DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 17/758,011 filed on June 26, 2022.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Claims 4, 7-14, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-5 and 7-19.
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, 5, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue (US 2022/0077264).
Regarding Claim 1, Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4 and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches a display panel including an oxygen supplement functional layer 5 (i.e., top layer 5) (see, e.g., par. 0057), comprising:
a substrate 1 (see, e.g., par. 0041);
a thin film transistor layer TL disposed on the substrate 1, wherein the thin film transistor layer TL comprises a gate electrode 3, a gate insulating layer 2, an active layer 4, and a source-drain electrode layer 7 disposed on the substrate 1, material of the active layer 4 is metal oxide semiconductor (see, e.g., pars. 0042, 0051-0052);
a first passivation layer 10 located on a side of the source-drain electrode layer 7 away from the active layer 4, wherein the first passivation layer 10 is configured to be the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 (i.e., top layer 5) (see, e.g., pars. 0055-0060); and
an electrode layer 6 located on a side of the first passivation layer 10 away from the thin film transistor layer TL, wherein material of the electrode layer 6 is metal oxide material (see, e.g., pars. 0061-0062);
wherein oxygen content on a side of the first passivation layer 10 close to the electrode layer 6 is greater than oxygen content on a side of the first passivation layer 10 close to the active layer 4 (see, e.g., pars. 0060, 0069, 0076, 0117).
The recitation that “the first passivation layer is configured to be the oxygen supplement functional layer”, does not distinguish over the cited reference regardless of the function allegedly performed by the claimed device, because only the device per se is relevant, no matter which of the device’s functions is referred to in the claim, and if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended function, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).
According to Section 2114 of the MPEP, "While features of an apparatus may berecited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must bedistinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In reSchreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Theabsence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat theBoard's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issuewere found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d210,212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what adevice does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)".
Regarding Claim 2, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 1. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that:
the first passivation layer 10 is located on a side of the thin film transistor layer TL away from the substrate 1 (see, e.g., par. 0055);
the electrode layer 6 is one of a pixel electrode, a common electrode, or an anode (see, e.g., par. 0056).
Regarding Claim 3, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 2. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that the electrode layer 6 is one of the pixel electrode or the common electrode, the display panel further comprises a second passivation layer 8 on a side of the electrode layer 6 away from the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 (i.e., top layer 5) (see, e.g., pars. 0053, 0056).
Regarding Claim 5, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 1. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that the material of the electrode layer 6 is indium gallium zinc oxide (see, e.g., par. 0062).
Regarding Claim 15, Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4 and Annotated Fig. 4), teaches a mobile terminal, wherein the mobile terminal comprises a terminal body and a display panel including an oxygen supplement functional layer 5 (i.e., top layer 5), the terminal body and the display panel are combined integrally (see, e.g., pars. 0162-0163), the display panel comprises:
a substrate 1 (see, e.g., par. 0041);
a thin film transistor layer TL disposed on the substrate 1, the thin film transistor layer TL comprises a gate electrode 3, a gate insulating layer 2, an active layer 4, and a source-drain electrode layer 7 disposed on the substrate 1, material of the active layer 4 is metal oxide semiconductor (see, e.g., pars. 0042, 0051-0052);
a first passivation layer 10 located on a side of the source-drain electrode layer 7 away from the active layer 4, wherein the first passivation layer 10 is configured to be the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 (i.e., top layer 5) (see, e.g., pars. 0055-0060); and;
an electrode layer 6 located on a side of the first passivation layer 10 away from the thin film transistor layer TL, wherein material of the electrode layer 6 is metal oxide material (see, e.g., pars. 0061-0062);
wherein oxygen content on a side of the first passivation layer 10 close to the electrode layer 6 is greater than oxygen content on a side of the first passivation layer 10 close to the active layer 4 (see, e.g., pars. 0060, 0069, 0076, 0117).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding functional language which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 16, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 15. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that:
the first passivation layer 10 is located on a side of the thin film transistor layer TL away from the substrate 1 (see, e.g., par. 0055);
the electrode layer 6 is one of a pixel electrode, a common electrode, or an anode (see, e.g., par. 0056).
Regarding Claim 17, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 16. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that the electrode layer 6 is one of the pixel electrode or the common electrode, the display panel further comprises a second passivation layer 8 on a side of the electrode layer 6 away from the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 (i.e., top layer 5) (see, e.g., pars. 0053, 0056).
PNG
media_image1.png
180
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 15. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that the material of the electrode layer 6 is indium gallium zinc oxide (see, e.g., par. 0062).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/17/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue:
Xue fails to disclose “wherein the first passivation laver is configured to be the oxygen supplemental functional layer” and “wherein oxygen content on a side of the first passivation layer close to the electrode layer is greater than oxygen content on a side of the first passivation layer close to the active layer”.
The examiner responds:
Xue provides a top oxygen supplement functional layer 10 (5) equivalent to element 31(30) of the instant application and capable of containing and releasing oxygen (see, e.g., par. 0060).
Since electrode 6 is capable of supplying oxygen to layer 10 and it is located on a side of layer 10, thus, the portion of layer 10 under electrode 6 contains more oxygen than the portion away from electrode 6 (see, e.g., pars. 0060, 0069, 0076, 0117).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. 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 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.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights