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
`
`16/212,241
`
`12/06/2018
`
`Takenobu NISHIGUCHI
`
`20295 .0033US01
`
`3798
`
`HAY
`
`M
`
`CLLRS
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER & LARSON P.C.
`45 South Seventh Street
`Suite 2700
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1683
`
`FRANK,EMILYJ
`
`2693
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`02/21/2020
`
`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*
`1,3-6,10,12-16 and 18-20 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CJ] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,3-6,10,12-16 and 18-20is/are rejected.
`OO Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`CC) Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* 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 20200103
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/212,241
`NISHIGUCHI, Takenobu
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`EMILY J FRANK
`2693
`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 18 December 2019.
`CO) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)l¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J 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: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first
`
`inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`(a) INGENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the
`invention, and of the manner and process of making and usingit, in suchfull, clear, concise,
`and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with whichit
`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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the
`manner and process of making and usingit, in suchfull, 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.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12-16 and 18-20 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains
`
`subject matter which was not describedin the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
`
`skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the inventor(s), at the time the
`
`application wasfiled, had possession of the claimed invention —new matter.
`
`In Claim 1, lines 17-18, Claim 10, lines 13-14 and Claim 16, lines 18-19 the limitation that “a
`
`refresh rate of thefirst liquid crystal display panel is the same as a refresh rate of the second liquid crystal
`
`display panel” is not properly described in the application as originally filed, and constitutes new matter.
`
`At paragraph 36 of Applicants specification filed 12/06/2019, Applicants disclose an embodiment in which
`
`“a refresh rate at which the plurality offirst gate lines 30A is scanned maybehigher refresh rate than the
`
`refresh rate at which the plurality of second gate lines is scanned’. This is the only discussion of the
`
`refresh rate in the specification. Thus Applicants disclose a refresh rate of the first liquid crystal display
`
`panel is different from the refresh rate of the second liquid crystal display panel. However Applicants do
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 3
`
`not show support for a refresh rate ofthe first liquid crystal display panel is the same asthe refresh rate of
`
`the second liquid crystal display panel.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousnessrejections
`
`setforth 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 andthe 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.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka
`
`(United States Patent Application Publication 2008/000751 4) in view of Yoshiharaet al. (United States
`
`Patent Application Publication 2008/0192158 hereinafter referred to as Yoshihara).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Tanaka disclosesa liquid crystal display device (figure 2; liquid crystal display
`
`device 10), comprising:
`
`a first liquid crystal display panel (paragraph 0045, lines 3-7; first liquid crystal panel 11) including
`
`a plurality of first gate lines (paragraph 0046);
`
`a second liquid crystal display panel (paragraph 0045, lines 3-7; first liquid crystal panel 12)
`
`including a plurality of second gate lines (paragraph 0046);
`
`a backlight (figure 3; backlight unit 13) arranged on a side ofthe firstliquid crystal display panel
`
`such thatthe first liquid crystal display panel is adjacent the backlight and between the secondliquid
`
`crystal display panel and the backlight (paragraph 0045, lines 3-10 and figure 3), the backlight including a
`
`plurality of rows of light sources (paragraph 0045, line 10);
`
`a driving circuit (figure 4; gate driver 3) configured to supply a drive signal to the plurality of rows
`
`of light sources (paragraph 0042); and
`
`a controller (figure 4; driving circuit 8) configured to:
`
`scan the plurality offirst gate lines (paragraph 0052);
`
`scan the plurality of second gate lines (paragraph 0052);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 4
`
`control the driving circuit to illuminate a first row of the plurality of rows of light sources after the
`
`scan of a first set of the plurality offirst gate lines or after the scan of a first set of the plurality of second
`
`gate lines,
`
`wherein the scan ofthe first set of the plurality offirst gate lines is executed prior to the
`
`scan of the first set of the plurality of second gate lines (paragraph 0056, wherebyinterpretation given to
`
`Tanakais that the “first gate lines” come prior to the “second gate lines” as a given definition in the
`
`current rejection); and
`
`control the driving circuit to notilluminate the first row of the plurality of rows of light sources until
`
`the scan of a secondsetof the plurality of first gate lines is completed or the scan of a secondsetof the
`
`plurality of second gate lines is completed (paragraph 0056, whereby “A liquid crystal display device
`
`...performs normaldriving of a secondliquid crystal panel 12 and performs double-speeddriving
`
`of a first liquid crystal panel 11 under driving by a driving circuit 8. In this case, normal driving
`
`refers to driving at a frequency(driving frequency) of an input signal (video signal), that is driving
`
`in which one frame period is not divided. Hence, double-speed driving refers to driving at a
`
`frequency twice the frequency of the input video signal.” Since driving for the LCD panel 12
`
`(claimed second panel) is at normal driving in which one frame period is not divided, it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the first filing of the claimed invention that
`
`the backlight including thefirst row of the light sources wouldn’t be illuminated until the scan of
`
`gate lines of the 2"? LCD panel 12 including both the first and second sets of second gate lines are
`
`completed; likewise, the backlight including the first row of the light sources wouldn’t be
`
`illuminated until the scan of gate lines of the 1st LCD panel 11 including both the first and second
`
`sets of first gate lines are completed. This interpretation of Tanaka meets interpretation of this
`
`claimed limitation, i.e. this claimed limitation has been interpreted as such.).
`
`However Tanakafails to disclose wherein a refresh rate of the first liquid crystal display panel is
`
`the same asa refresh rate of the secondliquid crystal display panel.
`
`In a similar field of endeavor of display devices, Yoshihara discloses wherein a refresh rate of the
`
`first liquid crystal display panel is the same as a refresh rate of the secondliquid crystal display panel
`
`(paragraph 0069 andfigures 4 and 6; one sub-frame is divided into two; thus, as shownin FIG. 4(a),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 5
`
`during the first half periods of the sub-framesof red, green and blue colors, image data writing scanning
`
`for each of red, green and blue colors is performed twice on the liquid crystal panel 21a, and as shownin
`
`FIG. 4(b), during the latter half periods, image data writing scanning for each of red, green and blue
`
`colors is performed twice on the liquid crystal panel 21b).
`
`In view of the teachings by Tanaka and Yoshihara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention wasfiled to modify the multi-panel display of Tanaka by specifically
`
`providing a refresh rate of the first liquid crystal display panel is the same as a refresh rate of the second
`
`liquid crystal display panel, as taught by Yoshihara, for the purpose of “By carrying out the time-division
`
`control of the timing of voltage application to the liquid crystal layers 13a, 13b of both the liquid crystal
`
`panels 21a, 21b in this manner, no image is displayed on the liquid crystal panel 21b while an image is
`
`displayed on the liquid crystal panel 21a; on the other hand, no image is displayed on the liquid crystal
`
`panel 21a while an image is displayed on the liquid crystal panel 21b. In this case, in the liquid crystal
`
`panel on which no image is displayed, the longitudinal axial direction of liquid crystal molecules inside its
`
`liquid crystal layer coincides with the polarizing axial direction of the polarizers 1, 5, or is orthogonalto the
`
`polarizing axial direction. If the direction of liquid crystal moleculesis aligned, the influence of double
`
`refraction is not exerted, which is equivalent to the situation where the stackedliquid crystal panel on
`
`which no image is displayed doesnot exist. Accordingly, the overall voltage-transmitted light intensity
`
`characteristic corresponds to the sum of the voltage-transmitted light intensity characteristics of the
`
`respective liquid crystal panels 21a, 21b” (Yoshihara paragraph 0071).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses a method of illuminating a liquid crystal display device
`
`includingafirst liquid crystal display panel, a secondliquid crystal display panel, and a backlight, the
`
`method comprising:
`
`scanning, with a controller, a plurality of first gate lines, the plurality of first gate lines
`
`correspondingto the first liquid crystal display panel (paragraph 0046);
`
`scanning, with the controller, a plurality of second gate lines, the plurality of second gate lines
`
`corresponding to the secondliquid crystal display panel (paragraph 0046);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 6
`
`enabling a drive signalto a first row of a plurality of rows of light sources of the backlight before
`
`completing scanning ofa first set of the plurality of first gate lines or in response to completing scanning
`
`of a first set of the plurality of second gatelines,
`
`wherein the scanning ofthe first set of the plurality of first gate lines is executed prior to
`
`the scanning ofthe first set of the plurality of second gate lines (paragraph 0056, whereby
`
`interpretation given to Tanakais that the “first gate lines” come prior to the “second gate lines” as
`
`a given definition in the current rejection); and
`
`disabling the drive signal to the first row of the plurality of rowsoflight sources of the backlight
`
`before completing scanning of a secondsetof the plurality of first gate lines or completing scanning of a
`
`second setof the plurality of second gate lines (paragraph 0056, whereby “A liquid crystal display
`
`device ...performs normaldriving of a secondliquid crystal panel 12 and performs double-speed
`
`driving ofa first liquid crystal panel 11 under driving by a driving circuit 8. In this case, normal
`
`driving refers to driving at a frequency(driving frequency) of an input signal (video signal), that is
`
`driving in which one frame period is not divided. Hence, double-speed driving refers to driving at
`
`a frequency twice the frequencyof the input video signal.” Since driving for the LCD panel 12
`
`(claimed second panel) is at normal driving in which one frame period is not divided, it would
`
`have been obvious to oneof ordinary skill in the art at the first filing of the claimed invention that
`
`the backlight including thefirst row of the light sources wouldn’t be illuminated until the scan of
`
`gate lines of the 2" LCD panel 12 including both the first and second sets of second gate lines are
`
`completed; likewise, the backlight including the first row of the light sources wouldn’t be
`
`illuminated until the scan of gate lines of the 1st LCD panel 11 including both the first and second
`
`sets of first gate lines are completed. This interpretation of Tanaka meets interpretation of this
`
`claimed limitation, i.e. this claimed limitation has been interpreted as such.).
`
`However Tanakafails to disclose wherein a refresh rate of the first liquid crystal display panel is
`
`the same asa refresh rate of the secondliquid crystal display panel.
`
`In a similar field of endeavor of display devices, Yoshihara discloses wherein a refresh rate of the
`
`first liquid crystal display panel is the same asa refresh rate of the second liquid crystal display panel
`
`(paragraph 0069 andfigures 4 and 6; one sub-frame is divided into two; thus, as shownin FIG. 4(a),
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 7
`
`during the first half periods of the sub-framesof red, green and blue colors, image data writing scanning
`
`for each of red, green and blue colors is performed twice on the liquid crystal panel 21a, and as shownin
`
`FIG. 4(b), during the latter half periods, image data writing scanning for each of red, green and blue
`
`colors is performed twice on the liquid crystal panel 21b).
`
`In view of the teachings by Tanaka and Yoshihara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time the invention wasfiled to modify the multi-panel display of Tanaka by specifically
`
`providing a refresh rate of the first liquid crystal display panel is the same as a refresh rate of the second
`
`liquid crystal display panel, as taught by Yoshihara, for the purpose of “By carrying out the time-division
`
`control of the timing of voltage application to the liquid crystal layers 13a, 13b of both the liquid crystal
`
`panels 21a, 21b in this manner, no image is displayed on the liquid crystal panel 21b while an image is
`
`displayed on the liquid crystal panel 21a; on the other hand, no image is displayed on the liquid crystal
`
`panel 21a while an image is displayed on the liquid crystal panel 21b. In this case, in the liquid crystal
`
`panel on which no image is displayed, the longitudinal axial direction of liquid crystal molecules inside its
`
`liquid crystal layer coincides with the polarizing axial direction of the polarizers 1, 5, or is orthogonalto the
`
`polarizing axial direction. If the direction of liquid crystal moleculesis aligned, the influence of double
`
`refraction is not exerted, which is equivalent to the situation where the stackedliquid crystal panel on
`
`which no image is displayed doesnot exist. Accordingly, the overall voltage-transmitted light intensity
`
`characteristic corresponds to the sum of the voltage-transmitted light intensity characteristics of the
`
`respective liquid crystal panels 21a, 21b” (Yoshihara paragraph 0071).
`
`Claim 16 is a system claim drawnto the device of claim 1 and is therefore interpreted and
`
`rejected based on similar reasoning.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 3-6, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Tanaka and Yoshiharafurther in view of Lee et al. (United States Patent Application Publication
`
`2018/0182304 hereinafter referred to as Lee).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 8
`
`Regarding claim 3, Tanakafails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to scanthe first
`
`set of the plurality of second gate lines in response to completing the scanofthe first set of the plurality of
`
`first gate lines.
`
`Lee discloses wherein the controller is configured to scan the first set of the plurality of second
`
`gate lines in response to completing the scanofthe first set of the plurality offirst gate lines (paragraph
`
`0064 and figure 6).
`
`Tanaka and Lee are in a similar field of endeavor of multi-layer display devices.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`wasfiled to modify Tanaka by specifically providing wherein the controller is configured to scanthe first
`
`set of the plurality of second gate lines in response to completing the scanofthe first set of the plurality of
`
`first gate lines, as taught by Lee, as a knownalternative, analogous method of display driving.
`
`Regarding claim 4, Tanakafails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to notilluminate
`
`the first row of the plurality of rows of light sources prior to at least one of the scan of the second setof
`
`the plurality of first gate lines and the scan of the second setof the plurality of second gatelines.
`
`Lee discloses wherein the controller is configured to notilluminate the first row of the plurality of
`
`rowsoflight sourcesprior to at least one of the scan of the second setof the plurality offirst gate lines
`
`and the scan of the second setof the plurality of second gatelines (paragraph 0064 and figure 6).
`
`Tanaka and Leeare in a similar field of endeavor of multi-layer display devices.
`
`Therefore it would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`wasfiled to modify Tanaka by specifically providing wherein the controller is configured to not illuminate
`
`the first row of the plurality of rows of light sources prior to at least one of the scan of the second setof
`
`the plurality of first gate lines and the scan of the secondsetof the plurality of second gate lines, as
`
`taught by Lee, as a knownalternative, analogous methodof display driving.
`
`Regarding claim 5, Tanakafails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to illuminate the
`
`first row of the plurality of rows of light sources until the scan of the second setof the plurality of first gate
`
`lines and the scan of the secondsetof the plurality of second gate lines is complete.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 9
`
`Lee discloses wherein the controller is configured to illuminate the first row of the plurality of rows
`
`of light sources until the scan of the second setof the plurality of first gate lines and the scan of the
`
`second setof the plurality of second gate lines is complete (paragraph 0064 andfigure 6).
`
`Tanaka and Lee are in a similar field of endeavor of multi-layer display devices.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`wasfiled to modify Tanaka by specifically providing wherein the controller is configured to illuminate the
`
`first row of the plurality of rows of light sources until the scan of the second setof the plurality offirst gate
`
`lines and the scan of the secondsetof the plurality of second gate lines is complete, as taught by Lee, as
`
`a knownalternative, analogous method of display driving.
`
`Regarding claim 6, Tanakafails to disclose wherein the controller is configured to notilluminate
`
`the first row of the plurality of rows of light sources before the controller illuminates a second row of the
`
`plurality of rows of light sources.
`
`Lee discloses wherein the controller is configured to notilluminate the first row of the plurality of
`
`rowsoflight sources before the controller illuminates a second row ofthe plurality of rows oflight sources
`
`(paragraph 0064 andfigure 6).
`
`Tanaka and Lee are in a similar field of endeavor of multi-layer display devices.
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`wasfiled to modify Tanaka by specifically providing wherein the controller is configured to notilluminate
`
`the first row of the plurality of rows of light sources before the controller illuminates a second row of the
`
`plurality of rows of light sources, as taught by Lee, as a knownalternative, analogous methodof display
`
`driving.
`
`Claims 12-15 are method claims drawnto the device of claims 3-6 respectively and are therefore
`
`interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
`
`Claims 18-20 are system claims drawnto the device of claims 3-5 respectively and are therefore
`
`interpreted and rejected based on similar reasoning.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 10
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`7.
`
`Applicant's argumentsfiled 12/18/2019 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16, Applicants argue “The cited portion of Tanaka does not suggest
`
`that the scan ofa first set of the plurality of first gate lines is executed prior to the scan ofthe first set of
`
`the plurality of second gate lines” (page 7, paragraph 1), however Examiner respectfully disagrees.
`
`Examiner maintains that Tanaka discloses the scan ofa first set of the plurality offirst gate lines is
`
`executed prior to the scan ofthe first set of the plurality of second gate lines. Tanaka discloses a normal
`
`driving of a front-side secondliquid crystal display panel and double-speed driving of a rear-side first
`
`liquid crystal display panel. Since the first liquid crystal display panel operates at a double-speed driving
`
`the scanning of the gate lines of the first display occurs prior to the scanning of the plurality of second
`
`gate lines which operates at a normal driving speed. Double-speed is faster than a normal driving speed.
`
`Thus, Tanaka discloses the scan ofa first set of the plurality of first gate lines is executed prior to the
`
`scan of the first set of the plurality of second gate lines.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to newly amended portion of claims 1, 10 and 16 that “Tanaka
`
`fails to teach or suggest that a refresh rate of the second liquid crystal display panel is the same asthat of
`
`the first liquid crystal display panel” (page 7, paragraph 1) have been considered but are moot because
`
`the arguments do not apply to the new reference combinations including new reference of Yoshihara
`
`being used in the current rejection. Note that the amendment constitutes new matter. Please see above
`
`rejection for full detail.
`
`Conclusion
`
`8.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
`
`Mibu (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0146257) discloses a viewillustrating a
`
`schematic configuration of a liquid crystal display panel (figure 12).
`
`9.
`
`Applicant's amendmentnecessitated 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).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`Page 11
`
`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 eventa first replyis filed within TWO MONTHS ofthe mailing date
`
`of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
`
`be directed to EMILY J FRANK whosetelephone number is (571)270-7255. The examiner can normally
`
`be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
`
`Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a
`
`USPTO supplied web-basedcollaboration 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,
`
`Benjamin C. Lee can be reached on (571)272-2963. 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 https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
`
`/EJF/
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/212,241
`Art Unit: 2693
`
`/BENJAMIN C LEE/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
`
`Page 12
`
`