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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited “an orthographic projection of at least one gate line of the plurality of gate lines on the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of at least one of the first vias on the base substrate, the wire comprises at least one widening part and the orthographic projection of the first via on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the at least one widening part” as recited in claims 1 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 enablement requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. With reference to claims 1 and 11 recite “the wire comprises at least one widening part and the orthographic projection of the first via on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the at least one widening part”. The specification fails to detail a “widening part” or any positioning of the orthographic projection and the “first via” as recited. The applicant illustrates (Fig. 9) an area of the via (21) that is wider than that wire, however the wider part is not a part of the wire. The wire is illustrated as a single component in which the via overlies it. However, due to a lack of description, the examiner finds the recitation of a wire comprising at least one widening part is not described in the specification as recited. Claims 7-9 recite additional details pertaining to the recited widening part that the examiner also fails to find support for in the description and drawings. Claims 2-6, 10, and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukanc et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0042599; hereinafter Lukanc) in view of Okada (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0218646) and Han et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0185938; hereinafter Han).
With reference to claim 1, Lukanc discloses an array substrate comprising:
a base substrate (405) (see paragraph 66; Fig. 4); and
a plurality of gate lines (320), a plurality of data lines (315), a common electrode layer (410), and a plurality of pixel units (305) arranged in an array disposed on the base substrate (405) (see paragraphs 65-67; Figs. 3-4), wherein each of the pixel units (305) comprises a plurality of sub-pixel units (310) (two units of R, G, or B; Fig. 3) defined by the gate lines (320) and the data lines (315) disposed to intersect each other laterally and vertically (see paragraphs 64-65. Fig. 3),
a plurality of wires (335) (see paragraph 65; Fig. 3); wherein the common electrode layer (410) comprises a plurality of common electrode blocks (120) that double as self-capacitance electrodes (see paragraphs 33-34), each of the common electrode blocks (120) is connected to at least one corresponding wire of the plurality of wires (335) (see paragraph 65; Fig. 3); the common electrode blocks (120) are connected with the wires (335) through first vias (see paragraph 69), wherein two adjacent data lines (315b, 315c; 315c, 315d) of the plurality of data lines (315) define a column of the sub-pixel units (BR, GB) (see paragraph 64; Fig. 3), two adjacent gate lines (320) of the plurality of gate lines define a row of the sub-pixel units (see paragraph 63; Fig. 3), the wires (335) and the data lines (315) are disposed in a same layer (415) and extend in a same direction of the column of the sub-pixel units (see paragraph 69; Fig. 3-4),
the pixel unit (305) comprises at least a red sub-pixel unit, a blue sub-pixel unit, and a green sub-pixel unit (see paragraph 63), sub-pixel units with a same color at which the wires are located belong to different ones of the pixel units (see Fig. 3), a same column of the sub-pixel unit has a same color (see Fig. 3), a same row of the sub-pixel units are arranged in a sequence of red, green, and blue (see Fig. 3); and an extending direction of the wires (335) is the same as an extending direction of the column of the blue sub-pixel units (see Fig. 3); and the wires are disposed between the red sub-pixel unit and the green sub-pixel unit (see Fig. 3).
While disclosing all that is required as explained above Lukanc including the wires (334) being disposed adjacent the blue sub-pixel (see Fig. 3), there fails to be disclosure of the wire are disposed in blue sub-pixel units as recited or the orthographic projections as recited.
Okada discloses a display panel with touch detection function comprising a base substrate (1) a plurality of gate lines (101), a plurality of data lines (3), a common electrode layer (7), and a plurality of pixel units (103) arranged in an array (10) disposed on the base substrate (201) (see paragraphs 57, 63; Figs. 1-3), wherein the array substrate comprises a first electrode (7) and a second electrode (14), an in a direction perpendicular to the base substrate (1), the second electrode (14) is disposed between the base substrate (1) and the first electrode (7), the first electrode is a common electrode and the second electrode is the pixel electrode, or the first electrode is the pixel electrode and the second electrode is the common electrode (see paragraphs 113-115), wherein an orthographic projection (27B) of the at least one gate line of the plurality of gate lines (101) on the base substrate (1) at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of at least one of the first vias on the base substrate corresponding wire (25) on the base substrate (1) (see Fig. 6), the wire comprises at least one widening part, and the orthographic projection of the first via on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the at least one widening part on the base (see Fig. 6). and an orthographic projection of pixel electrodes (14) of the column of the sub-pixel units overlap (see paragraphs 70, 77; Fig. 4), a width of the wire (25) in a direction of the row of the sub-pixel units is less than a width of the pixel electrode (14) in the direction of the row of the sub-pixel units in a region where the orthographic projection of the at least one of the wires (25) on the base substrate (1) and the orthographic projection of pixel electrodes (14) of the column of the sub-pixel overlap (see Fig. 4); and wherein the wires (25) are disposed in the blue sub-pixel units, and the wires (52) run through all of the pixel electrodes of the column of the blue sub-pixel units (in teaching displaying image data wherein it is well known for sub-pixel units to comprise a blue sub-pixel; see paragraphs 69-70; Figs. 5-8).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to allow the positioning of the wire in the sub-pixel units similar to that which is taught by Okada to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Lukanc such that the wire runs through the blue-subpixel units to thereby improve distance from data lines which increases the detection accuracy by reduction of the influences of noise from the data lines (see Okada; paragraph 23).
While Lukanc and Okada disclose all that is required as explained above, however fail to specifically disclose that only one wire is disposed in each pixel unit as recited.
Han discloses a liquid crystal display device having a touch sensor (see paragraph 49; Fig. 1), wherein a common electrode layer comprises a plurality of common electrode blocks (see paragraphs 52-53; Fig. 2) each of which is connected to at least one corresponding wire (Sc1) (see paragraphs 58, 65; Figs. 3A-5A), wherein only one wire is disposed in each pixel unit (10) (see Fig. 3A-5A), and the first electrode has a plurality of slits extending in the direction of the column of the sub-pixel units (see paragraph 82; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the usage of a wire disposed in each pixel unit similar to that which is taught by Han to be carried out in a improve device similar to that which
is taught by Lukanc and Okada to thereby improve aperture ratio and transmittance of pixels (see Han; paragraphs 14, 81).
With reference to claim 2, Lukanc, Okada, and Han disclose the array substrate of claim 1, wherein Han further discloses that a distance from the [an] orthographic projection of the wire on the base substrate (SUB) to an orthographic projection of the red sub-pixel unit on the base substrate in the direction of the row of the sub-pixel units is different from a distance from the orthographic projection of the wire on the base substrate to an orthographic projection of the green sub-pixel unit on the base substrate in the direction of the row of the sub-pixel units (in teaching one wire (Sc1) provided for each pixel unit; Figs. 3A-5A).
With reference to claim 10, Lukanc, Okada, and Han disclose the array substrate of claim 1, wherein Okada further discloses wherein an orthographic projection of a center of the first via on the base substrate and an orthographic projection of the gate line on the base substrate overlap (see Figs. 6, 9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukanc, Okada, and Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2003/0098939; hereinafter Min).
With reference to claim 6, Lukanc, Okada, and Han disclose the array substrate of claim 1, however fail to disclose the overlap of the wire and a portion of the slits as recited.
Min discloses a display arrangement wherein each of the plurality of slits has a body portion (9a) and at least one end portion (9b), the orthographic projection of the wire (260) on the base substrate (20) is within an orthographic projection of the body portion (9a) on the base substrate in the direction of the row of the sub-pixel units (see paragraph 31; Fig. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow the arrangement of the slits and the orthographic projection of the wire, similar to that which is taught by Min to be carried out in a device similar to that which is taught by Lukanc, Okada, and Han to thereby reduce the thickness of the device (see Min; paragraph 32).
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.
Claims 11-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,211,857 in view of Okada (US Patent Publication No. 2009/01218646).
Application No. 19/014659
Patent No. 12,211,857
Claim 11
Claim 1, wherein Okada further discloses an orthographic projection of at least one gate line of the plurality of gate lines on the base substrate at least partially overlaps with an orthographic projection of at least one of the first vias on the base substrate (see Figs. 6, 9)
Claim 15
Claim 13
Claim 17
Claim 15
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALECIA DIANE ENGLISH whose telephone number is (571)270-1595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:00am-3:00am.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/ADE/Examiner, Art Unit 2625
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625