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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, with traverse, of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on December 31st, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there would be no burden to search both claims 1-10 (Group I) and 11-20 (Group II)”. This is not found persuasive. The restriction for examination purposes as indicated in the restriction /election requirement, mailed on 11/06/2025, is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Non-elected invention of Group II, claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-10 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 23rd, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 08/23/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (US 2019/0172884, hereinafter as Shim ‘884).
Regarding Claim 1, Shim ‘884 teaches a display apparatus, comprising:
a semiconductor layer (Fig. 3, (121b); [0068]) disposed on a substrate (110; [0068]) and including: a channel area (121b’, [0076]); a source area and a drain area (121b”; [0076]) that are disposed at both sides of the channel area (121b’); and a first opening portion (OP, Annotated; [0114]) disposed adjacent to the source area (see Fig. 3; [0088]); and a first electrode (123b; [0088]) overlapping and electrically connected to the source area and including an edge adjacent to the first opening portion.
Thus, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the edge of the first electrode is concave in a direction from the first opening portion toward the source area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the edge of the first electrode is concave in a direction from the first opening portion toward the source area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the edge of the first electrode is concave in a direction from the first opening portion toward the source area in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (OP)]
PNG
media_image2.png
376
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 (Shim ‘884_Annotated)
Regarding Claim 2, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the edge of the first electrode has an arc shape”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the edge of the first electrode has an arc shape on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. (see Figs. 4A and 4B of Kimura (US 2007/0139571) as evidence). In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the edge of the first electrode has an arc shape in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first sub-edge of the first electrode; and a second sub-edge of the first electrode, the first sub-edge of the first electrode and the second sub-edge of the first electrode extend in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, and the first sub-edge of the first electrode and the second sub-edge of the first electrode intersect each other”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a first sub-edge of the first electrode; and a second sub-edge of the first electrode, the first sub-edge of the first electrode and the second sub-edge of the first electrode extend in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, and the first sub-edge of the first electrode and the second sub-edge of the first electrode intersect each other on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see Fig. 17A of Kimura (US 2007/0139571) as evidence). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a first sub-edge of the first electrode; and a second sub-edge of the first electrode, the first sub-edge of the first electrode and the second sub-edge of the first electrode extend in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, and the first sub-edge of the first electrode and the second sub-edge of the first electrode intersect each other in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an edge of the first opening portion that is adjacent to the first electrode is protrusive in a direction toward the source area or the drain area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an edge of the first opening portion that is adjacent to the first electrode is protrusive in a direction toward the source area or the drain area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an edge of the first opening portion that is adjacent to the first electrode is protrusive in a direction toward the source area or the drain area in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 5, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the edge of the first opening portion that is adjacent to the first electrode has an arc shape”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the edge of the first opening portion that is adjacent to the first electrode has an arc shape on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the edge of the first opening portion that is adjacent to the first electrode has an arc shape in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 6, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first sub-edge of the first opening portion; and a second sub-edge of the first opening portion, the first sub-edge of the first opening portion and the second sub-edge of the first opening portion extend in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, and the first sub-edge of the first opening portion and the second sub-edge of the first opening portion intersect each other”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a first sub-edge of the first opening portion; and a second sub-edge of the first opening portion, the first sub-edge of the first opening portion and the second sub-edge of the first opening portion extend in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, and the first sub-edge of the first opening portion and the second sub-edge of the first opening portion intersect each other on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see Fig. 17A of Kimura (US 2007/0139571) as evidence). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a first sub-edge of the first opening portion; and a second sub-edge of the first opening portion, the first sub-edge of the first opening portion and the second sub-edge of the first opening portion extend in a first direction and a second direction, respectively, and the first sub-edge of the first opening portion and the second sub-edge of the first opening portion intersect each other in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim ‘884 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwack (US 2021/0020721, hereinafter as Kwac ‘721).
Regarding Claim 7, Shim ‘884 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a portion of the semiconductor layer is disposed between the edge of the first electrode and the first opening portion”
Kwac ‘721 teaches a portion of the semiconductor layer (Fig. 18, (310); [0137]) is disposed between the edge of the first electrode (321; [0140]) and the first opening portion (see Fig. 18).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘884 by having a portion of the semiconductor layer is disposed between the edge of the first electrode and the first opening portion for the purpose of improving reliability of light emitting diode device (see para. [0141]) as suggested by Kwac ‘721.
Regarding Claim 8, Kwac ‘721 teaches an insulating pattern layer (Fig. 18, (315); [0138]) disposed between the semiconductor layer (310) and the first electrode (321).
Regarding Claim 9, Kwac ‘721 teaches the insulating pattern layer (315) partially surrounds the first electrode (321), and the first electrode partially overlaps the source area or the drain area of the semiconductor layer (130), and a portion of the semiconductor layer is exposed, due to the insulating pattern layer (see Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 10, Kwac ‘721 teaches a second electrode (322; [0140]) overlapping and electrically connected to the source area or the drain area (see Fig. 18), wherein the semiconductor layer (310) further includes a second opening portion disposed adjacent to the source area or the drain area.
Thus, Shim ‘884 and Kwac ‘721 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “an edge of the second electrode is concave in a direction from the second opening portion toward the source area or the drain area”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an edge of the second electrode is concave in a direction from the second opening portion toward the source area or the drain area on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an edge of the second electrode is concave in a direction from the second opening portion toward the source area or the drain area in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Kang et al. (US 2017/0200740 A1)
Oh et al. (US 2016/0071891 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893