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 .
Acknowledgment
The amendment filed on 12/26/2025 responding to the Office action mailed on 10/15/2025, 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 Claims 4, 7-14, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, 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 or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 15-17, and 19 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 described in 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite that “an orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate”. However, there is not written description in the specification as originally filed for this limitation in the claims. At paragraph [0040] the specification simply recites that the gate electrode 21 is disposed corresponding to the active segment 231. Being disposed corresponding to the active segment does not mean that an orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate. There is not a positive recitation in the specification as originally filed for the claimed limitation.
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);
the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 located on a side of the source-drain electrode layer 7 away from the active layer 4 (see, e.g., par. 0060);
an electrode layer 6 located on a side of the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 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 the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 is located between the gate insulating layer 2 and the electrode layer 6, and oxygen content on a side of the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 close to the electrode layer 6 is greater than oxygen content on a side of the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 close to the active layer 4 (see, e.g., pars. 0060, 0069, 0076, 0117).
Xue does not show that an orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the size of the gate electrode and/or the active layer in Xue’s device. The specific claimed orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falling within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the size of the gate electrode and/or the active layer in Xue’s device, as the courts have held that changes in size without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular size is nothing more than one among numerous sizes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of having the claimed orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falling within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the size of the gate electrode and/or the size of the active layer and meet the claimed limitation of having an orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falling within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate in the Xue’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of having an orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falling within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen size or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen size is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 2, Xue teaches all aspects of claim 1. Xue (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4), teaches that:
the display panel comprises a first passivation layer 10 on a side of the thin film transistor layer away from the substrate 1, the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 comprises the first passivation layer 10 (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 (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);
the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 located on a side of the source-drain electrode layer 7 away from the active layer 4 (see, e.g., par. 0060);
an electrode layer 6 located on a side of the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 away from the thin film transistor layer TL, material of the electrode layer 6 is metal oxide material (see, e.g., pars. 0061-0062);
wherein the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 is located between the gate insulating layer 2 and the electrode layer 6, and oxygen content on a side of the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 close to the electrode layer 6 is greater than oxygen content on a side of the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 close to the active layer 4 (see, e.g., pars. 0060, 0069, 0076, 0117).
Xue does not show that an orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falls within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the size of the gate electrode and/or the active layer in Xue’s device. The specific claimed orthographic projection of the gate electrode on the substrate falling within an orthographic projection of the active layer on the substrate, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the size of the gate electrode and/or the active layer in Xue’s device, as the courts have held that changes in size without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular size is nothing more than one among numerous sizes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
See also the comments stated above in claim 1 regarding criticality 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 display panel comprises a first passivation layer 10 on a side of the thin film transistor layer away from the substrate 1, the oxygen supplement functional layer 5 comprises the first passivation layer 10 (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 (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 12/26/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 15 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 reply is 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 shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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