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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2020/0150499 A1) in view of Morita (US 2017/0219893 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a display device, comprising: a first panel configured for regionalizing brightness adjustment (LCP2) and comprising: a first pixel unit (PIX2) comprising a sub-pixel electrode (PIT2) and a common electrode (CIT2) overlapped with the sub-pixel electrode (PIT2); and a common line (CMT2); and a second panel (LCP1) disposed corresponding to the first panel and configured for displaying color information of a screen, wherein the second panel comprises: a second pixel unit (PIX1), wherein the first pixel unit (PIX1) and the second pixel unit (PIX2) are at least partially overlapped (Fig. 11). Nakagawa fails to exemplify wherein the common electrode and the common line are electrically connected to each other through a contact hole.
Morita discloses a display panel comprising a first pixel unit (Fig. 2) comprising a sub-pixel electrode (7) and a common electrode (9) overlapped with the sub-pixel electrode (7); and a common line (21), wherein the common electrode (9) and the common line (21) are electrically connected to each other through a contact hole (CH1). One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate to electrically connect the common electrode and the common line through a contact hole, as an obvious matter of design engineering, since the connection is a conventionally known configuration in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate the common electrode and the common line through a contact hole electrical connection through a contact hole as disclosed by Morita in the display of Nakagawa since the connection is a conventionally known configuration in the art.
In regards to the recitations “configured for regionalizing brightness adjustment” and “configured for displaying color information of a screen”, it has been held that the recitation of an element being capable of performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa discloses a display device wherein a quantity of the first pixel unit is a plural, a quantity of the second pixel unit is a plural, and each first pixel unit is disposed corresponding to N second pixel units, wherein N is an integer satisfying 0<N≦20 (Figs. 11-12, i.e., one to one correspondence).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa discloses a display device wherein the first pixel unit has a first pixel electrode (PT2) area, the second pixel unit has a second pixel electrode area (PT1) and the first pixel electrode area is overlapped with at least 50% of the second pixel electrode area (Figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa discloses a display device wherein the first panel further comprises a data line (SL2), and an active component (SI2) is electrically connected to the data line.
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa discloses a display device wherein the first panel further comprises a scan line (GL2), the active component (SI2) is electrically connected to the scan line (GL2) and the data line (SL2), and the active component (SI2) is disposed at an intersection of the scan line and the data line (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Nakagawa discloses a display device further comprising a polarizing film (POL3) disposed between the first panel (LCP2) and the second panel (LCP1).
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa discloses a display device further comprising a backlight module (BL), wherein the first panel (LCP2) is disposed between the second panel (LCP1) and the backlight module (BL).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2020/0150499 A1) in view of Morita (US 2017/0219893 A1), and further in view of Hung et al. (US 2016/0260738 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa discloses a display device wherein the second panel further comprises: a data line (SL2), electrically connected to the second pixel unit; a source electrode (SE2), electrically connected to the data line (SL2); and a drain electrode (DE2), wherein the drain electrode (DE2) comprises a notch and the source (SE2) is disposed corresponding to the notch (Fig. 17). Nakagawa fails to exemplify the source electrode comprises a notch and the drain is disposed corresponding to the notch.
Hung discloses a display device comprising: a data line (DL1), electrically connected to a pixel unit; a source electrode (S1), electrically connected to the data line (DL1); and a drain electrode (D1), wherein the source electrode (S1) comprises a notch and the drain (D1) is disposed corresponding to the notch (Fig. 2A). One skilled in the art would have reasonably contemplate providing the source electrode with a notch and disposing the drain electrode corresponding to the notch, as an obvious matter of design engineering, since the arrangement is a conventionally known configuration in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to incorporate the source electrode comprising a notch and the drain electrode disposed corresponding to the notch as disclosed by Hung in the display of Nakagawa in view of Morita since the arrangement is a conventionally known configuration in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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:
Regarding claim(s) 4, the references of the Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim(s) 4, and specifically comprising the limitation of wherein the second panel further comprises: another sub-pixel electrode electrically connected to the data line, and the another sub-pixel electrode comprises an edge adjacent to the data line, wherein the edge has a sharp corner.
Regarding claim(s) 5, claims(s) 5 is/are allowable for the reasons given in claim(s) 4 because of its/their dependency status from claim(s) 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 2019/0302516 A1) discloses a display device including a color display panel and a switching panel which overlaps the color display panel in a first direction.
Cho et al. (US 2019/0129213 A1) discloses a display apparatus including a liquid crystal panel and a shutter panel, wherein the shutter panel includes a shutter layer configured to change a polarizing axis of light transmitted through a selected area.
Nakamoto (US 2010/0033655 A1) discloses a liquid crystal apparatus includes first and second transmissive liquid crystal panels which are combined with each other.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mariceli Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-2464. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
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, James R. Greece, can be reached on (571) 272-3711. 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.
/Mariceli Santiago/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2879
Prosecution Insights