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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 are pending in the application and are currently being examined. Claims 1, 3, and 7 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 9-15 and 17-20 have been withdrawn per the 1/30/2025 restriction election. New claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument on page 13 of “Remarks” stating that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest “the second area defines an end of the active laver between the first light blocking laver and the second light blocking layer, such that no part of the active laver overlaps the second light blocking layer in a plan view,” in the emended claim 1, Examiner respectfully disagrees after further consideration of the previously referenced prior art.
While this is a new limitation not previously taken into consideration, the prior art Kim (US 2011/0147757 A1) teaches element 132b and 135 may be non-continuous in [0036], meaning element 135 is not a part of the active layer. This would allow for the active level to end of the active layer to lie between the first light blocking layer and the second light blocking layer, meaning no part of the active layer overlaps the second light blocking layer in a plan view.
As the other prior art rejections depend upon and reiterate the argument for independent claim 1, please see the argument above.
Regarding the objection to the title of the specification, Examiner believes the amendment is sufficient and the related objection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) of claim 3, the amendment is sufficient and the related rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the request for rejoinder, as claim 1 is not allowable, dependent claims 9 and 10 will remain withdrawn at this time.
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 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 the second area defines an end of the active layer (130) between the first light blocking layer (112) and the second light blocking layer (114) [Kim teaches that semiconductor layers 130 and 135 may not be continuous, meaning they have a cut between them, see annotated Fig. 2], such that no part of the active layer (130) 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.
Claim 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Cheng (US 2021/0408056 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Fig. 2 of Kim teaches the display device of claim 1, further comprising an insulating layer (141, [0041]) disposed between the gate electrode (150, [0039]) and the first electrode (source electrode, 152, [0041]), overlapping the gate electrode (150) and the active layer (semiconductor layer, 130, [0032]), and comprising a through hole (see annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
752
1160
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim fails to teach the through hole exposes an upper surface of the second area, wherein the second electrode contacts the second area through the through hole. However Cheng teaches a similar display device in which the pixel electrode (PE, [0050] of Cheng, which would be 170, [0043] of Kim) makes electrical contact to the drain electrode (D, [0046] of Cheng, equivalent to 132b, [0034] of Kim) at different points in Figs. 6 and 10 (reproduced below for ease of viewing). The pixel electrode (PE) is still in electrical contact with the drain electrode (D), meaning the point of contact does not affect the operation of the device. The different physical points of contact between the pixel electrode (PE) and the drain electrode (D) then would be obvious variants of one another. As the pixel electrode of Kim (170) makes its electrical connection to the drain electrode through the second electrode (154/180, [0041] and [0049]), one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the point of contact from the second electrode (154/180) to the drain electrode (132b) would be the one positionally changed. 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 through hole and contact point position of second electrode (154/180) such that the point of contact with the drain electrode 132b is in the second area as a matter of design choice.
PNG
media_image3.png
452
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 8 is objected to for being dependent from objected claim 7.
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 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
/ERIC W JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights