DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/5/2026 has been entered.
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 and 9-18 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, the limitations “a first sub-active pattern…not to overlap the driving active pattern,” and “a driving sub-active pattern…not to overlap the first active pattern,” are unclear as to how the layers can be in the same device and do not overlap in at least one direction.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a thickness of the driving sub-active pattern is greater than a thickness of the driving active pattern,” is unclear in light of the original disclosure. Specifically, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty (see MPEP 2173.03). The original disclosure and claims recite opposite relationships from each other (see original claim 1 and [0111] of published version of applicant’s disclosure) and therefore it is unclear if there is an error in the relationship recited in the original claims, an error in the relationship recited in the original specification, or some other error or inconsistency (e.g. claimed elements being referred to by terms inconsistent with the specification). Accordingly, it is unclear as to what relationship is required. It is noted that, while the original disclosure recites the currently claimed relationship, the inconsistencies therein and the inconsistency with the original claims has introduced irreparable uncertainty as to which relationship is the correct relationship, as there is no means to determine which invention applicants possessed at the time of filing.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the limitation “a thickness of the first sub-active pattern is greater than a thickness of the first active pattern,” is unclear in light of the specification. Specifically, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty (see MPEP 2173.03). The original disclosure and claims recite opposite relationships from each other (see original claim 1 and [0113] of published version of applicant’s disclosure) and therefore it is unclear if there is an error in the relationship recited in the original claims, an error in the relationship recited in the original specification, or some other error or inconsistency (e.g. claimed elements being referred to by terms inconsistent with the specification). Accordingly, it is unclear as to what relationship is required. It is noted that, while the original disclosure recites the currently claimed relationship, the inconsistencies therein and the inconsistency with the original claims has introduced irreparable uncertainty as to which relationship is the correct relationship, as there is no means to determine which invention applicants possessed at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a second material different from the first material…a third material different from the first material and the second material” is unclear as to the proper interpretation and scope of “different.” Specifically, it is noted that each of the materials comprise silicon as a principal component, which would not generally be construed as “different” materials. While it is understood that applicant believes that the addition of hydrogen or the crystallinity makes the one material “different” from the other, it is unclear how little or how much would need to be changed in order to be construed as “different.” For example, it is unclear if even minor amounts of impurity or dopant would constitute “different” materials, or if merely a difference in crystallinity would constitute a “different” material. Accordingly, the proper scope of “different” cannot be ascertained and the claim is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “a first sub-active pattern…not to overlap the driving active pattern,” and “a driving sub-active pattern…not to overlap the first active pattern,” is unclear as to how the layers can be in the same device and do not overlap in at least one direction.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the first sub-active pattern is formed of a second material different from the first material and formed of amorphous silicon and hydrogen atoms bonded thereto,” is unclear as to how the second material is related to the amorphous silicon and hydrogen atoms bonded thereto.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “the driving sub-active pattern is formed of a third material different from the first material and formed of the amorphous silicon,” is unclear as to how the third material is related to the amorphous silicon.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “a thickness of the driving sub-active pattern is greater than a thickness of the second sub-active pattern,” is unclear in light of the specification. Specifically, a claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty (see MPEP 2173.03). The original disclosure and claims recite opposite relationships from each other (see original claim 1 and [0170] of published version of applicant’s disclosure) and therefore it is unclear if there is an error in the relationship recited in the original claims, an error in the relationship recited in the original specification, or some other error or inconsistency (e.g. claimed elements being referred to by terms inconsistent with the specification). Accordingly, it is unclear as to what relationship is required. It is noted that, while the original disclosure recites the currently claimed relationship, the inconsistencies therein and the inconsistency with the original claims has introduced irreparable uncertainty as to which relationship is the correct relationship, as there is no means to determine which invention applicants possessed at the time of filing.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2021/0327362; herein “Park ‘362”) in view of Mizuki et al. (WO 2013065267, using machine translation provided herewith; herein “Mizuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Park ‘362 discloses in Fig. 3-4 and related text a display device comprising:
a substrate (SUB);
a first active layer comprising a driving active pattern of a driving transistor (active layer of DT, see [0134]; see also ACT6 of ST6, [0148], and [0154]) disposed on the substrate and a first active pattern of a first transistor (active layer of ST3, see [0142]; see also ACT6 of ST6, [0148], and [0154]) disposed on the substrate;
a first insulating film (131, see [0159]) disposed on the first active layer and the second active layer;
a driving gate electrode (gate of DT, see [0140]; see also G6 of ST6, [0148], and [0154]) disposed on the first insulating film (and overlapping the driving active pattern); and
a first gate electrode (gate of ST3, see [0142]; see also G6 of ST6, [0148], and [0154]) disposed on the first insulating film and overlapping the first active pattern.
Park ‘362 does not explicitly disclose
a second active layer comprising a driving sub-active pattern disposed on the first active layer to overlap the driving active pattern and not to overlap the first active pattern and a first sub-active pattern disposed on the first active layer to overlap the first active pattern and not to overlap the driving active pattern, wherein the driving sub-active pattern is formed of amorphous silicon and the first sub-active pattern is formed of the amorphous silicon with hydrogen atoms bonded thereto;
a driving gate electrode disposed on the first insulating film and overlapping the driving sub-active pattern; and
wherein a thickness of the driving sub-active pattern is greater than a thickness of the driving active pattern.
In the same field of endeavor, In the same field of endeavor, Mizuki teaches in Fig. 2 and related text a display device with a transistor, the transistor comprising
a first active layer (e.g. 14A, see pg. 3 para. 7)
a second active layer (e.g. 14B and 14C, see pg. 3 para 8 through pg. 4 para. 3), wherein the second active layer is formed of amorphous silicon with hydrogen atoms bonded thereto.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Park ‘362 by having each transistor with a first and second active layer, as taught by Mizuki, in order to achieve transistors with high speed and high electron mobility (see pg. 2 para. 2).
The combined device therefore shows
a second active layer comprising a driving sub-active pattern (Mizuki: at least a portion of 14C as applied to the driving transistor of Park ‘362) disposed on the first active layer to overlap the driving active pattern (Mizuki: 14A as applied to the driving transistor of Park ‘362) and not to overlap the first active pattern (i.e. the driving sub-active pattern is the portion of the second active layer in the driving transistor, and therefore does not overlap the first active pattern which is in the first transistor) and a first sub-active pattern (Mizuki: at least a portion of 14B as applied to the first transistor of Park ‘362) disposed on the first active layer to overlap the first active pattern (Mizuki: 14A as applied to the driving transistor of Park ‘362) and not to overlap the driving active pattern (i.e. the first sub-active pattern is the portion of the second active layer in the first transistor, and therefore does not overlap the driving active pattern which is in the driving transistor), wherein the driving sub-active pattern is formed of amorphous silicon is formed of amorphous silicon (see pg. 3 para 8 through pg. 4 para. 3) and the first sub-active pattern is formed of the amorphous silicon and hydrogen atoms bonded thereto (see pg. 3 para 8 through pg. 4 para. 3);
a driving gate electrode (Mizuki: 12G as applied to the driving transistor of Park ‘362) disposed on the first insulating film and overlapping the driving sub-active pattern (Mizuki: the at least a portion of 14C as applied to the driving transistor of Park ‘362); and
wherein a thickness of the driving sub-active pattern is greater than a thickness of the driving active pattern (Mizuki: in one example interpretation 14A is 10-50nm and 14C is “about” 50nm, therefore in at least some embodiments 14A is greater than 14C; in another example interpretation a portion of 14C can be chosen as the driving “sub-active pattern” such that the thicknesses of the claim are met).
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the thickness of the driving sub-active pattern greater than the thickness of the driving active pattern, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows a thickness of the first active pattern (Mizuki: 14A as applied to the first transistor) is greater than a thickness of the first sub-active pattern (Mizuki: the at least a portion of 14B as applied to the first transistor) (Mizuki: in one example interpretation 14A is 10-50nm and 14B is “about” 50nm, therefore in at least some embodiments 14A is greater than 14B; in another example interpretation a portion of 14B can be chosen as the first “sub-active pattern” such that the thicknesses of the claim are met).
Regarding claim 3, the combined device shows wherein the thickness of the driving sub-active pattern (Mizuki: the at least a portion of 14C as applied to the first transistor) is greater than the thickness of the first sub-active pattern (Mizuki: the at least a portion of 14B as applied to the first transistor) (Mizuki: in one example interpretation 14B is “about” 50nm and 14C is “about” 50nm, therefore in at least some embodiments 14C is greater than 14B; in another example interpretation a portion of 14B can be chosen as the first “sub-active pattern” and a portion of 14C can be chosen as the driving “sub-active pattern” such that the thicknesses of the claim are met).
Regarding claim 4, the combined device shows wherein the thickness of the first sub-active pattern is less than about 20 A (Mizuki: see pg. 3 para 8 through pg. 4 para. 3; note that “about” is undefined and therefore any value on approximately the same scale can read on the value).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device shows wherein the thickness of the driving sub-active pattern is greater than or equal to about 20 A and less than about 100 A (Mizuki: see pg. 3 para 8 through pg. 4 para. 3; note that “about” is undefined and therefore any value on approximately the same scale can read on the value).
Regarding claim 6, the combined device shows wherein the first active layer is formed of polycrystalline silicon (Mizuki: 14A, see pg. 3 para. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Park ‘362 discloses in Fig. 3-4 and related text a display device comprising:
a write scan line (GWL, see [0112]) from which a write scan signal is applied; and
a sub-pixel (PX, see [0110]) connected to the write scan line,
wherein the sub-pixel comprises
a light-emitting element (LEL, see [0137]);
a driving transistor (DT, see [0134]) which provides a driving current flowing to the light- emitting element in response to a voltage of a gate electrode (see [0142]); and
a first transistor (ST3, see [0142]) which controls a connection between the gate electrode and a first electrode of the driving transistor (see [0142]) in response to the write scan signal from the write scan line.
In the same field of endeavor, Park ‘362 and Mizuki teach the remaining limitations in substantially the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claims 1 and 2 above.
Note that it is the Examiner' s position that the limitations of “which provides a driving current flowing to the light- emitting element in response to a voltage of a gate electrode,” and “which controls a connection between the gate electrode and a first electrode of the driving transistor in response to the write scan signal from the write scan line,” are functional limitations of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, the limitation of “from which a write scan signal is applied,” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the combined device has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 12, the combined device shows the remaining limitations in substantially the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, the combined device shows the remaining limitations in substantially the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, the combined device shows
an initialization scan line (Park ‘362: GIL, see [0089]) from which an initialization scan signal is applied; and
a second transistor (Park ‘362: ST1, see [0140]) which controls a connection between the gate electrode of the driving transistor and an initialization voltage line (VIL, see [0140]) from which an initialization voltage is applied in response to the initialization scan signal of the initialization scan line,
wherein the second transistor (Park ‘362: ST1 when modified by Mizuki to have the structure of the transistor shown by Mizuki) comprises a second active pattern (Mizuki: 14A as applied to the second transistor) comprising the first material and a second sub-active pattern (Mizuki: 14B as applied to the second transistor) disposed on the second active pattern and comprising the second material.
Note that it is the Examiner' s position that the limitation of “which controls a connection between the gate electrode of the driving transistor and an initialization voltage line from which an initialization voltage is applied in response to the initialization scan signal of the initialization scan line,” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, the limitations of “from which an initialization scan signal is applied,” and “from which an initialization voltage is applied” are directed to a method of using the device and that because the combined device has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 15, the combined device shows wherein the thickness of the driving sub-active pattern (Mizuki: the at least a portion of 14C as applied to the first transistor) is greater than the thickness of the second sub-active pattern (Mizuki: the at least a portion of 14B as applied to the second transistor) (Mizuki: in one example interpretation 14B is “about” 50nm and 14C is “about” 50nm, therefore in at least some embodiments 14C is greater than 14B; in another example interpretation a portion of 14B can be chosen as the second “sub-active pattern” and a portion of 14C can be chosen as the driving “sub-active pattern” such that the thicknesses of the claim are met).
Regarding claim 16, the combined device shows wherein the thickness of the second sub-active pattern is less than about 20 A (Mizuki: see pg. 3 para 8 through pg. 4 para. 3; note that “about” is undefined and therefore any value on approximately the same scale can read on the value).
Regarding claim 17, the combined device shows
a data line (Park ‘362: Dj, see [0141]) from which a data voltage is applied; and
a third transistor (ST2, see [0141]) which controls a connection between the data line and a second electrode of the driving transistor in response to the write scan signal of the write scan line,
wherein the third transistor (Park ‘362: ST2 when modified by Mizuki to have the structure of the transistor shown by Mizuki) comprises a third active pattern (Mizuki: 14A as applied to the second transistor) comprising the first material and an insulating film disposed on the third active pattern, and
wherein the third active pattern (Park ‘362: 131, see [0159]) is in contact with the insulating film.
Note that it is the Examiner' s position that the limitation of “which controls a connection between the data line and a second electrode of the driving transistor in response to the write scan signal of the write scan line” is a functional limitations of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, the limitation of “from which a data voltage is applied” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the combined device has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park ‘362 in view of Mizuki, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kuramasu et al. (US 6506669; herein “Kuramasu”).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Park ’362 does not explicitly disclose
wherein the driving sub-active pattern comprises first protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof,
the first sub-active pattern comprises second protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof, and
wherein a height of the second protrusions with respect to the upper surface of the first sub-active pattern is smaller than a height of the first protrusion with respect to the upper surface of the driving sub-active pattern;
wherein the first active pattern comprises third protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof, and
the height of the second protrusion with respect to the upper surface of the first sub-active pattern is smaller than a height of the third protrusions with respect to the upper surface of the first active pattern.
In the same filed of endeavor, Kuramasu teaches in Fig. 9 and related text a polysilicon active layer (2, see col. 12, line 61) wherein the polysilicon active layer comprises protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof and layers above being conformal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Park ‘362 by having the polysilicon active layer comprises protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof and the layer above being conformal, as taught by Kuramasu, in order to provide a polysilicon layer with increased mobility. The limitation “wherein the first active pattern comprises third protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof,” is therefore taught by the first active pattern being a polysilicon layer as shown by Mizuki in combination with the polysilicon layer in having protrusions as shown by Kuramasu. The limitations “wherein the driving sub-active pattern comprises first protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof, the first sub-active pattern comprises second protrusions protruding from an upper surface thereof” are therefore taught by the driving active pattern and the first active pattern having protrusions, and the driving sub-active pattern and the first sub-active pattern being a layer formed over the protrusion, as shown by Mizuki, and the layers above being conformal as shown by Kuramasu.
Further, note that the limitations “wherein a height of the second protrusions…is smaller than a height of the first protrusion” and “the height of the second protrusion…is smaller than a height of the third protrusions” are taught, in one example interpretation, by the fact that a height can be taken at any point along the protrusions, and therefore can be chosen such that the claimed limitation is met. Alternatively, note that it would have been obvious to have the relative heights as claimed for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. smaller, larger, or equal to), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park ‘362 in view of Mizuki, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0367122; herein “Park ‘122”).
Regarding claim 18, Park ‘362 further discloses a data line (Dj, see [0141]) from which a data voltage is applied but does not explicitly disclose
a timing controller which controls drivers in a way such that the write scan signal and the data voltage are supplied at a frame frequency of 60 Hz or higher in a first driving mode, and the write scan signal and the data voltage are supplied at a frame frequency of less than 60 Hz in a second driving mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Park ‘122 teaches in Fig. 1 and related text a display device comprising a
a timing controller (TC, see [0044]) which controls drivers in a way such that the write scan signal and the data voltage are supplied at a frame frequency of 60 Hz or higher in a first driving mode, and the write scan signal and the data voltage are supplied at a frame frequency of less than 60 Hz in a second driving mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Park ‘362 by having a timing controller which controls drivers, as taught by Park ‘122, in order to allow for improved control over the display device.
Note that it is the Examiner' s position that the limitation of “which controls drivers” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01. Additionally, the limitation of “which controls drivers in a way such that the write scan signal and the data voltage are supplied at a frame frequency of 60 Hz or higher in a first driving mode, and the write scan signal and the data voltage are supplied at a frame frequency of less than 60 Hz in a second driving mode” is directed to a method of using the device and that because the combined device has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of being operated in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114.II and 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 10) that the rejections under 112b regarding the thicknesses have been overcome because they specification has been amended.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted that, with the exception of the relationship between TH1 and TH2 disclosed in Fig. 5B and related text, each of the relative thicknesses were presented in the original disclosure in a manner which provided contradictory relationships, with the specification and the claims reciting opposite relationships. There is not clarity of record regarding which relationship is the correct relationship of the invention possessed by applicants at the time of filing. Claims, although clear on their face, may be indefinite due to the conflict and inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty (see MPEP 2173.03). The original disclosure and claims recite opposite relationships from each other (see original claim 1 and [0111] of published version of applicant’s disclosure) and therefore it is unclear if there is an error in the relationship recited in the original claims, an error in the relationship recited in the original specification, or some other error or inconsistency (e.g. claimed elements being referred to by terms inconsistent with the specification). Applicant cannot alleviate this conflict by simply choosing one relationship and amending the other to match, as there is no evidence to suggest which instance of the recited relationship is correct. It is additionally noted that none of the relative thicknesses, with the exception of the relationship between TH1 and TH2 disclosed in Fig. 5B and related text, appears to be related to any feature significant to the invention. Other than a mere recitation of the relationship, there is no further discussion of the relationship or the impact thereof and no discussion or evidence of criticality or unexpected results related to the relationship. As such, it is recommended that applicant cancel all the claimed recitations of relative thickness except that which claims the relationship between TH1 and TH2 as in Fig. 5B and related text.
Applicant argues (page 12-13) that Park and Mizuki do not teach or suggest the claimed invention because Mizuki does not disclose “a second active layer comprising a driving sub-active pattern disposed on the first active layer to overlap the driving active pattern and not to overlap the first active pattern and a first sub-active pattern disposed on the first active layer to overlap the first active pattern, and not to overlap the driving active pattern, wherein the driving sub-active pattern is formed of amorphous silicon, and the first sub-active pattern is formed of the amorphous silicon and hydrogen atoms bonded thereto,” because Mizuki “merely discloses a vertical stack of semiconductor layers (e.g., layers 14B and 14C) formed on a primary active layer (14A) within a single transistor structure to achieve high electron mobility,” and “does not disclose that the driving sub-active pattern and the first sub-active pattern are laterally differentiated such that the driving sub-active pattern does not overlap the first active pattern and the first sub-active pattern does not overlap the driving active pattern, as claimed.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, it is noted one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Mizuki alone is not relied upon to teach the plural transistors. Rather, the layered structure of Mizuki, when applied to the plurality of transistors of Park, teaches the claimed invention as outlined in the rejection above.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights