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 .
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 defines “a thickness direction” is indefinite as it is not clear or shown or described in the specification which direction it is. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 defines in the preamble “a display device” but in the body of the claim there is no mention about display element or layer. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-16 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 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 1-5, 10-11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Patent 9070777 B2).
Regarding claim 1: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 about a display device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate 110;
a gate line 124 on the substrate;
an inorganic film 154 (no specific material is claimed) on the substrate and covering the gate line; and
a sloped film 180 on the inorganic film 154 and covering a side surface of the inorganic film overlapping the gate line in a width direction of the gate line (As marked);
wherein an end of the sloped film extends along the side surface of the inorganic film when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate (as marked).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1-5, 9-11, 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al (CN 113728429 A).
Regarding claim 1: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 about a display device comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
530
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a substrate 1000;
a gate line 11211 on the substrate;
an inorganic film 302 (page 9 teaches silicon oxide, silicon nitride etc.) on the substrate and covering the gate line; and
a sloped film 301 on the inorganic film 302 and covering a side surface of the inorganic film overlapping the gate line in a width direction of the gate line (As shown);
wherein an end of the sloped film extends along the side surface of the inorganic film when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate (as marked).
Zhang does not explicitly talk about wherein an end of the sloped film extends along the side surface of the inorganic film when viewed in a thickness direction of the substrate.
PNG
media_image3.png
701
973
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However considering the thickness direction as into the page, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to realize that the side surface of IOL extends inside the thickness direction and the end of 301 is also extends along the side surface of the inorganic film inside the thickness direction over the side surface of the IOL layer 302.
Regarding claim 2: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 wherein the sloped film 301 has a tapered shape.
Regarding claim 3: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 wherein an angle between a side surface of the sloped film and the substrate is less than an angle between a side surface of the gate line and the substrate (as marked).
Regarding claim 4: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 wherein the gate line 11211, the inorganic film 302, and the sloped film 301 overlap each other in the width direction of the gate line.
Regarding claim 5: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 wherein a thickness of the sloped film decreases as being away from the gate line in the width direction of the gate line.
Regarding claim 9: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 wherein an angle (close to 90 degree as marked) between a side surface of the gate line and the substrate is in a range of about 80 degrees to about 90 degrees.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10: Zhang teaches in page 6 and Fig. 6 further comprising: a data line 400 on the sloped film 301.
Regarding claim 11: Zhang teaches in page 6 and Fig. 3 wherein the data line crosses the gate line.
Regarding claim 16: Zhang teaches in Fig. 7 wherein the sloped film further overlaps an upper surface of the gate line.
Claim 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al (CN 113728429 A) in view of Choi et al. (JP 2009252739 A)
Regarding claim 6: Zhang teaches in page 9 wherein the sloped film includes an organic
material and an inorganic material (silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride and other insulating material).
Zhang does not explicitly talk about wherein the sloped film includes an organic
Material.
Choi teaches in page 5 about any organic / inorganic composite polymer material containing Si that is usually used as an interlayer insulating material between electrode wirings can be used.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material as claimed according to the teaching’s of Choi in Zhang’s device to have superior in permeability resistance of the moisture and the oxygen but also has high resistance against diffusion of other chemical species (Choi, abstract), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7: Zhang teaches in page 9 wherein the sloped film includes SiO2.
Regarding claim 8: Choi teaches in page 5 wherein the sloped film further includes siloxane or polyimide.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang et al (CN 113728429 A) in view of Kim et al. (US Patent 9070777 B2)
Regarding claim 12: Zhang teaches 3 and pages 2, 8 wherein the gate line includes titanium and aluminum except copper.
Kim teaches in col.8, lines 25-45 wherein the gate line includes copper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed to have the material as claimed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13: Kim teaches in col.8, lines 25-45 wherein the gate line includes: a metal layer including copper; a first alloy layer on the metal layer; and a second alloy layer below the metal layer (any alloys thereof and a multilayer structure including at least two conductive layers having different physical properties).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant was filed to modify Zhang’s gate line according to the teachings of Kim’s to have multilayered alloyed gate line to reduce resistance and better conductivity.
Regarding claim 14: Kim teaches in col.8, lines 25-45 wherein each of the first alloy layer and the second alloy layer includes titanium (Kim teaches gate line can be made of titanium with multilayer structure).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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 limitation allowable is “wherein each of the first alloy layer and the second alloy layer further includes zinc, and
a content of zinc included in each of the first alloy layer and the second alloy layer is in a range of about 40 at% to about 70 at%” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights