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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (20170059915), Kobayashi hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a display substrate, having a light-transmissive region (AP, ¶ [33], fig. 3); and the display substrate comprising a substrate (10), an alignment layer (AL1, ¶ [31], fig. 10) on the substrate (10), and a convex structure (SP1, ¶[42], fig. 10) on the alignment layer (AL1); wherein the convex structure (SP1) is on a side of the alignment layer (AL1) distal to the substrate (10) (see fig. 10), and does not completely cover the alignment layer (AL1), and a distance from a surface (RE1a, ¶ [52]) of the convex structure (SP1) distal to the substrate (10) to the substrate (10) is greater than a distance from a surface of the alignment layer (AL1) distal to the substrate (10) to the substrate (10) (see fig. 10); and the display substrate further comprises a post spacer (SP2, ¶ [42], fig. 10) on a side of the convex structure (SP1) distal to the alignment layer (AL1), the post spacer (SP2) is located outside the light-transmissive region (AP), and an end surface of the post spacer (SP2) distal to the convex structure (SP1) is parallel to a plane where the substrate (10) is located (see fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi discloses that the end surface (PR2, ¶ [46], fig. 3) of the post spacer (SP2) distal to the convex structure (SP1) has a shape of a rectangle (see fig. 3), a rounded rectangle, or an octagon.
Regarding claim 6, Kobayashi discloses that the display substrate further has a light-shielding region (SH, ¶ [35], fig. 3), the light-shielding region (SH) comprises a main support region (SH1, ¶ [43], fig. 3) and a secondary support region (SH2, ¶ [43], fig. 3), and the convex structure (SP1) is at least in the main support region (SH1) (see fig. 3); and the main support region (SH1) and the secondary support region (SH2) are in two pixels (PX, ¶ [27], fig. 2) of the display substrate, respectively (see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kobayashi discloses that the two pixels (PX) are adjacent to each other (see figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 8, Kobayashi discloses that the two pixels are spaced apart from each other by at least one pixel (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Kobayashi discloses that the convex structure (SP1) is in both the main support region (SH1) and the secondary support region (SH2) (see fig. 3), and convex structures (SP1) in main support regions (SH1) and secondary support regions (SH2) in a same row of a pixel array of the display substrate have a one-piece structure (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi discloses a display panel (PNL, ¶ [23], figs. 1 & 2), comprising the display substrate according to claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (20170059915), Kobayashi hereinafter.
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1.
However, Kobayashi is silent about that the convex structure comprises a material of a resin.
Meanwhile, Kobayashi discloses on ¶ [84] that the convex structure (SP1) can be formed of the same material as that of the fourth insulating film (14), and ¶ [33] discloses that the fourth insulating film (14) is formed of, for example, an organic insulating material.
It is well known in the art that resin materials such as epoxy of acrylic are organic insulating material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to use resin as the material for the convex structure in the device of Kobayashi since a resin is a well-known organic insulating material.
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1.
However, Kobayashi is silent about that the convex structure comprises a material of a resin and wherein the resin is acrylic resin.
Meanwhile, Kobayashi discloses on ¶ [84] that the convex structure (SP1) can be formed of the same material as that of the fourth insulating film (14), and ¶ [33] discloses that the fourth insulating film (14) is formed of, for example, an organic insulating material.
It is well known in the art that resin materials such as epoxy of acrylic are organic insulating material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention to use an acrylic resin as the material for the convex structure in the device of Kobayashi since acrylic resin is a well-known organic insulating material.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi discloses the claimed invention according to claim 15.
However, Kobayashi is silent about that the display panel is an AR display panel, a VR display panel, or a vehicle mounted display panel.
It is considered within the capabilities of one skilled in the art to use Kobayashi’s display panel (PNL) in an AR, VR or a vehicle mounted display application as an obvious matter of design engineering since such display panel is capable to perform the intended use.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed invention for the display panel to be an AR display panel, a VR display panel, or a vehicle mounted display panel as an obvious matter of design engineering, in order to perform the intended use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5,10-12 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if at least one the limitations indicated below were included in the base claim.
Regarding claim 2, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 2, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the post spacer has a three-dimensional shape of a prism or a frustum of pyramid, and an area of the end surface of the post spacer distal to the convex structure is less than or equal to an area of an end surface of the post spacer proximal to the convex structure.
Regarding claim 4, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 4, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a length of each of two opposite parallel sides of the octagon is greater than a length of each of the remaining six sides of the octagon.
Regarding claim 5, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 5, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a length of a short side of each of the rectangle, the rounded rectangle, or the octagon is greater than or equal to 7.5 microns.
Regarding claim 10, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 10, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to the convex structure covers the through hole in the main support region, and has a filling part in the through hole.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is allowable for the reasons given in claim 10 because of their dependency status from claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 12, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to a difference between the distance from the surface of the convex structure distal to the substrate to the substrate and the distance from the surface of the alignment layer distal to the substrate to the substrate is between 0.3 μm and 1.3 μm.
Regarding claim 16, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 16, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to each post spacer of the array substrate is in contact with a corresponding post spacer of the color filter substrate; a lengthwise direction of an end surface of each post spacer of the array substrate proximal to the color film substrate is parallel to a first direction; and a lengthwise direction of an end surface of the corresponding post spacer of the color filter substrate proximal to the array substrate is parallel to a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claims 17-18, the claims are allowable for the reasons given in claim 16 because of their dependency status from claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the references of Prior Art of record fails to teach or suggest the combination of the limitations as set forth in claim 19, and specifically comprising the limitation directed to each post spacer of the array substrate is in contact with a corresponding post spacer of the color filter substrate; a lengthwise direction of an end surface of each post spacer of the array substrate proximal to the color film substrate is parallel to a first direction; and a lengthwise direction of an end surface of the corresponding post spacer of the color filter substrate proximal to the array substrate is parallel to a second direction, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M. DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 at (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.
/JOSE M DIAZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2875
/Mariceli Santiago/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights