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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/13/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0157904~ hereinafter “Yun”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses (in at least fig. 6) a display device comprising: a substrate (110); a light transmission pattern (CF1) disposed on the substrate; a capping layer (CPL1) covering the light transmission pattern; light control patterns (MBM) disposed on the capping layer and contacting a side surface of the capping layer (see fig. 6); and protective patterns (CPL2) contacting side surfaces of each of the light control patterns, respectively, and including a metal oxide (see at least [0145]; [0163]; i.e. the second capping layer CPL2 may include a material selected from among the materials listed above as materials of the first capping layer CPL1; silicon nitride, aluminum nitride, zirconium nitride, titanium nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, tin oxide, and silicon oxynitride).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “an etching rate of the protective patterns is lower than an etching rate of the light control patterns in a same etching process” is a product-by-process limitation. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 8, Yun discloses (in at least fig. 6; [0145]) the capping layer (CPL1) includes at least one selected from silicon oxide, silicon nitride, and silicon oxynitride.
Regarding claim 17, Yun discloses (in at least fig. 6) a display device comprising: a substrate (110); a light transmission pattern (CF) disposed on the substrate; light control patterns (MBM) covering a side surface of the light transmission pattern; and protective patterns (CPL1) contacting side surfaces of each of the light control patterns, respectively, wherein the protective patterns (CPL1) includes at least one metal oxide selected from indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium tin zinc oxide (ITZO), indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO), indium zinc gallium oxide (ITGO) and indium tin gallium zinc oxide (ITGZO) ([0145]).
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.
Claim(s) 2-6, 9-10, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US. Pub: 2022/0157904~ hereinafter “Yun”) of record in view of Lee et al. (US. Pub: 2020/0373359 A1~ hereinafter “Lee”) of record.
Regarding claim 2, Yun discloses (in at least fig. 6; [0145]; [0163]) the metal oxide of the protective patterns (CPL2) is a transparent, but is silent about a conductive oxide.
However, it is well-known in the art to form protective patterns metal oxide comprises a transparent conductive oxide as evident by Lee at least fig. 4A paragraph ([0113]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the metal oxide of Yun with the conductive metal oxide of Lee, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses (in at least [0113]) the metal oxide of the protective patterns (SP) is at least one selected from indium tin oxide (ITO), indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium tin zinc oxide (ITZO), indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO), indium zinc gallium oxide (ITGO), and indium tin gallium zinc oxide (ITGZO).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Lee discloses (in at least fig. 4A) a width of each of the protective patterns (SP) is less than a width of each of the light control patterns (MT).
Regarding claim 5, Yun as modified by Lee discloses all the claimed limitations except for the protective patterns have a width in a range of about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms.
However, Yun discloses (in at least fig. 6) the display device comprises a protective pattern (CPL2). Lee further discloses (in at least fig. 4A) protective patterns (SP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the protective patterns of Yun as modified by Lee with a width in a range of about 100 angstroms to about 1000 angstroms through routine experimentation of optimization.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Lee discloses (in at least fig. 4A) the protective patterns (SP) expose an upper surface of the light transmission pattern (CCP).
Regarding claim 9, both Yun and Lee do not expressly disclose the light control patterns include molybdenum-tantalum oxide (MTO).
However, it is well-known in the art to form a light control patterns include molybdenum-tantalum oxide (MTO) as evident by Bae et al. (US. Pub: 2021/0013455 A1~ hereinafter “Bae”) of record at least fig. 5 ([0156]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the molybdenum-tantalum oxide (MTO) of Bae to form the light control patterns of both Yun and Lee, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 10, Bae discloses (in at least fig. 5; [0154]-[01156]) the light control patterns (LCP) have a multi-layer structure of MTO/Mo, MTO/Cu, MTO/AI, MTO/Mo/MTO, MTO/Cu/MTO, or MTO/AI/MTO.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 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.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the light transmission pattern includes: a first light transmission pattern; and a second light transmission pattern disposed adjacent to the first light transmission pattern and having a height greater than a height of the first light transmission pattern, and wherein the capping layer includes: a first capping layer covering the first light transmission pattern; and a second capping layer covering a portion of the second light transmission pattern exposed through the first light transmission pattern. Claims 12-16 are objected due to their dependency upon claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELMITO BREVAL whose telephone number is (571)270-3099. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th~ 7:30-5:30.
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, James R. Greece can be reached at 571-272-3711. 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.
ELMITO BREVAL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875
/ELMITO BREVAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875