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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 11 is newly amended to require “the buffer layer, the gate insulating layer and the third conductive layer each include protrusions corresponding to the convex portions of the first capacitor electrode and a depression corresponding to the concave portion of the first capacitor electrode, wherein the depression of the gate insulating layer corresponding to the concave portion extends to a lower height from the first conductive layer than an uppermost surface of the convex portions.” The feature is not shown in elected Species X (A2 region of Fig. 2 or 16), but is shown in unelected Species Y (A2 region of Fig. 22).
Accordingly, claims 11-13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the depression of the second capacitor electrode corresponding to the concave portion extends to a lower height from the first conductive layer than an uppermost surface of the convex portions,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, it is noted that drawings are not to scale. The height of the depression would depend on the thickness of layers 122 and BF, and since the drawings cannot be taken as showing the layer thickness to scale, the relative height of C2 and 122 cannot be ascertained.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies 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, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20030030714, using machine translation previously provided; herein “Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses in Fig. 8 and related text display device comprising:
a first capacitor electrode (32 of S, see pg. 5 para. 6) disposed on a substrate (31) to include a first conductive layer (35a, see pg. 9 last para.) and a patterned second conductive layer (35b) disposed on the first conductive layer;
a buffer layer (42) disposed on the first capacitor electrode;
a second capacitor electrode (54 of S, see para. 9 last para.) disposed on the buffer layer;
a driving transistor (TFT including gate 36, see pg. 5 para. 7) disposed on the substrate; and
a storage capacitor (S) disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the driving transistor, wherein
the first capacitor electrode includes a concave portion in which the second conductive layer is removed and convex portions including the first and second conductive layers, the convex portions are separated from each other with the first conductive layer of the concave portion extending between the convex portions (see Fig. 8),
the buffer layer and the second capacitor electrode each include protrusions corresponding to the convex portions of the first capacitor electrode and a depression corresponding to the concave portion of the first capacitor electrode (see Fig. 8), and
the first capacitor electrode and the second capacitor electrode form two electrodes of the storage capacitor.
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the depression of the second capacitor electrode corresponding to the concave portion extends to a lower height from the first conductive layer than an uppermost surface of the convex portions, but does further teach that protrusions result in increased area of the capacitor electrodes, which in turn improves function of the capacitor by increasing the capacitance (see pg. 6-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to increase the size and/or shape of the protrusions in order to increase the area and capacitance of the capacitor. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see MPEP 2144.04.
Additionally, note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the height of the protrusions and/or the thicknesses of the layers to be result effective variables affecting the area and capacitance of the capacitor. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kim to have the heights and/or thicknesses within a range resulting in the claimed relative heights in order to improve the capacitance, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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, Kim further discloses the driving transistor includes:
a semiconductor (44, see pg. 5 para. 7) disposed on the buffer layer to include a channel region, a first region, and a second region;
a gate electrode (36) that overlaps the channel region in a plan view;
a first electrode (38) electrically connected to the first region of the semiconductor; and
a second electrode (40) electrically connected to the second region of the semiconductor.
Regarding claim 7, Kim further discloses wherein the second capacitor electrode (54) and the semiconductor (44) of the driving transistor are on a same layer (e.g. on 42).
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 20230411409; herein “Yun”) in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses in Fig. 9 and related text a display device comprising:
a first capacitor electrode (PLT3, see [0172]) disposed on a substrate to include a first conductive layer (PLT3a) and a patterned second conductive layer (PLT3b) disposed on the first conductive layer;
a buffer layer (BUF2) disposed on the first capacitor electrode;
a second capacitor electrode (PLT1, see [0171]) disposed on the buffer layer;
a driving transistor (transistor of area 810, see [0190]) disposed on the substrate; and
a storage capacitor (capacitor of area 820, see [0190]) disposed on the substrate and electrically connected to the driving transistor (see e.g. Figs. 2-4), wherein
the first capacitor electrode and the second capacitor electrode form two electrodes of the storage capacitor (see [0171]-[0172]).
Yun does not explicitly disclose
the first capacitor electrode includes a concave portion in which the second conductive layer is removed and convex portions including the first and second conductive layers, the convex portions are separated from each other with the first conductive layer of the concave portion extending between the convex portions,
the buffer layer and the second capacitor electrode each include protrusions corresponding to the convex portions of the first capacitor electrode and a depression corresponding to the concave portion of the first capacitor electrode, wherein the depression of the second capacitor electrode corresponding to the concave portion extends to a lower height from the first conductive layer than an uppermost surface of the convex portions.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches in Fig. 8 and related text a display device comprising
the first capacitor electrode (32 of S, see pg. 5 para. 6) includes a concave portion in which the second conductive layer (35b, see pg. 9 last para.) is removed and convex portions including the first (35a, see pg. 9 last para.) and second conductive layers, the convex portions are separated from each other with the first conductive layer of the concave portion extending between the convex portions (see Fig. 8),
the buffer layer (42) and the second capacitor electrode (54 of S, see para. 9 last para.) each include protrusions corresponding to the convex portions of the first capacitor electrode and a depression corresponding to the concave portion of the first capacitor electrode (see Fig. 8).
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 Yun by having the first capacitor electrode includes a concave portion in which the second conductive layer is removed and convex portions including the first and second conductive layers, the convex portions are separated from each other with the first conductive layer of the concave portion extending between the convex portions, and the buffer layer and the second capacitor electrode each include protrusions and a depression corresponding to the concave portion and the convex portions of the first capacitor electrode, as taught by Kim, in order to increase surface area of the capacitor, increase capacity, and improve aperture ratio (see Kim pg. 6 para. 2 and pg. 7 para. 2).
Kim does not explicitly teach the depression of the second capacitor electrode corresponding to the concave portion extends to a lower height from the first conductive layer than an uppermost surface of the convex portions, but does further teach that protrusions result in increased area of the capacitor electrodes, which in turn improves function of the capacitor by increasing the capacitance (see pg. 6-7). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to increase the size and/or shape of the protrusions in order to increase the area and capacitance of the capacitor. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); see MPEP 2144.04.
Additionally, note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the height of the protrusions and/or the thicknesses of the layers to be result effective variables affecting the area and capacitance of the capacitor. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yun and Kim to have the heights and/or thicknesses within a range resulting in the claimed relative heights in order to improve the capacitance, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 3, Yun further discloses wherein the second conductive layer is thicker than the first conductive layer (see Fig. 9).
Additionally, 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 Yun by having the second conductive layer is thicker than the first conductive layer for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (i.e. greater than, less than, or equal to), with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Regarding claim 4, Yun further discloses wherein a thickness of the second conductive layer is equal to or greater than about 5000 Å (note that “about” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness to be a result effective variable affecting shielding properties and electrical characteristics. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Yun to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance between characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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 5, Yun further discloses wherein the first conductive layer (PLT3a) includes titanium or a transparent conductive oxide (see [0175] and [0151]).
Regarding claim 6, Yun further discloses wherein the second conductive layer (PLT3b) includes copper or aluminum (see [0175] and [0151]).
Regarding claim 8, Yun further discloses
a light blocking layer (LS, see [0125]) disposed on the substrate and spaced apart from the first capacitor electrode (PLT3), wherein
the light blocking layer is connected to the first electrode of the driving transistor (see Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/206 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. In particular it is noted that additional analysis of the Kim reference is provided in the rejection above to teach the newly added limitations.
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