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
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 in the reply filed on 6/29/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a driving voltage line connected to the area of the upper capacitor electrode” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “an area of the lower capacitor electrode is greater than an area of the first gate electrode in a plan view” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “an area of the upper capacitor electrode is greater than the area of the lower capacitor electrode in a plan view” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the area of the upper capacitor electrode" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation causes a great deal of confusion and uncertainty. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “ where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Claim 6 will not be addressed with respect to the prior art.
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, 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wu (US 2021/0358961).
Regarding claim 1, Wu disclose a substrate(101)(fig. 7); a first gate electrode disposed on the substrate (bottom portion of 104)[0069]; a lower capacitor electrode (middle portion 104)[0069] disposed on the first gate electrode to overlap the first gate electrode in a plan view; and a repair line (top portion of 104)[0069] disposed on the lower capacitor electrode.
Regarding claim 2, Wu disclose an upper capacitor electrode (408)[0073] disposed on the lower capacitor electrode to overlap the lower capacitor electrode in a plan view(fig. 7);.
Regarding claim 3, Wu disclose the first gate electrode overlaps the upper capacitor electrode in a plan view(fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Wu disclose the repair line (top portion of 104)[0069] and the upper capacitor electrode(408)[0073] are disposed on (over) the same layer (substrate, 101) (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Wu disclose comprising a pixel connection electrode (103) (fig. 7) overlapping (part of) the repair line.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2023/0078752).
Regarding claim 1, Yu et al. disclose a substrate(SUB)(fig. 7); a first gate electrode disposed on the substrate (GE) (fig. 7); a lower capacitor electrode (lower portion of Cstg) (fig. 7) disposed on (over) the first gate electrode to overlap the first gate electrode in a plan view; and a repair line (EF, which includes M4)disposed on (over) the lower capacitor electrode (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Yu et al. disclose an upper capacitor electrode (upper portion of Cstg) (fig. 7) disposed on the lower capacitor electrode to overlap the lower capacitor electrode in a plan view(fig. 7);.
Regarding claim 3, Yu et al. disclose the first gate electrode overlaps the upper capacitor electrode in a plan view (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Yu et al. disclose the repair line (EF)and the upper capacitor electrode (upper portion of Cstg) (fig. 7) are disposed on (over) the same layer (SUB) (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Yu et al. disclose a pixel connection electrode (E1b) (fig. 7) overlapping (part of) the repair line (EF).
Regarding claim 15, Yu et al. disclose the repair line comprises a repair short portion overlapping the pixel connection electrode (fig. 7)( the pixel connection electrode overlaps the entire vertical EF ( the vias and metal layers) in figure 7, so the “short portion” which is part of the repair line EF would also be overlapped by the pixel connection electrode).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2021/0358961) as applied to claim 2 above.
Wu discloses the invention above.
Wu fails to disclose an area of the lower capacitor electrode is greater than an area of the first gate electrode in a plan view.
MPEP 2144.04 IV A discloses “In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In this case the applicant is just claiming a change in the relative dimensions in the upper and lower capacitor electrode.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming an electrode with different electrode areas), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the capacitor would still perform as a capacitor).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2021/0358961) as applied to claim 2 above.
Wu discloses the invention above.
Wu fails to disclose area of the upper capacitor electrode is greater than the area of the lower capacitor electrode in plan view.
MPEP 2144.04 IV A discloses “In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In this case the applicant is just claiming a change in the relative dimensions in the upper and lower capacitor electrode.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming an electrode with different electrode areas), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the capacitor would still perform as a capacitor).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights