive index less than the refractive index of the second insulation layer (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 41-44).
In regard to claim 8, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 1 above, and (see e.g. claims 1 and 2):
wherein the second insulation layer comprises a second groove, the second groove is recessed inward from a side surface of the second insulation layer in the direction from the light outlet side toward the light inlet side, and the first insulation layer is filled in the second groove (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 45-47).
In regard to claim 9, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 8 above, but fails to claim
wherein the second insulation layer has a thickness equal to a depth of the first groove.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the second insulation layer has a thickness equal to a depth of the first groove, 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 (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 invention of US 12,164,195 with wherein the second insulation layer has a thickness equal to a depth of the first groove.
Selecting the shape and contents of the structure would result in a desired optical light path based as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 10, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 9 above, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, and 8):
wherein a depth of the second groove is less than or equal to the depth of the first groove, and a depth difference between the first groove and the second groove is less than or equal to 0.5 µm (see e.g. claim 8, column 20, lines 16-19).
In regard to claim 11, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a groove opening of the second groove has a width less than or equal to a width of a groove opening of the first groove.
In regard to claim 12, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 8 above, and
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a groove opening of the second groove has a width less than or equal to a width of a groove opening of the first groove, 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 (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 invention of US 12,164,195 with wherein a groove opening of the second groove has a width less than or equal to a width of a groove opening of the first groove.
Selecting the shape and contents of the structure would result in a desired optical light path based as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 13, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 12 above, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, and 7):
wherein a central axis of the second groove overlaps with a central axis of the first groove (see e.g. claim 7, column 20, lines 12-13).
In regard to claim 14, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 8 above, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, and 7):
wherein the second groove is a spherical-cap structure (see e.g. claim 7, column 20, lines 9-11).
In regard to claim 15, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 8 above, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, 5, and 6):
wherein the second groove is a table-shaped structure or a cone-shaped structure (see e.g. claim 6, column 20, lines 2-3).
In regard to claim 16, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 15 above, and (see e.g. claims 1, 2, 5, and 6):
wherein a lateral wall of the second groove and a bottom surface of the second groove form a second included angle, and the second included angle is greater than the first included angle and is less than 180° (see e.g. claim 6, column 20, lines 3-7).
In regard to claim 20, US 12,164,195 claims a display device, comprising: the display panel according to claim 1 (see e.g. double patenting rejection of claim 1 above); and a backlight module comprising a light-exiting surface (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, line 14), wherein the display panel is disposed on the light-exiting surface of the backlight module (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, line 15-16), and the light inlet side of the array substrate faces the light-exiting surface of the backlight module (see e.g. claim 1, column 19, line 15-16).
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,165,195 in view of Izawa (US 2014/0118674 A1).
In regard to claim 17, US 12,164,195 claims the limitations of claim 1, and
wherein the array substrate further comprises a thin film transistor located in the non-opening regions (see e.g. claim 10, column 20, lines 31-32), and
the insulation structure further comprises: a substrate layer (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 33-35);
a buffer layer (corresponding to third insulation layer) disposed on one side of the substrate layer close to the light outlet side (see e.g. claim 2, column 19, lines 36-37).
US 12,164,195 fails to claim
a light-shielding layer located in the non-opening regions and disposed between the substrate layer and the buffer layer; and
wherein the thin film transistor is located on one side of the buffer layer facing away from the substrate layer.
However, Izawa discloses (see e.g. Figure 4):
a light-shielding layer 11a (see e.g. paragraph [0060] for first scanning line 11a operating as lower light shielding film) located in the non-opening regions and disposed between the substrate layer 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0060]) and the buffer layer 12 (see e.g. paragraph [0064]); and
wherein the thin film transistor 30 (see e.g. paragraph [0031]) is located on one side of the buffer layer 12 facing away from the substrate layer 10.
Given the teachings of Izawa, 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 invention of US 12,164,195 with a light-shielding layer located in the non-opening regions and disposed between the substrate layer and the buffer layer; and wherein the thin film transistor is located on one side of the buffer layer facing away from the substrate layer.
Doing so would provide a means for preventing unwanted light leakage in the display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 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.
In regard to dependent claim 18, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the first groove is located between the substrate layer and the buffer layer, the insulation structure comprises a base layer configured for defining the first groove, and the base layer is the substrate layer or a third insulation layer disposed between the base layer and the buffer layer.”
In regard to dependent claim 19, the closest prior art references fail to disclose “wherein the insulation structure further comprises a third insulation layer disposed one side of the buffer layer facing away from the substrate layer and covering the thin film transistor, and the first groove is defined on the third insulation layer.”
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