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 .
Claims 1-5 are currently pending in the present application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nieh (US 20190346720) in view of Su (US 20240055440).
Re: claim 1, Nieh discloses a first substrate structure 102 (Fig .4) having a first overlapping region (Fig. 4, the region that between protrusion structures BP1 & BP2) and two protrusion structures BP1, BP2 (Fig. 4), wherein the first overlapping region is located between the two protrusion structures (location disclosed in Fig. 4); and a second substrate structure 104 disposed opposite to the first substrate structure 102 (Fig. 4 discloses opposite) and comprising a first spacer PS (Fig. 4) overlapping the first overlapping region of the first substrate structure (overlap disclosed in Fig. 4), wherein the first substrate structure further comprises a base 102, a scan line SL (Figs. 3, 4) and two adjacent data lines DL (Fig. 3), wherein the scan line and the two adjacent data lines are disposed on the base (Figs. 3, 4; paras. 19 & 22 disclose both conductors being located in layer 102).
Nieh does not explicitly disclose that the scan line between the two adjacent data lines has two wider portions and a narrower portion disposed between the two wider portions.
Su discloses that the scan line 103a, 103b (Fig. 5) between the two adjacent data lines 102 has two wider portions 1031, 1033 (Fig. 7; para) and a narrower portion 1032 (Fig. 7 discloses narrower) disposed between the two wider portions (disposition disclosed in Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the scan line between the two adjacent data lines have two wider portions and a narrower portion disposed between the two wider portions, as disclosed by Su, applied to the device disclosed by Nieh for the purpose of maximizing the size of the pixel aperture.
Re: claim 2, Nieh and Su disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Nieh further discloses that the first substrate structure 102 has a first conductive element DM1, SL, CL (Fig. 4), an insulating element 108, and a second conductive element 110, wherein the first conductive element and the second conductive element are separated by the insulating element (separation disclosed in Fig. 4).
Re: claim 3, Nieh and Su disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Nieh further discloses that the two protrusion structures BP1, BP2 are arranged along an extending direction of the scan line SL (coextension with scan line disclosed in Figs. 3, 4).
Re: claim 4, Nieh and Su disclose the limitations of claim 1, and Su further discloses that the second substrate structure 104 comprises a plurality of groups of color filters 116 (para. 35). While Su does not explicitly disclose that the first spacer is located between different groups of color filters, Su does disclose that the spacer is optically downstream from light shield 114. A person of ordinary skill at a time prior to the effective date would have been aware of the technique of placing a light block between adjoining color pixels for the purpose of minimizing bleed-through color (color crosstalk) in transmitted light. In addition, a person of ordinary skill would have been aware of the technique of placing a spacer optically upstream from a light block and between adjacent color filters for the purpose of preventing the spacer from being visible to a viewer while minimizing color crosstalk.
Re: claim 5, Nieh and Su discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Su further discloses that a width of the scan line 103a, 103b at a position where the scan line overlaps one of the two adjacent data lines 102 is less than a width of the scan line at a position where the scan line does not overlap the one of the two adjacent data lines (comparative widths disclosed in Fig. 5, 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights