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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 recite the common electrode covering the orthographic projection of the gate line and/or the orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate. The specification and drawings only show the common electrode cover either the gate line or the data line. For example, fig. 3A shows the region A-A’. Fig. 3A shows the common electrode covering the gate line. Fig. 4A, a different example, also show the region A-A’ where the common electrode is not covering the gate line. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." (See MPEP 2163.03 section V). In this application, even though the claim language “and/or” is recited in the specification, the corresponding description and drawings make it clear the common electrode does not cover both the gate line and data line at the same time.
Claims 2 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2 and 8 claim a display that has both a positive liquid crystal and negative liquid crystal with the corresponding structures. The specification and drawings do not show, concurrently, the structure of a positive liquid crystal and negative liquid crystal.
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 3, 4, 9, 10-13 and 17-20 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 3 recites the limitations “plurality of parallel slits” and “a slit”. Claim 9 recites the limitation “the slit”. Claim 10 recites the limitation “directions of slits”. It is unclear if “a slit”, “the slit” and “directions of slits” all refer to the same object or different objects.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao (US 2017/0242305).
In regard to claim 1, Liao teaches a display panel, comprising a base substrate (element 100) on which at least two gate lines and at least two data lines are disposed (figs. 11, 12 and paragraph 25. Liao shows a pixel unit wherein the display comprises a plurality of units each with scan and data lines), wherein the gate lines and the data lines are insulated and crossed on the base substrate to form pixel regions (figs. 11 and 12. The gate insulation layer is between the gate and the data line. As shown in fig. 11, the gate and the scan line are the same layer); a pixel electrode disposed at a side of the base substrate close to the pixel regions (4PE1 and 4PE2), wherein the pixel electrode is connected to a data line (paragraph 35); and a common electrode disposed at a side of the gate line and the data line away from the base substrate (fig. 11 4CM2), wherein an orthographic projection of the common electrode on the base substrate covers an orthographic projection of the gate line and/or an orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate (fig. 11, 5LE1 and 5LE2 cover DL2. Paragraph 100 shows they are connected to the common line).
in regard to claim 3, Liao teaches wherein the common electrode comprises: a first electrode layer disposed at the side of the gate line and the data line away from the base substrate, and disposed at a side of the pixel electrode away from the base substrate (fig. 11); and a domain display region comprising a plurality of parallel slits provided on the first electrode layer (see slits in 5LE1 and 5LE2), wherein a first shield electrode is formed at a slit of adjacent pixel regions, and an orthographic projection of the first shield electrode on the base substrate covers the orthographic projection of the gate line on the base substrate (claim 3 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 is in the alternative format and does not require the common electrode to cover the gate line. Since claim 3 contains all the limitations of claim 1, Claim 3 does not require the common electrode to cover the gate line).
In regard to claim 4, wherein the first shield electrode is disposed parallel to the gate line (see fig. 11, the common electrode layer and gate lines are parallel layers).
In regard to claim 5, Liao teaches wherein the common electrode further comprises: a second shield electrode disposed between adjacent pixel regions, wherein an orthographic projection of the second shield electrode on the base substrate covers the orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate (fig. 11, 5LE1 and 5LE2 are between the common electrodes 4CM1 and 4 CM2).
In regard to claim 6, Liao teaches wherein when the display panel adopts negative liquid crystal, the second shield electrode is disposed at the side of the data line away from the base substrate (paragraph 6, the shield electrodes are above the data line).
In regard to claim 9, Liao teaches wherein an end surface of the slit close to the data line is configured as a planer surface or an arc surface (fig. 11, the surfaces are vertical planes).
In regard to claim 14, Liao teaches an organic film layer disposed at the side of the gate line and the data line away from the base substrate, wherein the organic film layer is disposed at a side of the common electrode close to the base substrate (element BP and paragraph 34).
In regard to claim 16, Liao teaches a display apparatus (paragraph 5).
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) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao.
In regard to claims 7 and 20, Liao teaches wherein the common electrode comprises: a second electrode layer disposed at the side of the gate line and the data line away from the base substrate (fig. 11 4CM1, 2 and 5LE1,2), and an orthographic projection of the second electrode layer on the base substrate covers the orthographic projection of the gate line and/or the orthographic projection of the data line on the base substrate (fig. 11, 5LE1 and 2 cover DL2) but does not teach the second electrode layer is at a side of the pixel electrode close to the base substrate.
A second embodiment of Liao teaches at a side of the pixel electrode close to the base substrate (see fig. 2, the common electrode is below the pixel electrode but above the data and gate lines).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Liao with the second embodiment of Liao. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Liao with the second embodiment of Liao because placing the pixel electrode over the common electrode, as shown in fig. 2 of Liao, would work equally as well as the set-up of fig. 11 of Liao. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the rearrangement of parts is a matter of design choice. The design choice is based on factors such as cost, size, manufacturing, etc.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Cheng et al. (US 2018/0074355).
In regard to claim 15, Liao teaches all the elements of claim 15 except wherein the data line is provided with a bearing portion having a width larger than a width of the data line, a spacer is disposed at a side of the bearing portion away from the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the spacer on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the bearing portion on the base substrate.
Cheng et al. teach wherein the data line is provided with a bearing portion having a width larger than a width of the data line (fig. 3 element S2), a spacer is disposed at a side of the bearing portion away from the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the spacer on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the bearing portion on the base substrate (fig. 3, element 117 located on projection of S2).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Liao with the bearing portion and spacer of Cheng et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Liao with the bearing portion and spacer of Cheng et al. because it would provide better support for the upper layers and allow for more uniform thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights