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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 5-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al [US 2019/0074304].
With respect to claim 5, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) disclose a display panel, comprising:
a substrate (100; pp [0055]);
an active layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the active layer comprises a first part (211s; pp [0077]), a second part (211d; pp [0077]), a conductor part (BGL; pp [0083]), and a channel part (211a; pp [0083]), the first part is disposed on one side of the channel part, the second part is disposed on another side of the channel part, and the conductor part is disposed between the first part and the second part and is connected to the channel part;
a first metal layer (213g, 215g; pp [0066], [0076]) disposed on the substrate and disposed in a different layer from the active layer, wherein the first metal layer comprises a gate electrode (213g, 215g; pp [0074]), and the gate electrode overlaps the channel part; and
a second metal layer disposed on the substrate and disposed in a different layer from the first metal layer, wherein the second metal layer comprises a source electrode (S1; pp [0090]) and a drain electrode (D1; pp [0090]), the source electrode is connected to the first part, and the drain electrode is connected to the second part.
With respect to claim 6, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) disclose wherein a number of the conductor part (BGL; pp [0083]) is plural, and a plurality of the conductor parts are arranged in a matrix.
With respect to claim 8, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) disclose wherein the channel part (211a; pp [0083]) comprises a plurality of sub-channels, and the plurality of sub-channels and the plurality of conductor parts (BGL; pp [0083]) are alternately arranged in an extending direction from the first part to the second part in the active layer.
With respect to claim 10, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) disclose wherein the first metal layer (213g, 215g; pp [0074]) comprises a first and a second sublayers (213g; pp [0066]), and a third sublayer (215g; pp [0076]) laminated in sequence, and chemical potentials of the first sublayer and the third sublayer are both greater than a chemical potential of the second sublayer.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [US 2019/0074304] in view of LIU et al [CN 112487849].
With respect to claim 1, Lee et al (fig. 8) disclose a display panel, comprising:
a substrate (100, pp [0055]);
an active layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the active layer comprises a first part (211s, pp [0077]), a second part (211d, pp [0077]), a conductor part (BGL, pp [0083]), and a channel part (211a, pp [0083]), the first part is disposed on one side of the channel part, the second part is disposed on another side of the channel part, the conductor part is disposed between the first part and the second part and is connected to the channel part;
a first metal layer (213g, 215g; pp [0066], [0076]) disposed on the substrate and disposed in a different layer from the active layer, wherein the first metal layer comprises a gate electrode (213g, 215g; pp [0074]), and the gate electrode overlaps the channel part; and
a second metal layer disposed on the substrate and disposed in a different layer from the first metal layer, wherein the second metal layer comprises a source electrode (S1; pp [0090]) and a drain electrode (D1; pp [0090]), the source electrode is connected to the first part, and the drain electrode is connected to the second part;
wherein the first metal layer (213g, 215g; pp [0074]) comprises a first and a second sublayers (213g; pp [0066]), and a third sublayer (215g; pp [0076]) laminated in sequence, and chemical potentials of the first sublayer and the third sublayer are both greater than a chemical potential of the second sublayer.
Lee et al fail to disclose a material of the active layer comprises metal oxides. However, LIU et al (fig. 17) disclose the material metal oxides (162C) and their uses are well-known in the art for the active layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to select metal oxides as known materials, as taught by LIU et al, into the device of the Lee et al to form the active layer. Moreover, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
With respect to claim 2, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) disclose wherein a number of the conductor part (BGL; pp [0083]) is plural, and a plurality of the conductor parts are arranged in a matrix.
With respect to claim 3, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) disclose wherein the channel part (211a; pp [0083]) comprises a plurality of sub-channels, and the plurality of sub-channels and the plurality of conductor parts (BGL; pp [0083]) are alternately arranged in an extending direction from the first part to the second part in the active layer.
With respect to claim 7, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) do not mention wherein a number of the conductor part is one. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have one conductor part since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
With respect to claim 11, Lee et al (figs. 6A-8) do not mention wherein thicknesses of the first sublayer and the third sublayer are both less than a thickness of the second sublayer. However, the thickness range would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fail to disclose wherein the gate electrode is defined with openings corresponding to the conductor parts; and the first metal layer further comprises a scan line, the gate electrode comprises at least two sub-gate electrodes, one of the openings is arranged between two adjacent sub-gate electrodes, the sub-gate electrodes overlap the channel part, and the scan line is connected to the at least two sub-gate electrodes (claim 4); wherein the gate electrode is defined with openings corresponding to the conductor parts; and the first metal layer further comprises a scan line, the gate electrode comprises at least two sub-gate electrodes, one of the openings is arranged between two adjacent sub-gate electrodes, the sub-gate electrodes overlap the channel part, and the scan line is connected to the at least two sub-gate electrodes (claim 9); a first light-shielding layer, a buffer layer, an insulating layer, an interlayer dielectric layer, a first passivation layer, an electrode layer, a second passivation layer, and a second light- shielding layer; wherein the first light-shielding layer, the buffer layer, the active layer, the insulating layer, the first metal layer, the interlayer dielectric layer, the second metal layer, the first passivation layer, the electrode layer, the second passivation layer, and the second light-shielding layer are sequentially laminated on the substrate; wherein both the first light-shielding layer and the second light-shielding layer overlap the active layer; and wherein the second metal layer further comprises a conductive pad, one of the source electrode or the drain electrode is electrically connected to the conductive pad, the other one of the source electrode or the drain electrode is electrically connected to the first light-shielding layer, the electrode layer comprises a first electrode, and the first electrode is disposed on the conductive pad (claim 12); a buffer layer, an insulating layer, an interlayer dielectric layer, a first passivation layer, an electrode layer, a second passivation layer, and a light-shielding layer; wherein the buffer layer, the first metal layer, the insulating layer, the active layer, the interlayer dielectric layer, the second metal layer, the first passivation layer, the electrode layer, the second passivation layer, and the light-shielding layer are sequentially laminated on the substrate; and wherein the light-shielding layer and the active layer are overlapped, the second metal layer further comprises a conductive pad, the conductive pad is electrically connected to the source electrode or the drain electrode, the electrode layer comprises a first electrode, and the first electrode is disposed on the conductive pad (claim 13); wherein a side of the active layer facing the first metal layer is doped with fluorine-based groups (claim 14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOAI V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m-10:00p.m.
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, Drew Richards can be reached at 571-271-1736. 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.
/HOAI V PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892