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 § 102
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, 3, 5-8, & 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arao (US 20110210333).
Regarding claim 1, Arao discloses that an electronic device, comprising:
a substrate 100;
a driving component 201-203 arranged on the substrate, wherein the driving component includes a first electrode 124 and a first optical adjustment unit 126 & 128, the first optical adjustment unit is arranged on the first electrode 124, and the first optical adjustment unit has a first opening 131 to expose a surface of the first electrode 126 (Fig. 6); and
an electronic component 230 arranged on the driving component, wherein the electronic component includes a second electrode 131 electrically connected to the first electrode 124 of the driving component through the first opening of the first optical adjustment unit (Fig. 6, note: a capacitor);
wherein the first optical adjustment unit includes a metal layer 128 and an insulation layer 126, the insulation layer 126 is arranged between the first electrode 124 and the metal layer 128, and an upper surface of the insulation layer 126 is fully covered by the metal layer 128 (Fig. 6).
Reclaim 3, Arao discloses that the insulation layer covers a first sidewall of the first electrode (Fig. 7).
Reclaim 5, Arao discloses that a thickness ratio of the insulation layer to the metal layer is between 2 and 100 (para. 0077).
Reclaim 6. (Original) The electronic device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the thickness ratio of the insulation layer to the metal layer is between 3 and 50 (para. 0077-0078).
Reclaim 7, Arao discloses that a material of the metal layer includes titanium, nickel, molybdenum, copper, an alloy thereof, or a combination thereof (para. 0077).
Reclaim 8, Arao discloses that a material of the insulation layer includes silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, or a combination thereof (para. 0080).
Reclaim 10, Arao discloses that a thickness of the insulation layer is between 10 nanometers and 500 nanometers (para 0078).
Reclaim 11, Arao discloses that the driving component further includes a third electrode and a second optical adjustment unit, the second optical adjustment unit includes an insulation layer arranged between the third electrode and the metal layer, and a metal layer (Fig. 6).
Reclaim 12, Arao discloses that a passivation layer arranged on the first optical adjustment unit and the second optical adjustment unit 402 (Fig . 6 & 7).
Reclaim 13, Arao discloses that a pixel definition layer arranged on the passivation layer and the second electrode and provided with a second opening to expose part of the second electrode (Fig. 6 -7).
Reclaim 14, Arao discloses that the electronic component further includes a light emitting layer and a fourth electrode, and the light emitting layer is arranged between the second electrode and the fourth electrode (Fig. 6).
Reclaim 15, Arao discloses that one of the second electrode and the fourth electrode is an anode, and the other one is a cathode (Fig. 6).
Reclaim 16, Arao discloses that the light emitting layer is disposed in the second opening and arranged on the second electrode, and the fourth electrode is arranged on the light emitting layer (Fig. 6).
Reclaim 17, Arao discloses that an area of the fourth electrode is larger than an area of the second electrode (Fig. 6).
Reclaim 18, Arao discloses that wherein a refractive index of the insulation layer is between a refractive index of the first electrode and a refractive index of the metal layer (Fig. 6).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 9, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arao (US 20110210333) in view of Suzawa et al. (US 20100155732).
Reclaim 4, Arao fails to teach that the metal layer covers a second sidewall of the insulation layer.
However, Suzawa suggests that that the metal layer 160 covers a second sidewall of the insulation layer 161 (12A-12B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Arao with the metal layer covers a second sidewall of the insulation layer as taught by Suzawa in order to enhance reducing height of connection (dual layers vs a single layer) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Reclaim 9, Arao & Suzawa disclose that a thickness of the metal layer 160 is between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers (Arao para. 0135, overlapping range or Suzawa, para. 0136).
Reclaim 19, Arao & Suzawa disclose that the first sidewall is connected to the surface of the first electrode (Arao Fig. 7 in view of Suzawa’s Fig. 12A-B).
Reclaim 20, Arao & Suzawa disclose that the second sidewall is connected to a surface of the insulation layer (Arao Fig. 7 in view of Suzawa’s Fig. 12A-B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights