`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`
`13/038,516
`
`03/02/2011
`
`Takahiro NAGAMI
`
`520.51392X00
`
`8978
`
`20457
`
`7590
`
`09/19/2014
`
`ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP
`1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
`SUITE 1800
`ARLINGTON,VA 22209-3873
`
`REED, STEPHEN T
`
`2627
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`09/19/2014
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Status
`1)X] Responsive to communication(s) filed on20August2014.
`LJ A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiledon__
`2a)X] This action is FINAL.
`2b)L] This action is non-final.
`3)L] Anelection was made bythe applicant in responsetoarestriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`
`___} the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)KX] Claim(s) 1-8 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)____is/are objectedto.
`
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`nito/www. uspte.gov/natenis/init events/poh/index.isp
`
`or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspte.aov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)KX] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)L] The drawing(s)filed on
`is/are: a)L_] accepted or b)L_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)L] All
`b)[-] Some** c)L] None ofthe:
`1..] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`““ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/038,516 NAGAMI, TAKAHIRO
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2627STEPHEN T. REED Na
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed
`
`Attachment(s)
`3) CT] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) CT] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`:
`.
`4) Ol Other:
`2) CT] Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20140911
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 2
`
`Claims 1-8 are currently pending and prosecuted.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, page 5, filed 20 August 2014, with respect to the 112 (b)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`rejection of Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 (b) Rejection of Claim 1 has
`
`been withdrawn.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 20 August 2014 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. Specifically, the Applicant failed to respond to the Objection of the Specification.
`
`4.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-8 have been considered but they are not
`
`persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues the prior art references Kumagawa, Ueda or Kim do not teach
`
`the first and second pixel electrodes being located in different pixels from one another. However, Kim
`
`teachesfirst and second pixel electrodes located in different sub-pixels, which may reasonably constitute
`
`separate pixels by themselves (Fig. 2). Therefore, the Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
`
`Specification
`
`5.
`
`Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
`
`A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should
`include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.
`If the patent is of a basic nature, the
`entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire
`disclosure.
`If the patentis in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or
`composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement.
`In certain patents,
`particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use
`thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof.
`If the new
`technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example
`the preferred modification or alternative.
`
`The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and
`should not compare the invention with the prior art.
`
`Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
`(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
`(2) if an article, its method of making;
`(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
`(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
`(5) if a process, the steps.
`
`Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
`
`6.
`
`Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 3
`
`The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate
`sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims,
`such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently
`to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent textfor details.
`
`The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title.
`should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure
`defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes,” etc.
`
`It
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`7.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of thistitle, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`8.
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kumagawa
`
`et al., US PG-Pub 2009/0174828, hereinafter Kumagawa, in view of Ueda, USPN 6,980,190, hereinafter
`
`Ueda, and Kim, US PG-Pub 2006/0231838, hereinafter Kim.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Kumagawateachesa liquid crystal display device ([0001]) comprising:
`
`drain lines (source wiring 7) extending in a first direction and arrangedin parallel in a second
`
`direction (Fig. 1);
`
`gate lines (gate wiring 4) extending in the second direction and arranged in parallel in the first
`
`direction (Fig. 1);
`
`pixel electrodes (pixel electrode 1; noting each pixel may have its own electrode) formed in an
`
`area of pixels surrounded bythe drain lines and the gate lines (Fig. 1, showing the pixel areais
`
`surrounded by drain and gate lines); and
`
`a plate-like common electrode (opposing electrode 2) disposed opposite to the pixel electrode
`
`at least in each pixel (Fig. 1),
`
`wherein an image signal, after inversion of the polarity of the voltage to be output to each pixel
`
`(Fig. 13 (f); [(0138]), is supplied the pixels adjacent to each other in the second direction ([0138)]),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 4
`
`wherein an image signal after inversion of the polarity of the voltage to be output to each pixel
`
`(Fig. 13 (f); [0138]), is supplied to the pixels adjacent to each other in the first direction in every N-th
`
`(N_>2) line ((0138], noting the inversion is applied when n is 2; [0139], noting whennis 3 or greater),
`
`wherein the pixel electrodesinclude first pixel electrodes (first pixel electrode 1a) and second
`
`pixel electrodes (second pixel electrode 1b),
`
`wherein, of the pixels adjacent to each other in the first direction, the second pixel electrodes are
`
`provided in pixels in one line (Fig. 1) to which the image signal is input immediately after inversion of the
`
`polarity of the voltage ([0138]-[0139], showing the various ways the electrodes can be driven based on
`
`the polarity inversion method),
`
`wherein the second pixel electrodesare different from the first pixel electrodes (Fig. 1), and
`
`wherein the first pixel electrodes are provided in pixels other than said pixels in said one line (Fig.
`
`1) to which the image signalis input immediately after inversion of the polarity of the voltage ([0138]-
`
`[0139], showing the various ways the electrodes can be driven based on the polarity inversion method).
`
`However, Kumagawadoesnot explicitly teach a gray scale voltage used in polarity inversion.
`
`Ueda teachesa gray scale voltage used in polarity inversion (Ueda: Figs. 10A and 10B; Col. 14, lines
`
`24-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`incorporate the gray scale voltage driving taught by Ueda with the voltage driving taught by Kumagawain
`
`order to reduceflicker (Ueda: Col. 2, lines 55-62), thereby increasing the display quality.
`
`However, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda, does not explicitly teach the first and second pixel
`
`electrodesare located in different pixels from one another or wherein the area of each of the second pixel
`
`electrodesis larger than the area of each ofthe first pixel electrodes. Kim teaches wherein the first and
`
`second pixel electrodes are located in different pixels from one another (Kim: Figs. 2 and 4, showing the
`
`sub-pixels are located in different positions and further noting that each sub-pixel has their own pixel
`
`electrode, i.e., first sub-pixel electrode 190a and second sub-pixel electrode 190b; as currently claimed,
`
`each sub-pixel may constitute a separate pixel as they are surrounded by drain and gate lines) and
`
`wherein the area of each of the second pixel electrodesis larger than the area of each of the first pixel
`
`electrode (Kim: [0082]; [0085], the first sub-pixel electrode 190a is larger in area than the second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 5
`
`sub-pixel electrode 190b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to combine the sub-pixel and area teachings of Kim with the first and second pixel
`
`electrodes taught by Kumagawain order to vary the magnitudesofthe first and second pixel electrodes
`
`(Kim: [0082]), thereby increasing LCD quality.
`
`10.
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 1. Kumagawafurther teaches wherein the first and second pixel electrodes are
`
`linear electrodes formed so as to overlap the common electrode (Kumagawa: Fig. 1) through a capacitor
`
`insulating film (Kumagawa: insulating layers 11a and 11b) formed on the upper layer of the common
`
`electrode in the area of each pixel (Kumagawa: Figs. 2A-2C; [0093]-[0097], noting how the insulating
`
`layer is between several components).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding Claim 3, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 2. Kumagawafurther teaches wherein the first and second pixel electrodes
`
`include a plurality of linear electrodes as well as slits with the ends closed (Kumagawa: Fig. 1, showing
`
`the endsof the electrodesare slitted and closed).
`
`12.
`
`Regarding Claim 4, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 2. Kumagawafurther teaches wherein the number oflinear electrodes of the
`
`second pixel electrode is greater than the number of linear electrodesof the first pixel electrode
`
`(Kumagawa: Fig. 1, showing there are three linear electrodes corresponding to the second pixel
`
`electrode and only twolinear electrodes corresponding to the first pixel electrode).
`
`13.
`
`Regarding Claim 5, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 2. Kumagawa and Kim further teach wherein the electrode width of the linear
`
`electrodes of the second pixel electrode is greater than the electrode width of the linear electrodes of the
`
`first pixel electrode (Kumagawa: [0169], it is preferable to adjust the opposing area of the electrodes
`
`in the coupling capacity regions 72a, 72b. For example, this can be doneby varying the widths of
`
`the pixel electrode 1; since the pixel electrode encompassesboth the first and second pixel electrode, it
`
`would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the widths of the first and second pixel
`
`electrodes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 6
`
`change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In re Rose, 105
`
`USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); Kim: [0082], the areas of the sub-pixels may differ from each other). It
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to alter the
`
`widths of the linear portions of the first and second pixel electrodes, as increasing the width of the linear
`
`portion of the second pixel electrode would subsequently increase the area of the second pixel electrode,
`
`whichis explicitly taught by Kim, in order to alter the magnitude of the image signal (Kim: [0082]), thereby
`
`creating a more consistentliquid crystal display device.
`
`14.
`
`Regarding Claim 6, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 2. Kumagawa and Kim further teach wherein the distance between the linear
`
`electrodes of the second pixel electrode is greater than the distance between the linear electrodes of the
`
`first pixel electrode (Kumagawa: [0169], it is preferable to adjust the opposing area of the electrodes
`
`in the coupling capacity regions 72a, 72b. For example, this can be done by varying the widths of
`
`the pixel electrode 1; since the pixel electrode encompassesboth the first and second pixel electrode, it
`
`would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the widths of the first and second pixel
`
`electrodes, and if the widths are adjusted then the distance between the first and second pixel electrodes
`
`must necessarily be altered as well, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
`
`size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art.
`
`In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); Kim: [0082], the areas of the sub-pixels may
`
`differ from each other). It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made to alter the widths of the linear portions of the first and second pixel electrodes, as
`
`decreasing the width of the linear portions of the second pixel electrode would subsequently increase the
`
`distance between the linear portions of the second pixel electrode and causeto be larger than the
`
`distance between the linear portions of the first pixel electrode, in order to alter the magnitude of the
`
`image signal (Kim: [0082]), thereby creating a more consistent liquid crystal display device.
`
`15.
`
`Regarding Claim 7, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 2. The combination of Kumagawa and Kim further teaches wherein the linear
`
`electrodes of the second pixel electrode include at leasta first linear electrode with a first electrode width,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 7
`
`and at least a second linear electrode with a second electrode width (Kumagawa: Fig. 1, showing a
`
`plurality of linear electrode portions corresponding to the second pixel electrode; Kim: [0082], noting the
`
`sizes and shaped of the pixel electrodes can be altered). Since the first pixel electrode encompasses a
`
`plurality of linear electrode portions, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to alter the
`
`widths of the linear portions of the first pixel electrode, since such a modification would have involved a
`
`mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the
`
`level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
`
`16.
`
`Regarding Claim 8, Kumagawa, as modified by Ueda and Kim, teachesthe liquid crystal display
`
`device according to Claim 2. The combination of Kumagawa and Kim further teaches wherein the linear
`
`electrodes of the second pixel electrode include at least linear electrodes disposed at a first electrode
`
`distance, and at least linear electrodes disposed at a second electrode distance (Kumagawa: Fig. 1,
`
`showing that the linear portions of the second pixel electrode are disposed at a distance; Kim: [0082],
`
`noting the sizes and shaped of the pixel electrodes can be altered). Since the first pixel electrode
`
`encompassesa plurality of linear electrode portions, it would have been an obvious matter of design
`
`choice to alter the widths of the linear portions of the second pixel electrode, which would subsequently
`
`alter the distances between the linear portions of the second pixel electrode, since such a modification
`
`would have involved a mere change in the size of the components. A change in size is generally
`
`recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
`
`Conclusion
`
`17.
`
`The prior art made of record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
`
`Song, USPN 7,176,988, teachesa first and second pixel electrode placed in adjacent pixels.
`
`18.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office
`
`action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of
`
`the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from
`
`the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first replyis filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/038,516
`
`Art Unit: 2627
`
`Page 8
`
`shortened statutory period, then the shortenedstatutory period will expire on the date the advisory action
`
`is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX
`
`MONTHS from the date ofthis final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to STEPHEN T. REED whosetelephone number is (571)272-7234. The examiner can
`
`normally be reached on Monday- Friday: 9:00a - 6:30p.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor,
`
`Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached on 571-272-7769. The fax phone number for the organization where
`
`this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
`
`Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from
`
`either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
`
`Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC)
`
`at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative
`
`or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-
`
`1000.
`
`/S.T.R/
`Examiner, Art Unit 2627
`
`/JASON OLSON/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
`
`