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 1-15 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.
The term “quadrilaterial-like” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quadrilaterial-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, it is not determinable which parts of a definition of the term quadrilateral are optional for the term “quadrilateral-like”. A standard definition of quadrilateral may be a four-sided polygon. It is unclear whether a 3 or 5-sided figure having one or more curved sides, for example, would meet the limitation of “quadrilateral-like”.
Further within claim 1, line 4, the phrase “wherein at least of the electrode is disposed” is awkward and unclear what “at least” refers to.
Further within claim 1, line 6, the phrase “defined an opening” is awkward and unclear as to the exact meaning.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108398826 A (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a substrate (Figure 3 element 100);
two adjacent first lines (GL2, GL1) disposed on the substrate and extending along a first direction;
an electrode (e.g. any of 101, 102, 103, etc.) disposed on the substrate, wherein at least of the electrode is disposed between the two adjacent first lines in a top view of the electronic device; and
a light shielding structure (210) disposed on the substrate and defined an opening (111), wherein in the top view of the electronic device, at least a portion of the electrode is overlapped with the opening (contour of 101-103 overlaps with 111), wherein the opening comprises a first protrusion, and the first protrusion has a quadrilateral-like contour (see annotated Figure 6 below with sample protrusions with annotated box).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the light shielding structure as overlapped with the two adjacent first lines (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the light shielding structure as comprising a second protrusion, and the first protrusion and the second protrusion as disposed at diaonal corners of the opening (see Figure 6 annotated below with diagonal line).
PNG
media_image2.png
417
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the first protrusion and the second protrusion as different in contour (Figure 6).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses a switch component (Figure 4 element T) disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the electrode, wherein the light shielding structure is overlapped with at least a portion of the switch component (Paragraph [0039], wherein part of the switch component is integrated with lines GL/DL).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses two adjacent second lines (DL) disposed on the substrate and extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses a pixel is defined by the two adjacent first lines and the two adjacent second lines, and the pixel is overlapped with the opening (Figures 4, 6).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the light shielding structure is overlapped with the two adjacent second lines (Paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses another substrate (200), wherein the pixel is disposed between the substrate and the another substrate (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the light shielding structure comprises an arc edge (Figure 6, the light shielding structure 112 has various arc edges).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Um et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0079695 “Um”).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang fails to disclose the distance between the edge of the opening and an edge of one of the first lines. Um, however, teaches determining the distance between the edge of the opening (corresponding to W3) and an edge of the first line (corresponding to W1 or W2) according to a result effective variable to maximize the size of the opening to increase aperture ratio while preventing color mixing between pixels (Paragraph [0066]).
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 distance of the edge of the opening to the edge of one of the two adjacent lines to be 1-2 micrometers as proposed. One would have been motivated to form the size of the opening according to a result effective variable to balance color mixing and maximal aperture ratio (Paragraphs [0008], [0066]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0307191 “Park”).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang fails to disclose the ratio of an area of the opening to an area of the pixel as proposed. Park, however, teaches such a ratio as within the specified range (Paragraph [0111]: aperture ratio = 0.82 such that 1 – 0.82 = 0.18).
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 ratio as proposed to balance the need for high efficiency and transmittivity of the display while preventing color mixing between pixels according to conventional means.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kubota et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0180960 “Kubota”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang fails to disclose the resolution as proposed. Kubota teaches a resolution higher than 1000 ppi for an increase in realistic viewing sensation (Kubota: Paragraph [0246]).
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 display to have a resolution as proposed to improve the realism of the display according to the teachings of Kubota.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Woodgate et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0278135 “Woodgate”).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang fails to disclose the light emitting module. Woodgate, however, teaches a light emitting module (Figure 14B element 60), wherein the substrate (corresponding to bottom portion of 200) is disposed between the another substrate (top portion of 200) and the light emitting module (60).
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 light emitting module positioned as proposed to provide illumination light to the display to enable display according to conventional means (Woodgate: Paragraph [0005]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kubota and in further view of Woodgate.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang fails to disclose the substrate and the another substrate as both flexible substrates.
Woodgate, however, teaches the display panel as having flexible substrates to enable curved display (Figure 14B; Paragraph [0293]).
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 substrates to be flexible to enable curved display to suit a preferred panel shape and viewing configuration according to conventional means.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Um further discloses a light shielding structure opening structure having diagonally opposite quadrilateral protrusions.
PNG
media_image3.png
800
638
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H CALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Allana Bidder can be reached at 571-272-5560. 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.
/MICHAEL H CALEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights