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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a method, classified in H10K71/60.
II. Claims 12-20, drawn to a display apparatus, classified in H01K59/874.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product can be formed using a different process such as one that does not require etching of the substrate prior to forming the metal bottom layer.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
. The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions require a different field of search (searching different classes/subclasses and employing different search queries); and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to the other invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Ryan Swank on 04/02/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 12-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2021013485) in view of Iwaskai et al. (US 6172296).
As to claim 12, Jeon et al. discloses a display apparatus (see ) comprising a substrate (see ); and a bottom metal layer (see 0110) that comprise a multilayer; a first layer and a second layer (see 0110). Jeon et al. fails to teach the second layer has a 111 plane peak great than a 220 plane peak. Jeon states the bottom metal layer is provided to prevent or block light from entering through the base layer and deteriorating the patterned active layer (See 0109-0111).
Iwasaki et al. discloses a photovoltaic cell that has a metal layer formed on a substrate and the metal layer has an x-ray diffraction pattern where a (111) peak intensity is at least 2.1 times a (200) peak intensity, at least 4.4 times a (220) peak intensity, and at least 4.1 times a (311) peak intensity (see abstract). Iwasaki et al. further teaches the metal layer having the XRD pattern has improved reflectance (see col. 1, lines 31-62). The metal layer can be mainly aluminum and that an interlayer (layer of nickel, chromium, or titanium) is provided between the metal and the substrate to improve adhesion (see col. 3, lines 37-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Jeon et al. to include the oriented metal layer of Iwaskai et al. in order to improve adhesion and reflectance of the layer which would be desired in Jeon et al. to prevent/block light from entering. One would have been motivated to do so since Jeon teaches the same metal materials used for the bottom metal layer(see 0110).
As to claim 13, Jeon states the layers forming the bottom metal layer can be different metal layers (see 0110).
As to claim 15, Jeon et al. teaches the device can further have a buffer layer (120 of Fig. 14, 0109) which is comprised of a first and second buffer layer (see 0061).
As to claim 16, the layers are sequentially stacked (see 0061).
As to claims 17-18, the first buffer layer can be formed of silicon nitride and the second buffer layer is formed of silicon oxide (see 0061).
As to claim 20, Iwasaki et al. states the 111 plane peak is 2.1 times more than that of the 200 plane peak, therefore the ratio of 200/111 would be about 0.48.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2021013485) in view of Iwaskai et al. (US 6172296) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ang et al. (US 20180166495) and Xia et la. (US 2013/0230717).
The teachings of Jeon and Iwaskai et al. as applied to claim 13 are as stated above.
Jeon and Iwaskai et al. fail to teach the bottom metal layer is copper and titanium as required by claim 14.
Ang et al. discloses a sensor element having a bottom electrode on a substrate surface, the bottom metal layer comprises an adhesion layer of titanium (see 0163 ) and a copper metal layer (see 600C of Fig. 6a, 0163).
Xia et al. teaches bulk copper has the strongest XRD diffraction at peak 111 (see 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display apparatus of Jeon and Iwaskai et al. to include the adhesion layer of titanium along with copper as taught by Ang et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to bottom metal layers Ang et al. teaches an operable combination of Ti/Cu layer used as bottom metal layer and Xia et al. teaches the desired higher XRD peak at 111 as desired to prevent light from passing. It has been established that the mere substitution of one known element for another having the same intended purpose has a prime facie case of obviousness.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (US 2021013485) in view of Iwaskai et al. (US 6172296) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Annavarapu (US 6045634).
The teachings of Jeon et al. modified by Iwaskai et al. as applied to claim 12.
Jeon et al. and Iwaskai et al. fails to teach the claimed peak on a 002 plane is greater than a peak on 103 plane as required by claim 19.
Annavarapu teaches titanium films having controlled crystallographic orientations including 002 and 103 (see abstract) with a preferred 002 orientation (See col. 3, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeon et al. and Iwaskai et al. to include a titanium layer having the claimed peaks as taught by Annavarapu. One would have bene motivated to do so since both are directed to a bottom titanium layer and controlling the crystal orientation affects film properties such as adhesion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yum et al. (US 2017/0125638) discloses a display apparatus (see abstract, 0012) comprising; a substrate (see 135 of Fig. 4); a first layer (see 156 – bonding layer (see 0032, 0052) ; and a second layer on the first layer (see 152 - reflective layer – see 0049, 0051). The reflective layer when it is gold has the highest intensity in the direction of (111) at a certain thickness (see 0079).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights