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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues (see page 7) regarding the amended claim 1 that the combination of Hughes / Yoshii would “result in deterioration of detection accuracy of the detective element.” This is not persuasive. The examiner merely relies on Yoshii for the teaching of a counter substrate including a color filter, a light source arranged behind the counter substrate, and a transparent electrode (see Office Action, page 4). Therefore, the device would function properly as the examiner stated. The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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, 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.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukai et al. (US 5,245,450) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0309362); further in view of Aoki (US 2008/0217609).
Regarding claim 6, Ukai et al. (figures 10A-10C) discloses a display device comprising:
a pixel and a gate driver (pixel and TFT; see at least page 5, second to last paragraph); and
an adhesive layer (24) over the pixel and the gate driver,
wherein the gate driver includes a transistor and a capacitor (10A),
wherein the transistor includes a channel formation region (21),
wherein the channel formation region includes a semiconductor layer,
wherein the capacitor includes a first conductive layer (2), an insulating layer (15), and a second conductive layer (4.sub.2),
wherein the first conductive layer includes a plurality of openings (the openings are formed on different areas of the conductive layer 2; figures 10A-10C), and wherein the second conductive layer is in contact with the adhesive layer.
Ukai et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Ukai et al. is silent regarding wherein the channel formation region includes an oxide semiconductor layer, wherein the capacitor includes a first conductive layer including a same metal element as the oxide semiconductor layer and the adhesive layer includes a resin.
Yoon et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the channel formation region includes an oxide semiconductor layer (see at least paragraph 0046), wherein the capacitor includes a first conductive layer (31) including a same metal element as the oxide semiconductor layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conductive layer as taught by Yoon et al. in order to simplify the manufacturing steps and reduce power consumption of the display devices.
In addition, Aoki (figure 1) teaches gate insulating layer / adhesive layer (14) may be formed of an epoxy/polyester adhesive, epoxy/nitrile rubber adhesive, epoxy/acrylic elastomer adhesive or epoxy/urethane adhesive containing a curing agent, such as of amine, polyamide, acid or acid anhydride, imidazole, phenol resin, urea resin, melamine resin, or isocyanate; or an adhesive insulating material, such as emulsion adhesive, synthetic rubber adhesive, elastic adhesive, or modified acrylate adhesive, acrylic adhesive, or silicone adhesive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conductive layer as taught by Aoki in order to achieve superior electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, Yoon et al. (figure 1) wherein each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer has a light-transmitting property.
Regarding claim 9, Yoon et al. (figure 1) wherein the first insulating layer is silicon nitride (see at least paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 10, Ukai et al. (figures 10A-10C) discloses wherein the opening extends in a channel width direction of the transistor.
Claim 8 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ukai et al. as modified by Yoon et al. and Aoki; further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0034954).
Regarding claim 8, Ukai et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Ukai et al. is silent regarding wherein the first conductive layer has a region whose hydrogen concentration is higher than the oxide semiconductor layer. Yamazaki et al. (figure 21) teaches wherein the first conductive layer has a region whose hydrogen concentration is higher than the oxide semiconductor layer (111 and 119; see at least paragraph 0259). Therefore, 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 first conductive layer as taught by Kim et al. in order to increase the conductivity of the electrode layer and improve the display characteristics.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2012/0104397) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2011/0309362); further in view of Aoki (US 2008/0217609).
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. (figures 1 and 11-12B) discloses display device comprising:
a pixel and a gate driver (101-103); and
an adhesive layer (51) over the pixel and the gate driver,
wherein the gate driver includes a transistor and a capacitor (102 and 103),
wherein the transistor includes a channel formation region (21),
wherein the channel formation region includes a semiconductor layer,
wherein the capacitor includes a first conductive layer including a same metal element as the oxide semiconductor layer (41 and 21), an insulating layer (15), and a second conductive layer (40),
wherein the first conductive layer includes a plurality of openings (41 and 41a; figure 12A),
wherein the second conductive layer is in contact with the adhesive layer (51 and 40).
Choi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Choi et al. is silent regarding wherein the channel formation region includes an oxide semiconductor layer, wherein the capacitor includes a first conductive layer including a same metal element as the oxide semiconductor layer and the adhesive layer includes a resin.
Yoon et al. (figure 1) teaches wherein the channel formation region includes an oxide semiconductor layer (see at least paragraph 0046), wherein the capacitor includes a first conductive layer (31) including a same metal element as the oxide semiconductor layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conductive layer as taught by Yoon et al. in order to simplify the manufacturing steps and reduce power consumption of the display devices.
In addition, Aoki (figure 1) teaches gate insulating layer / adhesive layer (14) may be formed of an epoxy/polyester adhesive, epoxy/nitrile rubber adhesive, epoxy/acrylic elastomer adhesive or epoxy/urethane adhesive containing a curing agent, such as of amine, polyamide, acid or acid anhydride, imidazole, phenol resin, urea resin, melamine resin, or isocyanate; or an adhesive insulating material, such as emulsion adhesive, synthetic rubber adhesive, elastic adhesive, or modified acrylate adhesive, acrylic adhesive, or silicone adhesive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify conductive layer as taught by Aoki in order to achieve superior electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, Yoon et al. (figure 1) wherein each of the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer has a light-transmitting property.
Regarding claim 9, Yoon et al. (figure 1) wherein the first insulating layer is silicon nitride (see at least paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 10, Choi et al. (figures 1 and 11-12B) discloses wherein the opening extends in a channel width direction of the transistor.
Claim 8 is ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. as modified by Yoon et al. and Aoki; further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2014/0034954).
Regarding claim 8, Choi et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 6 above. However, Choi et al. is silent regarding wherein the first conductive layer has a region whose hydrogen concentration is higher than the oxide semiconductor layer. Yamazaki et al. (figure 21) teaches wherein the first conductive layer has a region whose hydrogen concentration is higher than the oxide semiconductor layer (111 and 119; see at least paragraph 0259). Therefore, 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 first conductive layer as taught by Kim et al. in order to increase the conductivity of the electrode layer and improve the display characteristics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment filed on 06/04/2025 and IDS filed on 11/05/2025 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871