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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “low-temperature polysilicon silicon,” is redundant. This limitation is used twice on p. 2, paragraph 16 and p. 39, paragraph 178 of the currently filed specification. Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner believes that the above term should read low-temperature polysilicon.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “low-temperature polysilicon silicon,” is redundant. Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner believes that the above term should read low-temperature polysilicon.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2005/0099369 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) in view of Miyakawa et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0220896 A1, hereinafter “Miyakawa”).
In reference to claim 1, Lee discloses a similar device. Figures 5 and 6 of Lee disclose a display panel which comprises a base substrate (81), a light emitting element (61, 87a-87c, 62) on the base substrate (81), a transistor (51, 80, 83) between the base substrate (18) and the light emitting element (61, 87a-87c, 62) and connected with the light emitting element (61, 87a-87c, 62). A conductive pattern (52, 53, 90) is between the base substrate (81) and the light emitting element (61, 87a-87c, 62). Lee discloses (p. 4, paragraph 60) that the conductive pattern (52, 53, 90) comprises a first conductive layer comprising a first material (Ti), a second conductive layer (Ti) on the first conductive layer (Ti), a blocking layer (TiN) between the first conductive layer (Ti) and the second conductive layer (Ti) which comprises a third material (TiN) different from the first material (Ti), and an intermediate layer (aluminum alloy) between the blocking layer (TiN) and the second conductive layer (Ti), and contacting the second conductive layer (Ti). Lee does not disclose that the second conductive layer (Ti) comprises a material different from the first material (Ti). However Lee discloses the known use of aluminum as the lowest layer or first conductive layer in a conductive pattern stack (p. 4, paragraph 60). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use aluminum as the lowest layer or first conductive layer in the conductive pattern stack (52, 53, 90). Thus in the device of Lee constructed in view of the above, the first conductive layer in the conductive pattern (52, 53, 90) comprises a first material in the form of aluminum which is different than the second material (titanium) of the second conductive layer.
Lee discloses the use of an aluminum alloy as the intermediate layer (p. 4, paragraph 60) but does not disclose that it is an alloy of the first material (aluminum) and the second material (titanium). However Miyakawa disclose the known use of an aluminum-titanium (AlTi) alloy for use as a conductive electrode material (p. 4, paragraph 98, p. 5, paragraph 106). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use an aluminum-titanium alloy for the intermediate layer comprised of the first material (aluminum) and the second material (titanium).
With regard to claim 6, in the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa, the intermediate layer made of an aluminum-titanium alloy is in contact with the blocking layer made of titanium nitride.
In reference to claim 8, the examiner has interpreted “on” to mean that when two objects are “on” each other than that means there can be intervening structures between the two objects. “On” is interpreted in this manner since claim 1 describes “a light emitting element on the base substrate” and figure 1 of the currently filed drawings show many objects between the light emitting element (ED) and the base substrate (110). Thus in the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 8, figures 5 and 6 of Lee discloses a shielding layer (61) in the form of a light reflective layer (p. 4, paragraph 59) which is on the second conductive layer of the conductive pattern (52, 53, 90).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Miyakawa as applied to claim 1 above and as further evidenced by Marieb et al. (USPN 5,909,635, hereinafter “Marieb”).
In reference to claim 2, in the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa, the first material is aluminum while the second material is titanium. Marieb discloses that aluminum has a lower resistance than titanium (column 1, lines 59-60). Thus the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa meets the claim 2 limitation such that the first material has a lower resistance than that of the second material.
With regard to claim 3, in the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa, the third material is TiN (titanium nitride) while the second material is titanium; thus meeting the claim.
In reference to claim 4, in the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa, the second material is titanium thus meeting the claim.
With regard to claim 5, in the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa, the first material is aluminum thus meeting the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Miyakawa as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yanagida et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0194294 A1, hereinafter “Yanagida”).
In reference to claim 7, the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa has a first conductive layer made of aluminum and intermediate layer made of aluminum alloy. Lee does not explicitly disclose that the intermediate layer (aluminum alloy) has a smaller thickness than the first conductive layer (aluminum). However Yanagida discloses that the thickness of aluminum and an aluminum alloy layers are inversely proportional to its sheet resistance (p. 4, paragraph 55). Thus Yanagida makes it clear that the thicknesses of the first conductive layer (made of aluminum) and intermediate layer (aluminum alloy) are result effective variables. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thicknesses of the first conductive layer (made of aluminum) and the intermediate layer (made of aluminum alloy), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Therefore claim 7 is not patentable over Lee, Miyakawa, and Yanagida.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Miyakawa as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tam (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0021293 A1, hereinafter “Tam”).
In reference to claim 11, Lee does not disclose that the transistor channel material is made of low-temperature polysilicon. However Tam discloses the known use of low-temperature polysilicon as a transistor channel material (p. 4, paragraph 54). The applicant is reminded in this regard that it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use would be entirely obvious. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). See MPEP 2144.07. In view of the above, it would therefore be obvious to use low-temperature polysilicon as the transistor channel material in the device of Lee constructed in view of Miyakawa.
With regard to claim 12, fig. 5 and 6 of Lee show that the conductive pattern (52, 53, 90) is a signal line at a same layer as the gate (51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-21 are allowed.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: in the examiner’s opinion, it would not be obvious to implement a display panel which comprises a light emitting element on a base substrate, a transistor between the base substrate and the light emitting element and connected with the light emitting element, a conductive pattern between the base substrate and the light emitting element such that the conductive pattern comprises a first conductive layer comprising a first material, a second conductive layer on the first conductive layer which comprises a second material different from the first material, a blocking layer between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer which comprises a third material different from the first material, and an intermediate layer between the blocking layer and the second conductive layer that contacts the second conductive layer, such that the intermediate layer comprises an alloy of the first material and the second material in combination with the specific shielding layer structure described by the applicant in claim 9. In the examiner’s opinion, it would also not be obvious to implement a display panel manufacturing method which comprises providing a semiconductor pattern comprising amorphous silicon; providing a first conductive pattern comprising a first layer, a second layer, a third layer, and a fourth layer that are sequentially stacked, performing a first heat treatment, providing an additional layer on the first conductive pattern, performing a second heat treatment for crystallizing the semiconductor pattern such that the first heat treatment causes the fourth layer to diffuse into the third layer to form an intermediate layer which comprises an alloy of a material of the fourth layer and a material of the third layer as described by the applicant in claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN QUINTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/KEVIN QUINTO/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893