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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 15 October 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 October 2025 have been fully considered and the responses are set forth below.
Regarding the argument that Gai fails to teach or disclose the limitations of previously recited claims 2-3 (Remarks; page 6). This is respectfully not persuasive.
The Applicant appears to state that the “based on the above limitations as a whole” (Remarks; page 6) of “the light blocking layer has a second thickness greater than the first thickness; and wherein the source/drain layer has a third thickness equal to the second thickness” (from previous claims 2-3) achieve the effects of “the light blocking layer can shield the light incident into the peripheral region, thereby preventing light from being further incident into the active region…”.
However, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that supports that the claimed “third thickness” of the source/drain layer that is equal to the “second thickness” of the of the light blocking layer is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed thicknesses). Also, the Applicant has not shown that the claimed thicknesses produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It has been held that is not inventive by change the shape in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, the elected embodiment (species 2, represented by Fig. 6, elected in the response of 02/27/2025) has the S/D layer (250) formed of a different material/step than the light blocking layer (240) and therefore cannot obtain any specific benefit from being deposited at the same thickness from the same material in the same step (as in the first embodiment of Fig. 1, wherein 140 and 150 are of a same material formed in the same deposition step; ¶0065-¶0067).
As cited in the previous Office action (see prior rejections of claims 2-3 and 11-12), Gai teaches these limitations in view of Fig. 1. Examiner provides below a new annotated figure (labeled Gai; annotated Fig. 1-B) for clarity of reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown by the two straight and parallel lines, a thickness (t2) of the light blocking layer (105) is the same as a thickness (t3) of the source/drain layer (106/107).
Thus, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the thickness (t3) equals the thickness (t2) in view of Gai Fig. 1, and the thickness is absent unexpected results because the device of Gai has the same result of blocking light from irradiating the active layer (Gai; ¶0003), thereby improving the performance of the display device. The rejections have been updated accordingly below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 10, and 15-16 are 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 1 and Claim 10, they recite the limitation "the same plane" in lines 16 and 17, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, leaving it unclear as to what “the same plane” is referring to. For at least this reason, claims 6-7 and 15-16 are also rejected based on their dependency from claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 6-7, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuili Gai et al. (US 20160307986 A1; hereinafter Gai) in view of Xiao-Long Yang et al. (CN 112018148 A; hereinafter Yang; translation with paragraph numbers provided with the previous Office action).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
458
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Gai teaches an array substrate (Gai; Fig. 1; Abstract), comprising at least:
a gate insulation layer (103; ¶0026) and an active layer (104; ¶0027) disposed sequentially on a gate layer (102; ¶0025), wherein the gate insulation layer (103) has a central region (Gai annotated Fig. 1; CR) overlapped with the active layer (104) and a peripheral region (Gai annotated Fig. 1; PR) surrounding the central region (CR), the active layer (104) has a first surface (Gai annotated Fig. 1; FS104) away from the gate insulation layer (103), and the gate insulation layer (103) has a third surface (Gai; annotated Fig. 1; TS103) located in the central region (CR) and in contact with the active layer (104); and
a light blocking layer (105; ¶0028) disposed in the peripheral region (PR) and having a second surface (SS105) away from the gate insulation layer (103), wherein a height of the second surface (SS105) relative to the third surface (TS103) is greater than a height of the first surface (FS104) relative to the third surface (TS103) (light blocking layer 105 has a portion that is taller than active layer 104 as shown in annotated Gai Fig. 1); and
a source/drain layer (106/107; ¶0029) disposed on the active layer (104),
wherein the gate insulation layer (103) has a fourth surface (4S103) located in the peripheral region (PR) and in contact with the light blocking layer (105), the third surface (TS103) and the fourth surface (4S103) extend in the same plane (they are in a same x-y plane as shown in Gai annotated Fig. 1), the active layer (104) has a first thickness (Gai annotated Fig. 1-B; t1), and the light blocking layer (105) has a second thickness (Gai annotated Fig. 1-B; t2) greater than the first thickness (as shown in annotated Gai Fig. 1-B; t2 > t1); and
wherein the source/drain layer (106/107; ¶0029) has a third thickness (Gai; annotated Fig. 1-B; t3) equal to the second thickness (as shown in annotated Gai Fig. 1-B; t2 = t3).
Gai does not expressly disclose (in the specification) that t2 = t3. However, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that supports that the claimed “third thickness” of the source/drain layer that is equal to the “second thickness” of the of the light blocking layer is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed thicknesses).
Also, the Applicant has not shown that the claimed thicknesses produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It has been held that is not inventive by change the shape in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the thickness (t3) equal to the thickness (t2) (shown for clarity in view of Gai annotated Fig. 1-B) as shown in view of Gai Fig. 1 (which is part of the disclosure). The claimed limitations relating to these thicknesses are absent unexpected results because the device of Gai, as a whole, has the same result (as the instant application) of blocking light from irradiating the active layer (Gai; ¶0003), thereby improving the performance of the display device.
Gai does not expressly disclose wherein the layer 105 is a light blocking layer, but teaches that 105 and 103 may be made of a same material SiO2 (¶0028 and ¶0026 respectively).
In the same array substrate field of endeavor, Yang teaches an array substrate (Yang; Abstract) that includes an insulating layer (Yang; Fig. 2; 40; ¶0047). Yang teaches in ¶0047 that the insulating layer may be made of SiO2 or SiN, and that SiN is an opaque material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the opaque SiN of Yang for the SiO2 of layers 103 and 105 of Gai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to make this substitution because Yang establishes that they are equivalent materials for use as an insulation layer in an array substrate while SiN provides the benefit of achieving a light blocking effect to prevent light emitted from a subpixel of the device from entering the components below (Yang; ¶0047).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Gai teaches the array substrate of claim 1, wherein a material of the light blocking layer (105 as modified by Yang according to claim 1 is SiN) is the same as a material of the gate insulation layer (103 as modified by Yang according to claim 1 is SiN).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Gai teaches the array substrate of claim 6, wherein the light blocking layer (105) is in contact with the active layer (104) (as shown in Gai Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Gai teaches a display device, comprising an array substrate (Gai; Abstract; the disclosure is a display device and an array substrate) comprising at least:
a gate insulation layer (103; ¶0026) and an active layer (104; ¶0027) disposed sequentially on a gate layer (102; ¶0025), wherein the gate insulation layer (103) has a central region (Gai annotated Fig. 1; CR) overlapped with the active layer (104) and a peripheral region (Gai annotated Fig. 1; PR) surrounding the central region (CR), the active layer (104) has a first surface (Gai annotated Fig. 1; FS104) away from the gate insulation layer (103), and the gate insulation layer (103) has a third surface (Gai; annotated Fig. 1; TS103) located in the central region (CR) and in contact with the active layer (104); and
a light blocking layer (105; ¶0028) disposed in the peripheral region (PR) and having a second surface (SS105) away from the gate insulation layer (103), wherein a height of the second surface (SS105) relative to the third surface (TS103) is greater than a height of the first surface (FS104) relative to the third surface (TS103) (light blocking layer 105 has a portion that is taller than active layer 104 as shown in annotated Gai Fig. 1); and
a source/drain layer (106/107; ¶0029) disposed on the active layer (104),
wherein the gate insulation layer (103) has a fourth surface (4S103) located in the peripheral region (PR) and in contact with the light blocking layer (105), the third surface (TS103) and the fourth surface (4S103) extend in the same plane (they are in a same x-y plane as shown in Gai annotated Fig. 1), the active layer (104) has a first thickness (Gai annotated Fig. 1-B; t1), and the light blocking layer (105) has a second thickness (Gai annotated Fig. 1-B; t2) greater than the first thickness (as shown in annotated Gai Fig. 1-B; t2 > t1); and
wherein the source/drain layer (106/107; ¶0029) has a third thickness (Gai; annotated Fig. 1-B; t3) equal to the second thickness (as shown in annotated Gai Fig. 1-B; t2 = t3).
Gai does not expressly disclose (in the specification) that t2 = t3. However, Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that supports that the claimed “third thickness” of the source/drain layer that is equal to the “second thickness” of the of the light blocking layer is for any particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the specific claimed thicknesses).
Also, the Applicant has not shown that the claimed thicknesses produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. It has been held that is not inventive by change the shape in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the thickness (t3) equal to the thickness (t2) (shown for clarity in view of Gai annotated Fig. 1-B) as shown in view of Gai Fig. 1 (which is part of the disclosure). The claimed limitations relating to these thicknesses are absent unexpected results because the device of Gai, as a whole, has the same result (as the instant application) of blocking light from irradiating the active layer (Gai; ¶0003), thereby improving the performance of the display device.
Gai does not expressly disclose wherein the layer 105 is a light blocking layer, but teaches that 105 and 103 may be made of a same material SiO2 (¶0028 and ¶0026 respectively).
In the same array substrate field of endeavor, Yang teaches an array substrate (Yang; Abstract) that includes an insulating layer (Yang; Fig. 2; 40; ¶0047). Yang teaches in ¶0047 that the insulating layer may be made of SiO2 or SiN, and that SiN is an opaque material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the opaque SiN of Yang for the SiO2 of layers 103 and 105 of Gai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to make this substitution because Yang establishes that they are equivalent materials for use as an insulation layer in an array substrate while SiN provides the benefit of achieving a light blocking effect to prevent light emitted from a subpixel of the device from entering the components below (Yang; ¶0047).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gai teaches the display device of claim 10, wherein a material of the light blocking layer (105 as modified by Yang according to claim 10 is SiN) is the same as a material of the gate insulation layer (103 as modified by Yang according to claim 10 is SiN).
Regarding Claim 16, Gai modified by Yang and Chen teaches the display device of claim 15, wherein the light blocking layer (105) is in contact with the active layer (104) (as shown in Gai Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898