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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (20200243566)
PNG
media_image1.png
556
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
406
425
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an method for manufacturing an array substrate (par. 68), comprising:
forming a first electrode (fig. 1a: 11) on a substrate (fig. 1a: 10);
forming at least two insulating layers (fig. 1a: 12) on the first electrode (par. 72 teaches that 12 is two or more layers, 12 being a composite film of the silicon oxide layer and the silicon nitride layer), and
forming at least two communicated vias (fig. 1e: 161, 162 and 163) in the at least two insulating layers by sequentially performing a first etching treatment and a second etching treatment on the at least two insulating layers (par. 65 and 66 teaches patterning processes to form 161, 162 and 163),
wherein a size of a first via, most proximal to the substrate, in the at least two vias is less than sizes of other vias (please see fig. 1e above wherein the size of via 163 is greater than the size of vias 161 and 162); and
forming a connecting electrode (fig. 1f: 17) on the at least two insulating layers, such that the connecting electrode is lapped with the first electrode via the at least two vias (please see fig. 1F which shows this arrangement).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (20200243566)
PNG
media_image3.png
216
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches an array substrate (par. 68), comprising:
a substrate (fig. 1f: 10), and
a first electrode (fig. 1f: 11),
a connecting electrode (fig. 1f: 17), and
at least two insulating layers (fig. 1f: 12) arranged on the substrate,
wherein the first electrode is disposed on a side, proximal to the first electrode, of the at least two insulating layers, and the connecting electrode is disposed on a side, facing away from the substrate, of the at least two insulating layers (please see fig. 1f above which shows this arrangement between elements 10, 11, 12 and 17); and
at least two communicated vias are arranged in the at least two insulating layers, a size of a first via, most proximal to the substrate, in the at least two vias is less than sizes of other vias, and the connecting electrode is lapped with the first electrode via the at least two vias (please see figure above which shows, at least three vias being connected, the via to the left being greater in size than the other two vias).
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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (20200243566), in view of Jun (20060170835).
PNG
media_image3.png
216
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Liu teaches an display panel, comprising:
an array substrate (par. 68),
wherein the array substrate comprises:
a substrate (fig. 1f: 10), and
a first electrode (fig. 1f: 11),
a connecting electrode (fig. 1f: 17), and
at least two insulating layers (fig. 1f: 12) arranged on the substrate,
wherein the first electrode is disposed on a side, proximal to the first electrode, of the at least two insulating layers, and the connecting electrode is disposed on a side, facing away from the substrate, of the at least two insulating layers (please see fig. 1f above which shows this arrangement between elements 10, 11, 12 and 17); and
at least two communicated vias are arranged in the at least two insulating layers, a size of a first via, most proximal to the substrate, in the at least two vias is less than sizes of other vias, and the connecting electrode is lapped with the first electrode via the at least two vias (please see figure above which shows, at least three vias being connected, the via to the left being greater in size than the other two vias).
Liu fails to teach:
a color film substrate arranged oppositely the array substrate
Jun teaches an array substrate with TFT formed on it wherein opposite the array substrate is a color filter substrate (par. 8). Jun goes on to teach the motivation of adding a color filter opposite the array substrate, teaching that the use of this color filter allows the device to emit wavelengths in accordance with the desire of the manufacturer, such as white light (par. 8). Adding such flexibility to the emitting device, taught in Liu, would increase the device’s usability.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Claim 5 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 2.
Claim 8 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 3 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.
Claim 6 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 7 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 12 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.
Claim 13 and 14 are objected to based on its dependency on claim 11.
Claim 15 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 14.
Claim 16 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 15.
Claim 17 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 16.
Claim 20 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.
Claim 21 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 20.
Claim 27 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.
Claim 28 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818