CTNF 18/432,756 CTNF 88433 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/2026. Applicant has elected Species Ai, Bi, Ci, corresponding to claims 1-16. Species Aii, Bii, and Cii, corresponding to claims 17-20, are withdrawn from further consideration. Specification The specification submitted 2/5/2024 has been accepted by the examiner. Drawings The drawings submitted on 2/5/2024 have been accepted by the examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 are 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. Regarding Claim 1 , the applicant recites “the data pad electrode and the first conductive layer may be formed as the same triple layer” which is not clearly understood because of the term “may be”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner presumes this was meant to be a positively recited limitation and the prior art was compared below with that interpretation. The dependent claims of claim 1 inherit this same indefiniteness. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak-721 (US # 20210020721) in view of Im-161 (US # 20190097161) . Regarding Claim 1 , insofar as the claim scope can be ascertained in view of the 35 USC 112 rejections and/or claim objections above, Kwak-721 teaches a light emitting display device (4000; see Fig. 23 and corresponding text) comprising: a substrate (400); a first conductive layer (408) disposed on the substrate (shown); a first insulating layer (405 and 406) covering the first conductive layer (shown); a semiconductor layer (410) disposed on the first insulating layer (shown); a second insulating layer (415; between 410 and 420) disposed on the semiconductor layer (shown); a second conductive layer (420) disposed on the second insulating layer (shown); and a data pad electrode (424) disposed in an outer side of a display area (PAD area is outside the PIX area), wherein the first conductive layer is formed as a triple double layer including a lower layer (71) , an intermediate layer, and an upper layer (72), the data pad electrode and the first conductive layer may be are formed as the same triple double layer ([0160]), the lower layer (71) of the triple double layer includes titanium ([0135]), the intermediate upper layer (72) of the triple double layer includes copper ([0135]), and the upper layer of the triple double layer includes an alloy of molybdenum and titanium . Although Kwak-721 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the light emitting display device comprising a triple layer including a lower layer, intermediate layer, and an upper layer. Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Im-161 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a set of triple layered conductive feature formed together (Figs. 8; and corresponding text; starting at [0275] teaches a three-layered structure 321 comprising lower 321a (Ti; [0291], intermediate 321b (Cu [292]), and upper 321c (MoTi [0293]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the double-layer features of Kwak-721 with the triple-layer features suggested by Im-161 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Im-161 would be to employ a light emitting display device comprising a triple layer including a lower layer, intermediate layer, and an upper layer. The rationale for this obvious modification is that the triple layer design provides an upper MoTi layer that protects the intermediate copper from various types of contamination, corrosion, and from certain etchants ([0341, 346]). This would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art in reading both references because the existence and benefits of multilayer conductive features are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01). Regarding Claim 2 , product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113. ("If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The following description is product-by-process language, thus only the structure defined by the claimed process steps is considered with regard to patentability: “wherein the data pad electrode and the first conductive layer are etched by two wet etching processes.” Kwack-721, as modified by Im-161, teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the data pad electrode and the first conductive layer are etched by two wet etching processes (the structure implied by this process was explained in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding Claim 3 , product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113. ("If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The following description is product-by-process language, thus only the structure defined by the claimed process steps is considered with regard to patentability: “wherein the second conductive layer is etched by a wet etching process.” Kwack-721, as modified by Im-161, teaches the light emitting display device of claim 1, wherein the second conductive layer is etched by a wet etching process (the structure implied by this process was explained in the rejection of claim 1). Regarding Claim 11 , Kwak-721 teaches the light emitting display device of claim 3, wherein the second conductive layer is formed as a double layer including a lower layer (321) and an upper layer (322; see [0140]). Regarding Claim 12 , Kwak-721 teaches the light emitting display device of claim 11, wherein the lower layer of the double layer includes titanium ([0140]), and the upper layer of the double layer includes copper ([0140]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak-721 (US # 20210020721) in view of Im-161 (US # 20190097161) and further in view of Tsujimura-658 (US # 6608658) . Regarding Claim 4 , product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113. ("If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The following description is product-by-process language, thus only the structure defined by the claimed process steps is considered with regard to patentability: “wherein the second insulating layer and the semiconductor layer are etched by a dry etching process after the wet etching process.” Although Kwack-721 in view of Im-161 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the light emitting display device of claim 3, wherein the second insulating layer and the semiconductor layer are etched by a dry etching process after the wet etching process. Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Tsujimura-658 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a light emitting display device of claim 3, wherein the second insulating layer (gate insulation 20) and the semiconductor layer (18) are etched by a dry etching process (see Figs. 3C-3D and corresponding text) after the wet etching process (conductive layer 22; see Fig. 3A-3B and corresponding text). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the structures of Kwack-721 in view of Im-161 with the method steps suggested by Tsujimura-658 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Tsujimura-658 would be to employ a light emitting display device of claim 3, wherein the second insulating layer and the semiconductor layer are etched by a dry etching process after the wet etching process. The rationale for this obvious modification is that a dry-etched after the wet etch is a sequence the yields a self-aligned gate stack with minimal masking steps and it would predictably provide the structure shown in Kwack-721 that would be expected to functional successfully. Regarding Claim 5 , product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113. ("If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). The following description is product-by-process language, thus only the structure defined by the claimed process steps is considered with regard to patentability: “light emitting display device of claim 4, wherein the first insulating layer is etched by the dry etching process.” Tsujimura-658, as applied to claim 4, teaches the dry etch that would etch the first insulator structure to arrive at the structure taught by Kwack-721. Regarding Claim 16 , Kwak-721 teaches the light emitting display device of claim 4, wherein the semiconductor layer comprises an oxide semiconductor (410; [0137, 159]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak-721 (US # 20210020721) in view of Im-161 (US # 20190097161) and further in view of Tsujimura-658 (US # 6608658) and Cho-072 (US # 20210126072) . Regarding Claim 6 , Kwak-721 teaches the circuit with a first capacitor electrode 412; bottom routing metal used for conductive electrodes; gate electrode 420 in the second conductive layer. Although Kwak-721 in view of Im-161 and further in view of Tsujimura-658 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the light emitting display device of claim 4, wherein: the first conductive layer includes a lower storage electrode, a data line, and a first driving voltage line, the semiconductor layer includes a first semiconductor, a second semiconductor, and a third semiconductor, and the second conductive layer includes a first gate electrode, a first scan signal line, a second scan signal line, and a driving voltage line connection portion. Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below. For example, Cho-072 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a light emitting display device wherein: a first conductive layer includes a lower storage electrode, a data line (171), and a first driving voltage line (172), a semiconductor layer (130) includes a first semiconductor (131a), a second semiconductor (131b), and a third semiconductor (131c), and a second conductive layer includes a first gate electrode (155a), a first scan signal line (151), a second scan signal line (152), and a driving voltage line connection portion (172). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the pixel circuitry of Kwak-721 in view of Im-161 and further in view of Tsujimura-658 with the further details suggested by Cho-072 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Cho-072 would be to employ a light emitting display device of claim 4, wherein: the first conductive layer includes a lower storage electrode, a data line, and a first driving voltage line, the semiconductor layer includes a first semiconductor, a second semiconductor, and a third semiconductor, and the second conductive layer includes a first gate electrode, a first scan signal line, a second scan signal line, and a driving voltage line connection portion. The rationale for this obvious modification is that incorporating additional pixel circuit elements provides a total device that has reduced leakage current and improves disapply by stabilizing the driving gate node ([0156-157, 179]). This would have been apparent to a person having ordinary skill in the art in reading both references because the existence and benefits of a complete set of pixel circuitry are well known in the art (see MPEP 2144.01). Regarding Claim 13 , Kwak-721 teaches the light emitting display device of claim 6, further comprising: an organic insulating layer (450) covering the second conductive layer (over the electrodes); an anode (460) disposed on the organic insulating layer; and a pixel defining layer (470) including an opening (exposes electrode 460) that exposes a portion of the anode (shown in Fig. 23). Cho-072, as applied to claim 6, also teaches the light emitting display device of claim 6, further comprising: an organic insulating layer (180) covering the second conductive layer (over the electrodes); an anode (191a) disposed on the organic insulating layer; and a pixel defining layer (350) including an opening (351) that exposes a portion of the anode (shown). Regarding Claim 15 , Kwak-721 teaches the light emitting display device of claim 13, wherein: the data pad electrode (424) is disposed on the substrate, and the organic insulating layer (450) is disposed on the data pad electrode, and comprises an opening exposing a portion of the data pad electrode (shown) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7-10 and 14 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 7 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including wherein: an opening overlapping the first semiconductor is disposed in the second insulating layer, a first part of the opening does not overlap the second conductive layer in a plan view, a second part of the opening overlaps the second conductive layer in a plan view, and in the first semiconductor, the opening is formed by etching a portion of the opening exposed by the first part of the opening by the dry etching process. Claims 8-10 depend on claim 7. Regarding Claim 14 , although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations , including light emitting display device of claim 13, wherein: the second conductive layer further comprises a connection electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor, the third semiconductor, and the lower storage electrode, and the connection electrode is electrically connected to the anode through the opening disposed on the organic insulating layer . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time. 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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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. /CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 3 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 4 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 5 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 6 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 7 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 8 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 9 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 10 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 11 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 12 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 13 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/432,756 Page 14 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights