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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the first direction" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination on the merits, “the first direction” is interpreted as “a first direction”. Claims 7-9 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 6.
Claim 10 recites “and a quantity of a portion in the first edge spacers overlapped with the second pixel structure is greater than a quantity of another portion in the first edge spacers overlapped with the first pixel structure.” The limitation “a quantity of a portion in the first edge spacers” is awkwardly presented and indecipherable as to the meaning. Specifically, it is not apparent what the quantity and portion reference. The above quoted portion of claim 10 is not given further patentable weight since the meaning is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN110515243A (hereinafter “Huawei”).
Regarding claim 1, Huawei discloses:
A display panel (fig.1 [100]), comprising: a first substrate (fig.1 [102]) having a substrate edge (fig.9, see annotations below) and provided with a central display area and an edge display area, wherein the edge display area is located between the central display area and the substrate edge (fig.9, see annotations below); a second substrate (fig.1 [101]) overlapped with the first substrate; a liquid-crystal layer (fig.1 [LC]) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate; a plurality of central display units (see square units in central display area of annotated figure below) disposed in the central display area; a plurality of first edge display units (see square units in edge display area of annotated figure below) disposed in the edge display area; and a plurality of spacers (fig.1 [PS], fig.9 [30]) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate and dispersed among the central display units and the first edge display units, wherein the spacers comprise: a plurality of central spacers (elements 30 within annotated “central display area”) overlapped with each of the central display units; and a plurality of first edge spacers (elements 30 within annotated “edge display area”) overlapped with each of the first edge display units, wherein a quantity of the first edge spacers in each of the first edge display units is greater than a quantity of the central spacers in each of the central display units (see annotated figure below; 0.01% per display unit in the central area vs. 0.04% or more per display unit in the edge area).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
783
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Huawei discloses each of the first edge display units (see annotated figure below “alternative edge display area) comprises a first pixel structure (lower square of edge display area) and a second pixel structure (upper square of edge display area) arranged along a first direction (vertical direction), the substrate edge comprises a first edge extended in a second direction (horizontal direction), the second direction is intersected with the first direction, the second pixel structure is located between the first pixel structure and the first edge.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei in view of Uchida et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0103311, hereinafter “Uchida”).
Regarding claim 2, Huawei discloses a plurality of second edge display units disposed in the edge display area (Figure 9B), wherein the first edge display units and the second edge display units are alternately arranged along at least one direction (alternate display units are designated as first and second, respectively), the spacers also comprise a plurality of second edge spacers overlapped with each of the second edge display units.
Huawei fails to disclose a quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is different from the quantity of the first edge spacers in each of the first edge display units.
Uchida, however, teaches first and second display units having alternating quantities of spacers within the respective units (Figure 3, rows with 2 spacers alternate with rows having 3 spacers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is different from the quantity of the first edge spacers in each of the first edge display units in the display device of Huawei. One would have been motivated to alternate quantities of spacers in the edge display units as a means of improving aperture ratio due to the particular arrangement of the spacers (Paragraph [0050], last sentences).
Regarding claim 3, Huawei fails to disclose wherein the quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is equal to the quantity of the central spacers in each of the central display units. Uchida, however, teaches first and second display units having alternating quantities of spacers within the respective units (Figure 3, rows with 2 spacers alternate with rows having 3 spacers). When alternating quantities of edge spacers in the first and second edge display units, it would have been obvious to arrive at an arrangement where the second edge display units having fewer spacers than the first edge display units correspond in number to the number of spacers in the central display units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units to be equal to the quantity of the central spacers in each of the central display units. One would have been motivated to arrange the spacers as proposed as a means of improving aperture ratio due to the particular arrangement of the spacers (Paragraph [0050], last sentences).
Regarding claim 4, Huawei discloses the quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is greater than the quantity of the central spacers in each of the central display units (See Figure 9B).
Regarding claim 5, Huawei as modified by Uchida discloses the quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is less than the quantity of the first edge spacers in each of the first edge display units (due to the modification of alternative quantities of spacers, the second edge display units will have less spacers than the first edge display units).
Regarding claim 6, Huawei discloses each of the central units comprising a first pixel structure and a second pixel structure arranged along a first direction (see annotated Figure 9b, horizontal direction).
Huawei fails to disclose each of the central spacers overlapped with the first pixel structure as offset along the first direction from each of the central spacers overlapped with the second pixel structure.
Uchida, however, teaches adjacent spacer structures arranged such that each of the central spacers overlapped with a first pixel structure is offset along the first direction from each of the central spacers overlapped with the second pixel structure (see Figure 3 elements 40 offset between first and second pixel structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the spacer overlapped with the first pixel structure to be offset from each of the spacers of the second pixel structure as proposed. One would have been motivated to offset the spacers to allow for improvements in aperture ratio according to conventional means (Uchida: Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Huawei as modified by Uchida above discloses each of the first edge display units comprises another first pixel structure and another second pixel structure arranged along the first direction, and each of the first edge spacers overlapped with the another first pixel structure is offset along the first direction from each of the first edge spacers overlapped with the another second pixel structure (see spacer arrangement of Uchida Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Huawei discloses a plurality of second edge display units disposed in the edge display area (Figure 9B), wherein the first edge display units and the second edge display units are alternately arranged along at least one direction (alternate display units are designated as first and second, respectively), the spacers also comprise a plurality of second edge spacers overlapped with each of the second edge display units.
Huawei fails to disclose a quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is different from the quantity of the first edge spacers in each of the first edge display units.
Uchida, however, teaches first and second display units having alternating quantities of spacers within the respective units (Figure 3, rows with 2 spacers alternate with rows having 3 spacers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the quantity of the second edge spacers in each of the second edge display units is different from the quantity of the first edge spacers in each of the first edge display units in the display device of Huawei. One would have been motivated to alternate quantities of spacers in the edge display units as a means of improving aperture ratio due to the particular arrangement of the spacers (Paragraph [0050], last sentences).
Regarding claim 9, Huawei as modified by Uchida above discloses each of the second edge display units comprises yet another first pixel structure and yet another second pixel structure arranged along the first direction, and each of the second edge spacers overlapped with the yet another first pixel structure is offset along the first direction from each of the second edge spacers overlapped with the yet another second pixel structure (see Uchida wherein the alternating arrangement with offset spacers is continuous among the pixels).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCK ASSOGBA ONANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-5325. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/F.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights