www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/196,804
`
`11/20/2018
`
`Hiroaki IWATO
`
`20326.0148US01
`
`2562
`
`HAY
`
`M
`
`ULER!
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C.
`45 South Seventh Street
`Suite 2700
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
`
`NGUYEN, LAUREN
`
`2871
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/08/2020
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`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.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`PTOMail @hsml.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CC) Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) O Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`C) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)) accepted or b)() 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)0) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)X None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)L) All
`1... Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in 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.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20200828
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/196,804
`IWATOetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`LAUREN NGUYEN
`2871
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis 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). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom 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) MONTHSfrom 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}.
`Any reply 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).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 08/25/2020.
`LC} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)(J This action is FINAL. 2b))This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\(Z Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 2
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013,
`
`is being examined underthe
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
`
`2.
`
`A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in
`
`37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is
`
`eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e)
`
`has been timely paid, thefinality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to
`
`37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/25/2020 has been entered.
`
`3.
`
`Applicant’s arguments filed 08/25/2020 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`persuasive.
`
`4,
`
`The applicant argues (see page 7) regarding the amended claim 1 that the combination of
`
`Hughes / Yoshii would “result in deterioration ofdetection accuracy ofthe detective element.”
`
`This is not persuasive. The examiner merely relies on Yoshii for the teaching of a counter
`
`substrate including a colorfilter, a light source arranged behind the counter substrate, and a
`
`transparent electrode (see Office Action, page 4). Therefore, the device would function properly
`
`as the examiner stated. The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the
`
`applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`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:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 3
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 ofthis title, 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 obviousat the time the
`invention was made toa person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 1-9, 11-12, 13-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 2012/0200820) in view of Kobayashiet al. (US
`
`2017/0299916).
`
`7.
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a liquid crystal display device
`
`comprising:
`
`e
`
`e
`
`a first substrate (32) including a plurality of source lines and a plurality of gate lines;
`
`asecond substrate (12) that is disposed opposite the first substrate and includes a color
`
`filter (22 and 30) and a black matrix (24);
`
`e
`
`aliquid crystal layer (10) disposed betweenthe first substrate and the second substrate;
`
`and
`
`e
`
`a first seal member (60) that is disposed between the first substrate and the second
`
`substrate and surroundsatleast a part of a periphery of the liquid crystal layer in plan
`
`view,
`
`e wherein the black matrix (24) has a plurality of openings (between 24),
`
`e
`
`e
`
`the color filter is disposed in the plurality of openings of the black matrix in a plan view;
`
`at least a part of the first seal member overlaps the colorfilter in plan view.
`
`8.
`
`Sato etal. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However,
`
`Sato et al. is silent regarding at least a part of the first seal member overlaps the color filter and
`
`the opening of the black matrix in plan view. Kobayashiet al. (figures 1-3) teaches at least a
`
`part of the first seal member (SL) overlaps the color filter and the opening of the black matrix
`
`(CF and BM) in plan view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 4
`
`art at the time of the invention to modify the sealant as taught by Kobayashiet al. in order to
`
`remove the drawback that the non-display area may look brighter than the display area when the
`
`display is turned OFF and improve the display characteristics.
`
`9.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a first side constituting at least a
`
`part of an outer shape of the liquid crystal display device, wherein in aregion alongthefirst side,
`
`the first seal member andthe color filter overlap each other in plan view (figure 4).
`
`10.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a secondside that is opposed to the
`
`first side and constitutes at least a part of an outer shape of the liquid crystal display device,
`
`wherein in a region along the secondside, the first seal memberand the color filter do not
`
`overlap each other in plan view (18; figure 7).
`
`11.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein in the first side, an end
`
`face of the second substrate overlaps an end faceof the color filter in plan view.
`
`12.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein in the first side, an end
`
`face of the first substrate overlaps anend face of the source line in plan view.
`
`13.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a black image display region where
`
`a black image is always displayed in the region along thefirst side.
`
`The limitation, “a black image display region where a black image is alwaysdisplayed in the
`region along the first side” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given
`patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Sato et al. discloses the
`structural limitations required to perform the function as claimed.
`It is further noted that
`apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of
`operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP
`2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of
`doing so.
`
`14.
`
`Regarding claim 7, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein in the black image display
`
`region, the second substrate includes the color filter, and the first substrate includes a TFTarray.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 5
`
`15.
`
`Regarding claim 8, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the first substrate includes
`
`a TFT array non-forming region that does not include the TFT array onaside closerto the first
`
`side than the black image display region in the region along thefirst side.
`
`16.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a secondside that is opposed to the
`
`first side and constitutes at least a part of the outer shape of the liquid crystal display device; and
`
`a black image display region where a black image is always displayed in a region along thefirst
`
`side and the second side, wherein a width of the black image display region in the region along
`
`the first side is larger than a width of the black image display region in the region along the
`
`second side in plan view (figure 7).
`
`17.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein a distance betweenthe
`
`first substrate and the second substrate in the region along thefirst side is smaller than a distance
`
`betweenthe first substrate and the second substrate in the region along the second side (figure 7).
`
`18.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein in the region along the
`
`first side, an end face of the first substrate and an end face of the second substrate do not overlap
`
`each other in plan view.
`
`19.
`
`Claims 13-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Sato etal. in view of Kobayashiet al.; further in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2017/0299916).
`
`20.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Sato et al. as modified by Kobayashiet al. discloses the
`
`limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Sato et al. as modified by
`
`Kobayashiet al. is silent regarding wherein in the region along thefirst side, the second
`
`substrate is exposed from the first substrate in plan view from the first substrate. Kobayashiet
`
`al. (figures 1-3) teaches wherein in the region along the first side, the second substrate is exposed
`
`from the first substrate in plan view from the first substrate. Therefore, it would have been
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 6
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrates as
`
`taught by Kobayashiet al. in order to remove the drawbackthat the non-display area may look
`
`brighter than the display area whenthe display is turned OFF and improve the display
`
`characteristics.
`
`21.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Kobayashiet al. (figures 1-3) teaches a resin film covering an end
`
`face of the second substrate in the first side (portion of sealant).
`
`22.
`
`Regarding claim 15, Kobayashiet al. (figures 1-3) teaches a third side that intersects the
`
`first side and constitutes at least a part of the outer shape of the liquid crystal display device; and
`
`a fourth side that is opposed to the third side and constitutes at least a part of the outer shape of
`
`the liquid crystal display device, wherein in a region along the third side and the fourth side, an
`
`end face of the first substrate and an end face of the second substrate do not overlap each other in
`
`plan view, and in the first substrate, a driving circuit is provided in the region along the third side
`
`but a driving circuit is not provided in the region along the fourth side.
`
`23.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the first seal member
`
`includes:afirst resin material and a first contained material contained in the first resin material
`
`in the region along the first side; and a second resin material and a second contained material
`
`contained in the second resin material in a region different from the region along thefirst side,
`
`and a particle diameter of the first contained material is smaller than a particle diameter of the
`
`second contained material (figure 6).
`
`24,
`
`Regarding claim 17, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a second seal member disposed in
`
`aregion different from the region along the first side, wherein the first seal member includes a
`
`first resin material and a first contained material contained in the first resin material, the second
`
`seal member includes a second resin material and a second contained material contained in the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 7
`
`second resin material, and a particle diameter of the first contained material is smaller than a
`
`particle diameter of the second contained material (figure 6).
`
`25.
`
`Regarding claim 18, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a third seal memberthat runs in
`
`parallel to the first seal member in the region along the first side (portions of 60).
`
`26.
`
`Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sato et
`
`al. as modified by Kobayashiet al.; further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 2013/0128192).
`
`27.
`
`Regarding claim 10, Sato et al. as modified by Kobayashiet al. discloses the
`
`limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, Sato et al. as modified by
`
`Kobayashiet al. is silent regarding wherein a light shielding tape is disposed above the second
`
`substrate in the region along the first side.
`
`Ishikawaet al. (figure 11) teaches wherein a light
`
`shielding tape (25b) is disposed above the second substrate in the region along thefirst side.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the substrates as taught by Kobayashiet al. in order to achievealiquid
`
`crystal display device that has a narrowerframe without decreasing a seal strength.
`
`28.
`
`Claims 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Sato et al. as modified by Kobayashiet al.; further in view of Takasakiet al. (US
`
`2017/0336666).
`
`29.
`
`Regarding claim 19, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses a liquid crystal display device
`
`comprising:
`
`e
`
`e
`
`first substrate (32) including a plurality of source lnes and a plurality of gate lines;
`
`asecond substrate (12) that is disposed opposite the first substrate, and includes a color
`
`filter (22 and 30);
`
`e
`
`aliquid crystal layer disposed betweenthe first substrate and the second substrate;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 8
`
`e
`
`a first seal member (62) that is disposed between the first substrate and the second
`
`substrate and surroundsatleast one side of a periphery of the liquid crystal layer in plan
`
`view; and
`
`e
`
`asecond seal member (60) that is disposed between the first substrate and the second
`
`substrate and surroundsatleast another side of a periphery of the liquid crystal layer in
`
`plan view,
`
`e wherein the first seal member andthe color filter overlap each other in plan view.
`
`30.
`
`Sato etal. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 13 above.
`
`However, Sato etal. is silent regarding the second seal memberand the color filter do not
`
`overlap eachother in plan view and a second seal memberis different from the first seal
`
`member. Takasakiet al. (figures 1-6) teaches the second seal member and the colorfilter do
`
`not overlap each other in plan view and a second seal memberis different from the first seal
`
`member (5 and 124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at
`
`the time of the invention to modify the sealants as taught by Takasakiet al. in order to prevent
`
`the seal member from coming out to an outer periphery of the display panel.
`
`31.
`
`In addition, Sato et al. is silent regarding at least a part ofthe first seal member overlaps
`
`the color filter and the opening of the black matrix in plan view. Kobayashiet al. (figures 1-3)
`
`teaches atleast a part of the first seal member (SL) overlaps the color filter and the opening of
`
`the black matrix (CF and BM) in plan view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sealant as taught by Kobayashi
`
`etal. in order to remove the drawbackthat the non-display area may look brighter than the
`
`display area when the display is turned OFF and improve the display characteristics.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/196,804
`Art Unit: 2871
`
`Page 9
`
`32.
`
`Regarding claim 20, Sato et al. (figures 1-7) discloses wherein the first seal member
`
`includes: a first resin material and a first contained material contained in the first resin material
`
`in the region along the first side; and a second resin material and a second contained material
`
`contained in the second resin material in a region different from the region along thefirst side,
`
`and a particle diameter of the first contained material is smaller than a particle diameter of the
`
`second contained material (figure 6).
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYENwhosetelephone number is (571)270-1428.
`
`The examiner cannormally be reached on Monday- Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Edward Glick can be reached on (571) 272-2490. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization wherethis 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 access to 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.
`
`/LAUREN NGUYEN/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
`
`