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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1,5-11,13 of U.S. Patent No. 12216364 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Claim 1 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 10 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 2 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 3 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 4 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 5 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 6 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 7 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 6 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 8 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 7 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 9 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 8 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 10 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 9 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 11 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 10 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 12 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 10 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 13 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 10 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 14 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 15 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 16 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 17 is obvious over Claim 1,5, and 10 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 18 is obvious over Claim 1,5, 10, and 11 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 19 is obvious over Claim 1 and 13 of US Patent No. 12216364.
Claim 20 is obvious over Claim 1 and 5 of US Patent No. 12216364.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 107145014B) in view of Kim et al (US 20160195743)
Regarding Claim 1,
(CN 107145014B) discloses (Drawing 1 to Drawing 4) a display substrate, comprising: a base substrate (111); a plurality of first electrodes (11), arranged in an array on the base substrate; a first signal line (101); a second signal line (102) crosswise arranged with the first signal line; and a pattern layer (13) arranged at a same layer and made of a same material as the plurality of first electrodes (11); wherein an orthographic projection (13) of the pattern layer on the base substrate does not overlap an orthographic projection of the first signal lines (101) on the base substrate; the pattern layer (13) is on a side of the first electrode (11).
(CN 107145014B) does not disclose the first electrode comprises a first strip electrode; and an extension direction of the first strip electrode is intersected with a row direction and a column direction.
Kim et al disclose [0054-0055] the first electrode (191) comprises a first strip electrode (191c); and an extension direction of the first strip electrode is intersected with a row direction and a column direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify (CN 107145014B) to include Kim et al’s first electrode comprising a first strip electrode, and an extension direction of the first strip electrode is intersected with a row direction and a column direction motivated by the desire to improve side visibility of the display.
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, Kim et al discloses wherein the first electrode further comprises a second strip electrode (191c); the extension direction of the first strip electrode (191c) is intersected with an extension direction of the second strip electrode; and the extension direction of the second strip electrode is intersected with the row direction and the column direction.
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein the pattern layer (13) extends in the extension direction of the first strip electrode (taught by Kim et al) or the extension direction of the second strip electrode. Combining these two would improve viewing characteristics.
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein: a part of the pattern (13) layer extends in the extension direction of the first strip electrode (taught by Kim et al); and another part of the pattern layer extends in the extension direction of the second strip electrode. Combining these two would improve viewing characteristics.
Regarding Claim 5,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein an extension direction of the pattern layer is different from the extension direction (Claim 3)of the first strip electrode (taught by Kim et al) or the extension direction of the second strip electrode
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein the extension direction of the pattern layer is different from the extension direction (Claim 3) of the first strip electrode and the extension direction of the second strip electrode (taught by Kim et al).
Regarding Claim 7,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses a line width of the pattern layer is same as: a line width of the first strip electrode (taught by Kim et al); or a line width of the second strip electrode.
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, Kim et al discloses a line distance of the pattern layer is same as: a line distance of the first strip electrode (191c); or a line distance of the second strip electrode [0055].
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein the orthographic projection of the pattern layer (13) on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of a row gap of the first electrodes on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 10,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein extension directions of the pattern layer (13) at two adjacent row gaps of the first electrodes (11) are different.
Regarding Claim 11,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein an orthographic projection of the first signal line (101) on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of a column gap of the first electrodes (11) on the base substrate; and the orthographic projection of the pattern layer on the base substrate does not overlap the orthographic projection of the first signal line (101) on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 12,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses a transistor; wherein at least part of the first signal line (101) is electrically connected with the transistor; and the orthographic projection of the pattern layer (13) on the base substrate does not overlap an orthographic projection of the transistor on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 13,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein an orthographic projection of the second signal line (102) on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of an row gap of the first electrodes (11) on the base substrate; and the orthographic projection of the pattern layer (13) on the base substrate is located in the orthographic projection of the second signal line (102) on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 14,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses the first signal line (101) is a data line; the second signal line (102) is a gate line; the first electrodes (11) are pixel electrodes; and in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate, the pattern layer and a layer where the gate line is located overlap.
Regarding Claim 15,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses a second electrode located between a layer where the first electrode (11) is located and the base substrate (111); wherein an orthographic projection of the first electrode (11) on the base substrate overlaps with an orthographic projection of the second electrode (12) on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 20,
In addition to (CN 107145014B) and Kim et al, (CN 107145014B) discloses wherein the pattern layer is arranged along a row direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 16,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include another reference to disclose an alignment layer; wherein the first electrodes are located between the base substrate and the alignment layer and are in contact with the alignment layer;the pattern layer is located between the base substrate and the alignment layer and is in contact with the alignment layer; and a ratio of a contact angle of the pattern layer to a contact angle of the first electrodes is greater than or equal to 7/12 and less than 3/2.
Regarding Claim 17,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include another reference to disclose wherein an orthographic projection of the first signal line on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of a column gap of the first electrodes on the base substrate, and the first signal line comprises:an island structure at an intersected position of the column gap of the first electrodes and a gap of two second signal lines; andthe orthographic projection of the pattern layer on the base substrate is coincided with an orthographic projection of the island structure on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 18,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include another reference to disclose a gate,wherein the second signal line and the gate are of an integral structure and the gate protrudes relative to the second signal line; andthe pattern layer comprises:a plurality of first partitions intersected with a row direction and a column direction; anda second partition extending in the row direction;wherein an orthographic projection of the first partitions on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of the gate on the base substrate, and an orthographic projection of the second partition on the base substrate is located in an orthographic projection of the second signal line on the base substrate.
Regarding Claim 19,
The prior art does not disclose nor would it be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include another reference to disclose a positioning region of a spacer;wherein an orthographic projection of the positioning region on the base substrate is located in the orthographic projection of the pattern layer on the base substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST M-F.
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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights