Reissue
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Status of Claims
Patent claims 1-18 are canceled; new claims 19-37 are pending.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
This is a broadening reissue. For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify an original patent claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. The reissue oath/declaration must identify the original claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. A statement that “New claims 19 and 20 broaden the scope by being directed to a display device manufactured according to the method used” does not identify an original claim being broadened or a word/phrase in the original claim wherein lies the error. See MPEP 1414 I.
Claims 19-37 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: An amendment to the first line of the specification is necessary to provide the appropriate continuity language for a continuation or divisional reissue application. In a continuing reissue application, an identification of the application as being "a reissue continuation of application number [the parent reissue application]" or "a continuation of application number [the parent reissue application] and an application for reissue of patent number [the patent for which reissue is sought]" is required. See MPEP 1451.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0063675 to Misaki (hereinafter Misaki).
PNG
media_image1.png
198
274
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 19, Misaki teaches a display device including an insulation substrate 12; an insulation film 16 which is primarily made of one of silicon oxide (para [0082]); an inorganic film 20sl, which comprises an oxide semiconductor (para [0083]), in direct contact with the insulation film; a semiconductor part 17s of the inorganic film, which comprises elements of the oxide semiconductor; a conductor part 18s of the inorganic film (para [0083-0086]), which comprises elements of the oxide semiconductor, and a wiring film including a first wiring film 21d and a second wiring film 21s being not in direct contact with the first wiring film, the conductor part being in direct contact with the first wiring film and the second wiring film. See Fig. 4.
As to claim 20, the semiconductor part 17s of the inorganic film is in direct contact with the conductor part 18s of the inorganic film.
With respect to claim 21, the inorganic film may be an InSnZnO- or an InAlZnO-based film. See para [0207].
As to claim 22, the in organic film may be an InGaZnO-based film. See para [0083].
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.
Claim(s) 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaki.
As to claim 23, Misaki discloses the oxidation reaction caused by annealing is suppressed in the semiconductor area 17s and the semiconductor has a predetermined electrical resistance such that the TFT exhibits “satisfactory characteristics such as high mobility, high reliability, and a low off-state current.” See para [0083]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the predetermined electrical resistance sufficient to “stabilize the threshold voltage while increasing the mobility and on-state current of the TFT” (para [0085]).
With respect to claims 24 and 25,the semiconductor layer 20sl of Misaki is comprised of two layers 17s,18s, each about 30-100 nm in thickness, for a total thickness of about 60-200 nm, thus overlapping the claimed ranges of 5 nm to 1 micron and 10 nm to 500 nm. See paras [0109, 0110], In the case 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 26, 27, 30-33, 36, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaki as applied to claims 19 and 22 above, and further in view of US 2003/0218222 to Wager, III et al. (hereinafter Wager).
With respect to claims 26, 27, 32, and 33, Misaki does not teach the thickness of insulation film 16. Wager discloses a TFT 20 including an insulation film 4 between the gate electrode 3 and the source/drain electrodes 21,22 and channel region 23. The thickness of the insulation film 4 “may vary, and according to particular examples it can range from about 10 to about 300 nm.” See para [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the range of insulation thicknesses exemplified by Wager to be effective in the TFT of Misaki, as insulation film is used for the same purpose in both Misaki and Wager and the structure and function of the TFT of Wager is similar to that of Misaki.
As to claims 30, 31, 36, and 37, Misaki is silent as to the conductive metal from which the wiring film 23s,23d of Figure 4 is made. Wager teaches TFTs wherein the signal paths are formed from electrically conductive metals such as copper, aluminum, or alloys thereof. See paras [0044, 0048]. As Wager evidences that copper is a suitable electrical conductor in TFTs, it would have been obvious to fabricate the wiring film in Misaki of copper.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaki as applied to claims 19 and 22 above, and further in view of US 2008/0035920 to Takechi et al. (hereinafter Takechi).
Misaki is silent as to the thickness of wiring films 21s,21d in source 24sd and drain 24dd electrodes. Takechi teaches a TFT having a source metal film with a thickness of 200 nm, falling within the claimed ranges. See para [0156]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a thickness of 200 nm for the wiring films as being evidenced by Takechi to be a suitable thickness for a conductive film in a TFT.
Related Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to
timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No.
10,290,662 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental
examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to
timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each
individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See
also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is 5.
The examiner can normally be reached on 6:30am-4:30pm (ET) Mon-Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor Timothy Speer can be reached on 313-446-4825. 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 at
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent
Center 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
/T.M.S/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3991