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 .
Priority
The instant application claim of the priority date of 09/13/2022 of the foreign application JAPAN 2022-145095 is noted and entered. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 1 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant’s election of claims 1-11 and 13 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2023 and 04/07/2026 were received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 5-7 are 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.
The term “wide” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “wide” encompasses a variety of different dimensions and is not a quantifiable term that is agreed upon. For examination purposes, the term “wide” of claim 5 will be interpreted broadly to encompass prior art disclosing dimensions that overlap a semiconductor layer of the transistor in plan view.
Claims 6-7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 5.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitation indicate claim limitations that are not explicitly disclosed by the primary reference but are disclosed by the secondary reference(s).
Claims 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al, US 20110013102 A1 (Miyazaki) in view of Chang et al, US 20070170547 A1 (Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches an electro-optical device (Fig. 9: liquid crystal display device 325) comprising:
a transistor (Fig. 9: TFT device 351);
a pixel electrode provided corresponding to the transistor (Fig. 9: transparent electrode 352);
a lens layer provided in a layer between the transistor and the pixel electrode (Fig. 9: SiON film 344A);
a first relay layer provided in a layer between the transistor and the lens layer (Fig. 10: connection electrode 373);
and a first connecting member configured to electrically connect the first relay layer and the pixel electrode (Fig. 10: ITO-drain contact 372),
wherein a part of the first connecting member is provided inside the first relay layer.
Miyazaki does not teach wherein a part of the first connecting member is provided inside the first relay layer.
However, Chang teaches wherein a part of the first connecting member is provided inside the first relay layer (Fig. 2: metal interconnect contact 197 connects plate electrode 180 with metal layer 195 formed in a dummy plug 175).
Miyazaki and Chang are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Miyazaki to have the part of the first connecting member provided inside the first relay layer as disclosed in Chang to increase the contact area and reduce contact resistance (Chang, Para 16).
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki in view of Chang teaches all the limitations of the electro-optical device according to claim 1 further comprising
a first light transmitting layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 9: layer insulation film 344b) provided in a layer between the first relay layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: connection electrode 373) and the lens layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 9: SiON film 344A),
wherein the first connecting member (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: ITO-drain contact 372) is provided inside a first contact hole (Miyazaki: paragraph 0106) extending through the lens layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 9: SiON film 344A) and the first light transmitting layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 9: layer insulation film 344b).
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki in view of Chang teaches an electronic apparatus (Miyazaki: Fig. 1: Para 0047, projection type liquid crystal display apparatus) comprising the electro-optical device according to claim 1.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al, US 20110013102 A1 (Miyazaki) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wakabayashi, JP 2016018094 A (Wakabayashi), and Sugimoto, US 20200117063 A1 (Sugimoto).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki in view of Chang teaches the limitations of the electro-optical device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second light transmitting layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: layer insulation film 349) disposed in a layer between the lens layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: SiON film 344A) and the pixel electrode (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: transparent electrode 352),
the second light transmitting layer being thinner than the first light transmitting layer;
a second relay layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: connection electrode 371) provided in a layer between the lens layer and the second light transmitting layer;
and a second connecting member (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: ITO-drain contact 370) configured to electrically connect the second relay layer and the pixel electrode,
wherein the second connecting member is provided not to overlap the first connecting member in plan view.
Miyazaki in view of Chang does not teach the second light transmitting layer being thinner than the first light transmitting layer or wherein the second connecting member is provided not to overlap the first connecting member in plan view.
However, Wakabayashi teaches the second light transmitting layer (Fig. 11: optical path length adjustment layer 29 has a thickness of approximately 40um to 50um, Para 104) being thinner than the first light transmitting layer (Fig. 11: interlayer insulating film 17 has a thickness of approximately 40um to 50um, Para 103).
