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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 2 & 3b the elements 1041, 103, 1042, 1043, & 1044 have the same shading as element bp2. It is unclear as to how the elements 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 103, & bp2 are placed relative to each other. 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 § 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, 3-4, & 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saitou et al. (US 20080204619).
As to claim 1, Saitou discloses a display panel [abstract & figs. 1, 5-6, & 7-8], comprising:
a substrate (tft substrate 21) [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 47 & 67] a peripheral area (area outside effective screen 2) [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 47 & 67] and a display area (effective screen 2) [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 47 & 67] adjacent to each other, the display area provided with a plurality of pixel units (pixels 14) [figs. 1 & 7 & para. 49 & 67];
a gate driving unit (gate driver circuit 5) [figs. 1 & 7 & para. 47 & 67] provided in the peripheral area;
a connection unit (scanning signal lines 7 extending from gate driver circuit 5 to pixel 14 of effective screen 2) [figs. 1 & 7 & para. 47, 49, & 67] provided between the gate driving unit and the display area, and electrically connected to the gate driving unit and the plurality of pixel units [figs. 1 & 7 & para. 47, 49, & 67]; and
a shielding unit (static charge shield conductive film 60 & static charge shield conductive film 71) [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 59-68] provided on the connection unit;
wherein a projection area of the connection unit on the substrate corresponds to a projection area of the shielding unit on the substrate [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 59-68], and the shielding unit is electrically connected to a fixed potential [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 61-62 & 65-68]; and
the shielding unit comprises a first portion and a second portion, the second portion covers the connection unit (first portion corresponding to top portion of static charge shield conductive film 60 corresponding to left gate driver circuit 5 & second portion corresponding to bottom portion of static charge shield conductive film 60 corresponding to left gate driver circuit 5) [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 59-68] and comprises a second transparent conductive layer (ITO is used for forming the static charge shield conductive film 60) [para. 60 & 67], and the first portion is connected to the second portion [top portion of static charge shield conductive film 60 corresponding to left gate driver circuit 5 & bottom portion of static charge shield conductive film 60 corresponding to left gate driver circuit 5 form static charge shield conductive film 60 corresponding to left gate driver circuit 5].
As to claim 3, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of pixel units include a first number of rows of pixel units, the connection unit includes a second number of connection structures, the second number is matched with the first number, and each connection structure is connected to one row of pixel units (scanning signal lines 7 interleaved) [figs. 1 & 7].
As to claim 4, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the gate driving unit has a first gate driving circuit located on one side of the display area (left gate driver circuit 5) [figs. 1 & 7 & para. 47 & 67], and a second gate driving circuit (right gate driver circuit 5) [figs. 1 & 7 & para. 47 & 67] located on the other side of the display area.
As to claim 6, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the first portion is connected to a conductive layer of the peripheral area (both static charge shield conductive film 60 connected to fixed potential) [figs. 1 & 5-8 & para. 59-68], and the first portion comprises a first transparent conductive layer (ITO is used for forming the static charge shield conductive film 60) [para. 60 & 67].
As to claim 7, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the shielding unit (static charge shield conductive film 71 conducted with static charge shield conductive film 60) [fig. 8] has a first end (right end of static charge shield conductive film 71) [fig. 8] and a second end (left end of static charge shield conductive film 71) [fig. 8] opposite to each other, the first end is close to the display area, the second end is close to the gate driving unit (left end of static charge shield conductive film 71) [fig. 8], and the first end extends towards the display area and goes beyond the connection unit (right end of static charge shield conductive film 71 extended towards display area going beyond connection unit in horizontal direction) [fig. 8].
As to claim 8, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 7, wherein the second end is electrically connected to a conductive layer of the peripheral area (both static charge shield conductive film 60 connected to fixed potential) [para. 59-68].
As to claim 9, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the fixed potential is a low potential [figs. 5-8 & para. 61-62 & 65-68].
As to claim 10, Saitou discloses the display panel according to claim 9, wherein the low potential is earth potential or common potential [figs. 5-8 & para. 61-62 & 65-68].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou, in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 20190333461).
As to claim 2, Saitou teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the connection unit is electrically connected to a first metal layer in the plurality of pixel unit (gate electrode 44 of pixel unit 44 is simultaneously formed with scanning signal line 7) [para. 55].
Saitou does not explicitly teach wherein the connection unit is electrically connected to a first metal layer in the plurality of pixel unit and a second metal layer in the gate driving unit.
Kikuchi teaches the concept of a display panel [abstract & fig. 1], wherein a connection unit (first conductive layer 14 corresponding to gate wiring line gl) [figs. 1, 11d & 15-17 & para. 141-145] is electrically connected to a first metal layer in a plurality of pixel unit (gate electrode 2p formed on same layer as gate wiring line gl) [figs. 16-17 & 11d & para. 95-97] and a second metal layer (second conductive layer 15) [figs. 1, 11d & 15-17 & para. 141-145] in a gate driving unit (gdm circuit 40) [figs. 15-17 & para. 141-145 & 287].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connection unit of the display panel of Saitou, such that the connection unit is electrically connected to a first metal layer in the plurality of pixel unit and a second metal layer in the gate driving unit, as taught by Kikuchi to improve the durability of the display panel of Saitou, as taught by Kikuchi [para. 145].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou, in view of Ka et al. (US 20180226467).
As to claim 5, Saitou teaches the display panel according to claim 1, wherein the connection unit comprises a first conductive layer (gate electrode 44 of pixel unit 44 is simultaneously formed with scanning signal line 7) [para. 55].
Saitou does not explicitly teach wherein the connection unit comprises a first transparent conductive layer.
Ka teaches the concept of a display panel [abstract], wherein a connection unit (scan lines formed of ito) [para. 140] comprises a first transparent conductive layer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first transparent conductive layer of the connection unit of the display panel of Saitou, such that the first conductive layer is a first transparent conductive layer, as taught by Ka, to improve image quality by reducing the noticeability of the connection units, as one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12406636. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter.
Claims of Instant Application
Claims of US patent 12406636
1
1 & 6
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
7
7
1 & 6
8
8
9
9
10
10
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koo et al. (US 20150205154).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights