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 9-15 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.
Claim 9 recites “the portion of the third color resist is not overlapped with the first color resist and the second color resist in a normal direction of the substrate”, the recitation renders the claim indefinite since the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear. Base claim 1 requires “a portion of the third color resist is disposed in at least one of the first sub-pixel region and the second sub-pixel region”, however, dependent claim 9 requires “the portion of the third color resist is not overlapped with the first color resist and the second color resist”, which contradicts the limitation of claim 1. Claims 10-15 are rejected due to their dependency status from claim 9.
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) 1-8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0077239 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a color filter substrate, comprising: a substrate (310) having a pixel region, wherein the pixel region comprises a first sub-pixel region (R), a second sub-pixel region (G) and a third sub-pixel region (B); and a color resist structure (321) disposed on the substrate, the color resist structure comprising: a first color resist (321R) disposed in the first sub-pixel region; a second color resist (321G) disposed in the second sub-pixel region; and a third color resist (324b), wherein a portion of the third color resist (324) is disposed in at least one of the first sub-pixel region (R) and the second sub-pixel region (G), and another portion of the third color resist (324b) is disposed in the third sub-pixel region (B), wherein the first color resist, the second color resist and the third color resist have different colors from each other (¶s[0052,0054,0060]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein one of the first color resist and the second color resist is a green resist (321G, ¶[0054]), the other one of the first color resist and the second color resist is a red resist (321R, ¶[0054]), and the third color resist is a blue resist (324b, ¶[0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein the portion of the third color resist (324b) is disposed in the first sub-pixel region and the second sub-pixel region (Fig. 4), and the portion of the third color resist (324b) covers the first color resist (321R) and the second color resist (321G) in a normal direction of the substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein in the normal direction, the portion of the third color resist (324b) disposed in the first sub-pixel region and the second sub-pixel region has a first thickness (t2, Fig. 1), the another portion of the third color resist (324b) disposed in the third sub-pixel region has a second thickness (t1, Fig. 1), and the first thickness is less than the second thickness (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein the first thickness (t2) is greater than or equal to 0.2 micrometers and less than or equal to 0.5 micrometers (¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein the second thickness (t1) is greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 3 micrometers (¶[0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein in the normal direction, a thickness of at least one of the first color resist and the second color resist is greater than or equal to 0.5 micrometers and less than or equal to 3 micrometers (¶s[0057-0058], based on the difference between the first thickness t2 and the second thickness t1 being equal to the thickness of the first color resist and the second color resist).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a color filter substrate wherein the first color resist (321R) is disposed in a whole area of the first sub-pixel region, the second color resist (321G) is disposed in a whole area of the second sub-pixel region, and the portion of the third color resist (324) is disposed in the whole area of the first sub-pixel region and the whole area of the second sub-pixel region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses a display device, comprising: the color filter substrate (3000); and an array substrate (1000), wherein the array substrate and the color filter substrate are disposed opposite to each other (Fig. 4).
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) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0077239 A1) in view of Chae et al. (US 2008/0252829 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Kim fails to disclose a transparent conductive layer disposed on the color resist structure.
Chae discloses a color filter substrate, comprising: a substrate (102) having a pixel region, wherein the pixel region comprises a first sub-pixel region (R), a second sub-pixel region (G) and a third sub-pixel region (B); and a color resist structure (106) disposed on the substrate, and further comprising a transparent conductive layer disposed on the color resist structure acting as a common electrode of the LCD display. 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 a transparent conductive layer as disclosed by Chae in the color filter substrate of Kim in order to provide a common electrode of the LCD display.
Regarding claim 17, Kim fails to disclose wherein in the normal direction, a thickness of the transparent conductive layer is greater than or equal to 1200 angstroms and less than or equal to 1700 angstroms. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filling of the claimed invention to provide a thickness of the transparent conductive layer being greater than or equal to 1200 angstroms and less than or equal to 1700 angstroms, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 2022/0221756 A1) discloses a color filter panel including: a base substrate having a first pixel area, a second pixel area, and a light blocking area between the first pixel area and the second pixel area; a first color filter on the base substrate in the first pixel area; a second color filter on the base substrate in the second pixel area; a first photoluminescence pattern on the first color filter in the first pixel area and configured to convert a color of light; and a second photoluminescence pattern on the second color filter in the second pixel area and configured to convert a color of light, the second photoluminescence pattern partially overlaps the first photoluminescence pattern in the light blocking area.
Zha et al. (US 2022/0043297 A1) discloses a liquid crystal display panel comprising a first substrate and a second substrate, a color filter layer disposed on the second substrate, the color filter layer including color resist blocks and a light shielding portion.
Hu (US 2021/0208452 A1) discloses a display panel comprising a first substrate, a light shielding layer disposed on the first substrate and defined a plurality of pixel areas, a color filter layer disposed on the plurality of pixel areas, the color filter layer including a first colored resist layer, a second colored resist layer, a third colored resist layer and a fourth colored resist layer, and wherein the fourth colored resist layer comprises a plurality of different colored resistor materials sequentially stacked from bottom to top.
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