Note that while Wakabayashi fails to explicitly teach the second light transmitting layer being thinner than the first light transmitting layer, according to MPEP § 2144.04 (IV-A), changes in size/proportion will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a change in size/portion is critical. “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 Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Miyazaki, Chang, and Wakabayashi are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Miyazaki in view of Chang to have the second light transmitting layer be thinner than the first light transmitting layer as disclosed in Wakabayashi in order to cover the lens layer while still providing a flat surface for the pixel electrode.
The combination of Miyazaki in view of Chang and in further view of Wakabayashi fail to teach wherein the second connecting member is provided not to overlap the first connecting member in plan view.
However, Sugimoto teaches wherein the second connecting member is provided not to overlap the first connecting member in plan view (Fig. 16: contact portion 76 and contact portion 75).
Miyazaki, Chang, Wakabayashi, and Sugimoto are considered analogous art. Thus, it would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Wakabayashi to have the second connecting member not overlap the first connecting member as disclosed in Sugimoto in order to so the connecting members don’t interfere with each other when provided inside the relay layer.
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Wakabayashi and Sugimoto teach all the limitations of the electro-optical device according to claim 3, wherein the second connecting member is provided inside a second contact hole (Miyazaki: Para 106) extending through the second light transmitting layer.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Wakabayashi and Sugimoto teach all the limitations of the electro-optical device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a light shielding layer having a wide portion overlapping a semiconductor layer of the transistor in plan view (Miyazaki: connection electrode 375; Wakabayashi: light shielding layer 16 comprises of a lower electrode 5a and upper electrode 5b, "light shielding areas 12 and 16, and the thickness direction of the element substrate 10 In the (Z direction), they are arranged so as to sandwich the TFT 14 therebetween");
and a third connecting member configured to electrically connect the light shielding layer and the first relay layer (Miyazaki: ITO-drain contacts 374),
wherein the third connecting member is provided at a position overlapping the first connecting member in plan view (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: ITO-drain contacts 372 and 374).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Sugimoto to have a light shielding layer overlapping a semiconductor layer of the transistor as disclosed in Wakabayashi in order to suppress the incidence of light on the transistor.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Wakabayashi and Sugimoto teach all the limitations of the electro-optical device according to claim 5, further comprising a third light transmitting layer provided in a layer between the first relay layer and the light shielding layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: layer insulation film 392), wherein the third connecting member (Miyazaki: Fig. 10: ITO-drain contact 374) is provided inside a third contact hole (Miyazaki: Para 106) extending through the third light transmitting layer (Miyazaki: Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Wakabayashi and Sugimoto teach all the limitations of the electro-optical device according to claim 5, wherein an area of the third connecting member on a first relay layer side is larger than an area of the first connecting member on the first relay layer side (Wakabayashi: Fig. 11: contact portion CNT4).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify Miyazaki in view of Chang in further view of Sugimoto to have an area of the third connecting member on a first relay layer side be larger than an area of the first connecting member on the first relay side so the connecting members don’t interfere with each other when provided inside the relay layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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:
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 8-11 is the inclusion of the limitation “a terminal including: a first conductive layer provided in the same layer as the first relay layer outside a display region in which the pixel electrode is provided; a transparent conductive layer provided in the same layer as the pixel electrode; and a fourth connecting member provided in the same layer as the first connecting member to electrically connect the transparent conductive layer and the first conductive layer” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “a first conductive layer provided in the same layer as the first relay layer”, “a transparent conductive layer provided in the same layer as the pixel electrode”, and “a fourth connecting member provided in the same layer as the first connecting member”. The prior art of record teaches a terminal with a conductive layer, a transparent conductive layer, and a connecting member but does not provide sufficient specificity to teach, suggest, or render obvious the particularly claimed configuration. Searches elsewhere in the prior art did not find the specific terminal configuration in relation to all the other requirements of the claim; and this configuration was not suggested by the prior art as an obvious variation when considering all other requirements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUBRIE I HETHERINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0666. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, Fr 7:30-4.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/AUBRIE IRENE HETHERINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 7/30/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights