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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 03/09/2026.
Currently, claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 11-12 and 15 are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 13, 14, 16, and 18 have been considered. Applicant argues that cited prior art Park (US Pub. No. 2021/0036029) does not explicitly teach that insulation layer 130 has contact holes through which source and drain electrodes 330/340 pass. However, Park ¶ [0118] teaches that insulating layer 130 can be on the upper and side surfaces of active layer 350 and also located entirely on buffer layer 120. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if Park’s insulation layer 130 is disposed on upper and side surfaces of active layer 350 as described in ¶ [0118], Park’s insulation layer 130 must have openings for Park’s source electrode 330 and drain electrode 340 (¶ [0106]) to connect to Park’s active layer 130 in order for Park’s transistor to function in a similar manner to the openings in prior art Son’s insulation layer (see US Pub. No. 2021/0066421 Fig. 4, openings in GI1, ¶ [0084]).
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 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0036029) in view of SON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0066421).
Regarding independent claim 1, Park teaches an organic light-emitting display device (Fig. 28) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 28, 110, ¶ [0109]) comprising a first area (Figs. 1 & 28, NDA, ¶ [0072] teaches a non-display area) and a second area (Figs. 1 & 28, DA, ¶ [0072] teaches a display area);
a driving thin-film transistor (Fig. 28, 350, ¶ [0110] teaches a driving transistor DRT that comprises first active layer 350) in the second area, the driving thin-film transistor comprising a first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]); and
at least one switching thin-film transistor (Fig. 28, 450_1, ¶ [0106] teaches a switching transistor SCT that comprises second active layer 450/450_1 (¶¶ [0199] & [0202])) in the second area,
the at least one switching thin-film transistor comprising a first switching thin-film transistor that includes a second oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 450/450_1, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]),
wherein the driving thin-film transistor comprises a first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0110]) below the first oxide semiconductor pattern such that the first light-blocking pattern overlaps the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28),
wherein a vertical distance between the first light-blocking pattern and the first oxide semiconductor pattern is less than a vertical distance between the first light-blocking pattern and the second oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, vertical distance between first light-blocking layer 360 and first active pattern 350 is less than vertical distance between first light-blocking layer 360 and second active pattern 450_1), and
wherein the second oxide semiconductor pattern is positioned on an insulation layer (Fig. 28, 130, ¶ [0118] teaches that insulating layer 130 can be on the upper and side surfaces of 350 and located entirely on 120) that covers the first oxide semiconductor pattern.
However, as it is not pertinent to the particulars of their invention, Park does not explicitly teach the insulation layer having contact holes through which a source electrode and a drain electrode of the driving thin- film transistor pass.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if Park’s insulation layer 130 is disposed on upper and side surfaces of active layer 350 as described in ¶ [0118], Park’s insulation layer 130 must have openings for Park’s source electrode 330 and drain electrode 340 (¶ [0106]) to connect to Park’s active layer 130 in a similar manner to the openings in Son’s insulation layer (see Son Fig. 4, openings in GI1, ¶ [0084]).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Son teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 1, and Park teaches an inorganic film (Fig. 28, 120, ¶ [0112]) between the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0110]) and the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]), the inorganic film comprising silicon nitride (¶ [0112] teaches that buffer layer 120 can include silicon nitride).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Son teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 2, and Park teaches that the inorganic film (Fig. 28, 120, ¶ [0112]) has a shape of an island (Fig. 28, buffer layer 120 has a similar shape to Applicant’s buffer layer) surrounding the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0110]).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Son teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 2, and Park teaches that the inorganic film (Fig. 28, 120, ¶ [0112]) is on an entire surface of the substrate (Fig. 28, 110, ¶ [0109]) such that the inorganic film covers the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0110]).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Son teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 1, and Park teaches at least one insulating layer (Fig. 28, 120, ¶ [0112]) between the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0110]) and the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]); and insulating layers (Fig. 28, 120 + 130, ¶¶ [0112] & [0119] teaches that 130 can be a stack structure that includes multiple insulating layers) between the first light-blocking pattern and the second oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 450_1, ¶ [0131]), wherein a number of the insulating layers between the first light-blocking pattern and the second oxide semiconductor pattern is greater than a number of the at least one insulating layer between the first light-blocking pattern and the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, only buffer layer 120 is in-between first light-blocking layer 360 and first active layer 350. Both buffer layer 120 and at least some of the stacked insulating layers in 130 are in-between first light-blocking layer 360 and second active layer 450_1).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Son teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 1, and Park teaches that the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]) and the second oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 450_1, ¶ [0131]) are on different layers (Fig. 28, ¶ [0121] teaches that 450/450_1 and 350 can be on different layers).
Claims 7-10, 13-14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0036029) in view of SON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0066421) in view of OH et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0005998).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Son teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 1, and Park teaches that the driving thin-film transistor comprises:
a buffer layer (Fig. 28, 120, ¶ [0112]) on the substrate;
a second gate electrode (Fig. 28, 310, ¶ [0118]) overlapping the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]) disposed on the buffer layer, with a second gate insulating layer and a third gate insulating layer (Fig. 28, 130, ¶ [0119] teaches that layer 130 can be a stack structure of inorganic insulating materials. Therefore, layer 130 can include multiple stacked gate insulating materials. A lower stack layer can be considered to be a second gate insulating layer and an upper stack layer can be considered to be a third gate insulating layer) interposed therebetween; and
a second source electrode (Fig. 28, 330, ¶ [0110]) and a second drain electrode (Fig. 28, 340, ¶ [0114]) on the second gate electrode and connected to the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]), and wherein the first switching thin-film transistor comprises:
a third gate electrode (Fig. 28, 410_1, ¶ [0202]) overlapping the second oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 450_1, ¶ [0203]) disposed on the second gate insulating layer, with the third gate insulating layer interposed therebetween (Fig. 28, gate electrode 410_1 is on top of layer 130 and would fulfill this limitation); and
a third source electrode (Fig. 28, 430_1, ¶ [0203]) and a third drain electrode (Fig. 28, 440_1, ¶ [0203]) disposed on the third gate electrode and connected to the second oxide semiconductor pattern.
However, Park does not explicitly teach a lower buffer layer on the substrate; and
an upper buffer layer between the lower buffer layer and the first oxide semiconductor pattern.
However, Oh is a pertinent art that teaches a lower buffer layer (Fig. 10, BF1, ¶ [0226]) on the substrate (Fig. 10, 110, ¶ [0208]); and
an upper buffer layer (Fig. 10, BF2, ¶ [0226]) between the lower buffer layer and the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Park modified by Oh’s buffer layer would be below Park’s first active layer and would fulfill this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park’s buffer layer to have multiple sub layers according to the teaching of Oh (Fig. 10) in order to prevent impurities from diffusing into the semiconductor patterns (Oh ¶ [0225]).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Son modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 7, and Park teaches that a second light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 460_1, ¶ [0202]) below the second oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 450/450_1, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Son modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 7, and Park teaches that the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0110]) is connected to the second source electrode (Fig. 28, 330, ¶ [0110]).
Regarding claim 10, Park modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 8, wherein the second light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 460_1, ¶ [0202]) is connected to the third gate electrode (Fig. 28, 410_1, ¶ [0202]).
Regarding claim 13, Park in view of Son modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 9, and Park teaches that a first parasitic capacitance generated in the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350,¶¶ [0107]-[0108]) is connected in parallel to a second parasitic capacitance generated between the first oxide semiconductor pattern and the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0111]), and is connected in series to a third parasitic capacitance generated between the second gate electrode (Fig. 28, 310, ¶ [0118]) and the first oxide semiconductor pattern (the Examiner notes that the material, arrangement, and connections of Park’s active layer 350, light blocking layer 360, and gate electrode 310 are similar to or the same as that of the structure disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, it would be obvious that the structure of Park Fig. 28 comprises the claimed capacitances. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mpep §2112.01.).
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Son modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 13, and Park teaches that the second parasitic capacitance generated between the first oxide semiconductor pattern (Fig. 28, 350, ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]) and the first light-blocking pattern (Fig. 28, 360, ¶ [0111]) is greater than the third parasitic capacitance generated between the second gate electrode (Fig. 28, 310, ¶ [0118]) and the first oxide semiconductor pattern (the Examiner notes that the material, arrangement, and connections of Park’s active layer 350, light blocking layer 360, and gate electrode 310 are similar to or the same as that of the structure disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, it would be obvious that the structure of Park Fig. 28 comprises the claimed capacitances. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Mpep §2112.01.).
Regarding claim 16, Park in view of Son modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 8, and Park teaches a storage capacitor (Fig. 10, CST, ¶ [0167] teaches that in an alternative embodiment, Park’s display device can further include a storage capacitor CST. It would be obvious to modify the embodiment of Park Fig. 28 to further comprise a storage capacitor in order to maintain data voltage applied to the gate electrode (Park ¶ [0093])) comprising a first storage capacitor electrode (Fig. 10, 710, ¶ [0167]) on a same layer as the second light-blocking pattern (¶ [0168] teaches that each electrode of the storage capacitor can be formed on the same layer as another conductive layer such as the light blocking layer), and a second storage capacitor electrode (Fig. 10, 720, ¶ [0167]) facing the first storage capacitor electrode, with a first interlayer insulating layer (Fig. 10, 160, ¶ [0157]) interposed therebetween.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over PARK et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0036029) in view of SON et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0066421) and further in view of OH et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0005998) and further in view of OHARA et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0256569).
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Son modified by Oh teaches the organic light-emitting display device according to claim 7.
However, Park in view of Son modified by Oh does not explicitly teach that ions in the first oxide semiconductor pattern are less than ions in the second oxide semiconductor pattern.
However, Ohara is a pertinent art that teaches ions in the first oxide semiconductor pattern are less than ions in the second oxide semiconductor pattern (Ohara ¶ [0073] teaches that the dose amount of ions in an oxide semiconductor film affects resistance. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Park modified by Oh’s first oxide semiconductor layer to have less ions than Park modified by Oh’s second oxide semiconductor layer according to the teaching of Ohara (Ohara ¶ [0073]) because the relative resistances of oxide semiconductor layers in switching/driving transistors is an obvious design choice depending on preferred device characteristics).
Allowable subject matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 16), 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “the second storage capacitor electrode is on a same layer as the first light-blocking pattern”.
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights