DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 12/27/2024 has been received and entered. By the amendment, claim 20 is now pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/481,338, filed on 10/05/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/27/2024 and 05/01/2026 was filed and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurokawa et al., US 2022/0299826 A1, in view of Nam et al., US 2019/0026044 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Kurokawa et al. disclose a liquid crystal device (figs 2-4, 6-10) comprising:
. a first substrate 11
. a second substrate 12
. a liquid crystal layer LC1
. a plurality of electrode pairs EG1 forming a honeycomb structure along a first direction and a second direction orthogonal to the first direction, the plurality of electrode pairs form a plurality of rows along the second direction (fig 10)
. lines CD113connecting centers of a respective pair of electrode pairs adjacent to each other, located in one row of the plurality of rows, and one electrode pair included in a row adjacent to the one row along the first direction and in contact with the respective pair of adjacent electrode pairs, form an equilateral triangle (fig 9)
. wherein the first substrate comprises a plurality of circularly shaped first electrodes EGC (fig. 6)
. wherein a plurality of second electrodes EGB (fig 6)
. wherein the second substrate 12 comprises a third electrode C1
. wherein the plurality of second electrodes are in contact with each other
. wherein each of the plurality of electrode pairs E1 comprises the second electrode and the circularly shaped first electrode provided on an inner side of the second electrode (fig 6)
. wherein each pair of first electrodes adjacent to each other along the second direction are connected to each other by a connection portion (fig. 7).
Kurokawa et al. neither disclose each of the plurality of second electrodes comprising an outer side end portion of a hexagonal shape and an inner side end portion of a circular shape nor
a high resistance layer providing on the plurality of first electrodes and a plurality of second electrodes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to employ a plurality of second electrodes comprising an outer side end portion of a hexagonal shape and an inner side end portion of a circular shape, since it involves to a design choice of forming electrode in a display device. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to employ a second electrode comprising an outer side end portion of a hexagonal shape and an inner side end portion of a circular shape, since Applicant has not disclosed that specific shaped of the second electrode solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a circularly shaped electrode in a display panel. In addition, Nam et al. do disclose a high resistance layer 160 forming over electrodes PXL, VCOM (fig 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form
a high resistance layer over the Kurokawa et al electrodes, as shown by Nam et al. to suppress a pixel discharge involving a gradual decrease in the data voltage stored in the pixels ([101]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application and patent disclose a same optical control element (liquid crystal device) with a plurality of electrode pairs including first, second electrodes arrangement in a honeycomb structure as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights