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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are currently being examined. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn per the 1/30/2025 restriction election. No claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitations. As Examiner has not had a previous opportunity to examine these amendments, there is no position for Applicant to have previously addressed and therefore no position taken previously to defend. The applicability of the reference(s) to the amended elements is discussed in the claim rejections above for Applicants to now respond to.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, l.
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 1-3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2011/0147757 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, in Fig. 2 Kim teaches a display device (substrate of a display device, 100, [0031]), comprising:
a first light blocking layer (112, [0045]) disposed on a substrate (100, [0032]);
a second light blocking layer (114, [0045]) disposed on the substrate (100) and spaced apart from the first light blocking layer in a first direction [Kim states that gate electrode 114 can comprise the same material as the first light blocking layer 112 [0046], which would have the same light blocking properties, making the gate electrode a second light blocking layer];
an active layer (semiconductor layer, 130, [0032]) comprising:
a first area (see annotated Fig. 2) disposed on the first light blocking layer (112);
a second area (see annotated Fig. 2) disposed on the substrate (100) between the first light blocking layer (112) and the second light blocking layer (114); and
a third area (see annotated Fig. 2) disposed between the first area and the second area;
a gate electrode (150, [0039]) disposed on the active layer (130) and overlapping at least a portion of the first area (see annotated Fig. 2);
a first electrode (source electrode, 152, [0041]) disposed on the gate electrode and including at least a portion overlapping the first light blocking layer; and
a second electrode (drain electrode and fourth electrode, 154/180, [0041] and [0049]) disposed on the gate electrode and including [Kim teaches the fourth electrode being integrally formed with the drain electrode, and possibly including the same materials as said gate electrode [0051]. This effectively makes 154/180 one long cohesive electrode]:
at least a portion overlapping the second light blocking layer (see annotated Fig. 2); and
at least another portion overlapping the third area of the active layer (see annotated Fig. 2),
wherein no part of the second area overlaps the second light blocking layer in a plan view (see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
752
1160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 2 of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the active layer (130) including a step overlapping a boundary of the first light blocking layer (112) in the third area (see annotated Fig. 2). The boundary of the step is not clearly defined, so one could arbitrarily bound the step boundaries to overlap the first light blocking layer.
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 2 of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the third area (see annotated Fig. 2) is disposed only between (is integral with) the first area (see annotated Fig. 2) and the second area (see annotated Fig. 2) in a plan view (from above), and
the first electrode (source electrode, 152, [0041]) and the second electrode (drain electrode and fourth electrode, 154/180, [0041] and [0049]) are formed from a same layer.
Note that in lieu of a top view of the display in Kim, the third area is not branching off to another component or device. As the third area is between the first and second areas in Fig. 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the third area is between the first and second areas in the plan view as well.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Seo et al. (US 2020/0194520 A1, hereafter Seo).
Regarding claim 5, Kim anticipates claim 1. Kim does not teach the active layer comprises an oxide semiconductor. However, Seo discloses a similar display device using a thin film transistor as Kim does ([0005] of Kim).
Seo teaches a display device using a thin film transistor as the active layer (122, [0102]). Seo further teaches the semiconductor layer being formed of an oxide semiconductor material [0102]. Both active layers perform the same function, so replacing the semiconductor of Kim with the one of Seo would yield the expected result of a still functioning active layer in the display device. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kim with the limitations taught in Seo to get the invention as claimed in the present application.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Seo as applied to claim 5 above, in further view of Okumoto et al. (US 2013/0328035 A1, hereafter Okumoto).
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Seo do not disclose the oxide semiconductor comprising indium gallium zinc oxide. Both Kim and Seo disclose a thin film transistor, with Seo specifying the utilization of an oxide semiconductor. As Seo does not disclose a specific type of oxide semiconductor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated and well-known oxide semiconductor.
Okumoto is cited to show that it was very well known in the art that indium gallium zinc oxide is a commonly used oxide semiconductor [0256]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention as disclosed by both Kim and Seo with the teaching of Okumoto to get a display device with an indium gallium oxide semiconductor, as in the present application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 is allowed primarily because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the following limitations, in combination as recited in independent claim 4: An active layer comprising a third area disposed between the first area and the second area, a second electrode including at least another portion overlapping the third area of the active layer, and the second electrode contacts the second light blocking layer through a third through hole that exposes an upper surface of the second light blocking layer. The closest prior art of record Kim and Seo teach similar display devices, but fail to disclose a continuous electrode as described or a reason to do so.
Claims 7-8 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:
Claim 7 is marked as having allowable subject matter because the prior art of record cannot anticipate or render obvious the following limitations, in combination as recited in dependent claim 7: the first light blocking layer comprises a protruding portion protruding farther in the first direction than other portions of the first light blocking layer, and the second light blocking layer comprises an indented portion recessed in the first direction as compared to other portions of the second light blocking layer, and the indented portion corresponds to the protruding portion in a plan view. The closest prior art of record Kim teaches a similar display device, but fails to disclose the first and second light blocking areas as described or a reason to do so. Claim 18 is objected by virtue of being dependent from objected claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMMANTHA K SALAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2484. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/SAMMANTHA K SALAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892