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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued Kim and Kakinuma alone or in combination do not teach or render obvious both of two outer edges of the connection portion are located within a contour of the through hole and located at the side wall because the pixel electrode 110 in Kakinuma is in a through hole through second insulating layer 506.
However, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Kim and Kakinuma. Kim teaches the first insulating layer having a through hole surrounded by a side wall of the first insulating layer and one edge of the connection portion located within the contour of the through hole and located as the side wall, as is clearly shown in Figure 3 by the right side of electrode 7 on the sidewall of the through hole 12 through insulating layer 5.
Kakinuma teaches an analogous through hole 201 in Figures 19-21 through insulating layers 506, 507, and 509 (see paragraph 63 and comparative example through hole 301), where connection portion 110 is shaped such that both edges of the connection portion 110 are located within the contour of the through hole, Figure 21.
Applying the electrode shaped as in Kakinuma to the through hole 12 in layer 5 of Kim results in both of two outer edges of the connection portion being located within a contour of the through hole and located at the side wall.
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, 2, 5, 8-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0268316) in view of Kakinuma et al. (US 2015/0268526).
In reference to claim 1, Kim et al. (US 2016/0268316), hereafter “Kim,” discloses a connection structure, with reference to Figure 3, comprising:
a first wire 4;
a second wire 7;
a first insulating layer 5, disposed between the first wire and the second wire, and the first insulating layer having a through hole 12 surrounded by a side wall of the first insulating layer, and a connection portion of the second wire being electrically connected to the first wire through the through hole, paragraph 32; and
a second insulating layer 8, disposed on the second wire and filled in the through hole,
wherein the second insulating layer does not contact the first wire, paragraph 26,
wherein in a cross-sectional view, an outer edge of the connection portion is located within a contour of the through hole and located at the side wall.
Kim does not disclose wherein in a cross-sectional view, both of two outer edges of the connection portion are located within a contour of the through hole and are located at the sidewall.
Kakinuma et al. (US 2015/0268526), hereafter “Kakinuma,” discloses a connection structure including teaching, in a cross-sectional view, both of two outer edges of the connection portion, 110 in Figure 21, are located within a contour of the through hole 201. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connection portion of Kim such that, in a cross-sectional view, both of two outer edges of the connection portion to be located within a contour of the through hole and located at the sidewall. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007). In this case substituting one electrode shape for another.
In reference to claim 2, Kim discloses the first insulating layer is made of an organic material, paragraph 35.
In reference to claim 5, Kim discloses the side wall has a high level surface and a low level surface, the side wall surrounding the through hole has an inclined surface, and the inclined surface connects the high level surface and the low level surface, Figure 3.
In reference to claim 8, Kim does not disclose the inclined surface comprises an arc-shaped curved surface.
Kakinuma teaches the side wall surrounding the through hole, 201 in Figures 20 and 21, has an inclined surface, the inclined surface comprises an arc-shaped curved surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the inclined surface to comprises an arc-shaped curved surface. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting one through hole shape for another.
In reference to claims 9 and 10, Kim discloses the second wire further comprises a main portion, 7 in Figure 3 (outside through hole 12), the main portion is disposed on the first insulating layer 5, and the main portion is connected to the connection portion and the main portion is not overlapped with the through hole.
In reference to claim 11, Kim discloses wherein in a top view, a pattern of the through hole comprises a circle, Figure 1 and paragraph 26.
In reference to claim 12, Kim discloses an electronic device comprising the connection structure of claim 1, paragraph 1.
In reference to claim 13, Kim discloses a substrate; a first signal line 2, disposed on the substrate; and a second signal line 11, disposed on the substrate and arranged in intersection with the first signal line, Figure 1, wherein the first wire is electrically connected to the second signal line (via the TFT).
In reference to claim 14, Kim discloses a thin film transistor, comprising: a gate 2, electrically connected to the first signal line; a semiconductor layer, partially overlapped with the gate; and a source and a drain 4, electrically connected to the semiconductor layer, respectively, Figure 3 and paragraph 28.
In reference to claim 15, Kim discloses wherein the first wire is the drain, and the second wire 7 is a pixel electrode, paragraphs 27 and 28.
In reference to claim 16, Kim discloses a plurality of sub-pixels, each of the plurality of sub-pixels comprising the second wire and the thin film transistor, and the second wire being electrically connected to the thin film transistor, paragraph 26.
In reference to claim 19, Kim discloses the connection portion of the second wire is overlapped with the through hole, paragraph 26.
In reference to claim 20, Kim discloses a common electrode 9, and the common electrode being disposed on the second insulating layer 8, Figure 3 and paragraph 27.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0268316) in view of Kakinuma et al. (US 2015/0268526) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tomioka et al. (US 2015/0160521).
In reference to claim 3, Kim discloses the connection portion of the second wire ends at a position, near, but above the bottom of a height of the sidewall, Figure 3.
Tomioka et al. (US 2015/0160521) discloses a display device including teaching a connection portion of a second wire, 107 in Figure 9, ends at a position not greater than 75% of a height of the side wall, paragraph 63 (depth X is greater than or equal to D/4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the connection portion of the second wire to end at a position not less than 10% and not greater than 90% of a height of the side wall. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Moreover, Tomioka establishes the height at which the connection portion of the second wire ends on the sidewall of the through hole as a result effective variable effecting the ability of a material to flow into and fill the through hole, paragraphs 63-65. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), see MPEP 2144.05 II A.
One would have been motivated to end the connection portion of the second wire at a position in the claimed range in order to facilitate filling material in the through hole above the second wire, paragraph 65 of Tomioka.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0268316) in view of Kakinuma et al. (US 2015/0268526) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0313613).
In reference to claim 4, Kim does not disclose wherein in the cross-sectional view, a width of the first wire is less than a width of the second wire.
Chang et al. (US 2016/0313613) discloses an analogous display device including teaching wherein in the cross-sectional view, a width of the first wire, D1 in Figure 1, is less than a width of the second wire CE1 (the cross-sectional width implied by the plan view widths of Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a width of the first wire to be less than a width of the second wire in the cross-sectional view. To do so would have merely been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007), MPEP 2143 I. B. In this case substituting one relative connection shape for another.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0268316) in view of Kakinuma et al. (US 2015/0268526) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Taniguchi et al. (US 2004/0223109).
In reference to claims 6 and 7, Kim does not disclose a height difference between the high level surface and the low level surface is 3 um to 5 um.
Taniguchi et al. (US 2004/0223109) discloses a display device including teaching an insulating layer, 38 in Figure 1, with a height difference between a high level surface and a low level surface, and the height difference is 3 µm to 5 µm, 4 µm, paragraph 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for a height difference between the high level surface and the low level surface to be 3 µm to 5 µm. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a thick planarizing layer to isolate signal lines of the device, paragraph 4.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0268316) in view of Kakinuma et al. (US 2015/0268526) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Park et al. (US 2010/0014041).
In reference to claim 17, Kim does not disclose the two adjacent sub-pixels are respectively located on two sides of a reference line and arranged in a mirror manner.
Park et al. (US 2010/0014041), hereafter “Park,” discloses a display device including teaching two adjacent sub-pixels, Figure 1, are respectively located on two sides of a reference line and arranged in a mirror manner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for two adjacent sub-pixels to be respectively located on two sides of a reference line and arranged in a mirror manner. To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D. In this case, applying the contact structure of Kim to the pixel configuration of Park.
In reference to claim 18, Kin does not disclose the second wire of one of the two adjacent sub-pixels and the second wire of the other of the two adjacent sub-pixels are arranged correspondingly on two sides of a reference line.
Park discloses a display device including teaching a second wire, 175a in Figure 1, of one of the two adjacent sub-pixels and the second wire 175b of the other of the two adjacent sub- pixels are arranged correspondingly on two sides of a reference line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the second wire of one of the two adjacent sub-pixels and the second wire of the other of the two adjacent sub-pixels to be arranged correspondingly on two sides of a reference line. To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D. In this case, applying the contact structure of Kim to the pixel configuration of Park.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yin et al. (US 2017/0141132), Cho (US 2018/0329248), and Chen et al. (US 11,201,178) disclose related pixel connection wires.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R. JUNGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5717. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 CT.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
/BRYAN R JUNGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights