DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn
to a nonelected invention II (two methods), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/05/2026.
Applicant’s election of Invention I, (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 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)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of
the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “…a first wiring electrically connected to the plurality of pixels; a terminal electrically connected to the first wiring; and a second wiring has a cross-sectional surface along a periphery of the substrate, and is electrically connected to the terminal”, “…a third wiring electrically connecting the second wiring and the first wiring; and an insulating layer between the second wiring and the third wiring…”, “a fourth wiring on the same layer as the first wiring; and a fifth wiring on the same layer as the third wiring and electrically connecting the second wiring and the fourth wiring”, “…a sixth wiring electrically connected to the second wiring and directly connecting the first wiring and the second wiring”,“…a seventh wiring on the same layer as the first wiring; and an eighth wiring on the same layer as the sixth wiring and electrically connected to the second wiring via the seventh wiring”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4, it recites the limitation “…a fourth wiring on the same layer as the first wiring; and a fifth wiring on the same layer as the third wiring and electrically connecting the second wiring and the fourth wiring”. It is not clear what element in the invention correspond to the fourth and fifth wirings. According to Fig. 7B, it appears that the fourth wiring correspond to 180 and the fifth wiring correspond to 172, however the element 172 is disposed in a region after the 110C cut line, then 172 is part of an intermediate process and it is not included in the final device. Therefore, it is indefinite.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 4, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP 2173.06 II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, it recites the limitation “…a sixth wiring electrically connected to the second wiring and directly connecting the first wiring and the second wiring”. It is not clear how the sixth wiring directly connecting the first wiring and the second wiring. The limitation is not showed in the figures, if according to Fig. 7B, it appears that the second wiring correspond to element 160, the first wiring to element 142 (not showed in Fig. 7B), the sixth wiring to element 135, then it is not showed the sixth wiring directly connecting the first wiring and the second wiring. Therefore, it is indefinite. For the examination purpose, according to Fig. 7B, the limitation “…a sixth wiring electrically connected to the second wiring and directly connecting the first wiring and the second wiring” is interpreted as “…a sixth wiring electrically connected to the second wiring and the first wiring…”.
Regarding claim 6, it recites the limitation “…a seventh wiring on the same layer as the first wiring; and an eighth wiring on the same layer as the sixth wiring and electrically connected to the second wiring via the seventh wiring”. It is not clear what element in the invention correspond to the seventh and eighth wirings. According to Fig. 7B, it appears that the seventh wiring correspond to 184 and the eighth wiring correspond to 137, however the elements 184 and 137 are disposed in a region after the 110C cut line, then 184 and 137 are part of an intermediate process and these are not included in the final device. Therefore, it is indefinite.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 6, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP 2173.06 II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200411630 A1) in view of Lee (US 20220254849 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Kim discloses a display device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
580
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim’s Figure 4-Annotated.
a substrate (110 in [0055], Fig. 4);
a display part (DA display area in [0042], Fig. 1) including a plurality of pixels (PX a plurality of pixels in [0043], Fig. 1), each of which includes a transistor (in [0055], Fig. 3) having an oxide semiconductor layer (AP active pattern made of indium-zinc oxide (“IZO”) in [0063], Fig. 3) on the substrate (110);
a first wiring (TL transfer wiring in [0046], Fig. 3) electrically connected (all elements in the display are electrically connected, in [0046], Fig. 1) to the plurality of pixels (PX);
a terminal (SC4 fourth conductive layer in [0087], Fig. 4) electrically connected (Fig. 4) to the first wiring (TL); and
a second wiring (SC2 second conductive layer in [0087], Fig. 4) has a cross-sectional surface (Fig. 4-Annotated) along a periphery of the substrate (110), and is electrically connected to the terminal (SC4).
Kim does not expressly disclose a second wiring which is an oxide conductive layer having the same composition as the oxide semiconductor layer.
However, in the same semiconductor device field of endeavor, Lee discloses a wiring (TWL connection wiring made of indium-zinc oxide (“IZO”) in [0162], Fig. 9) which is an oxide conductive layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to made the Kim’s wirings made of an oxide conductive layer according to Lee’s device to have a second wiring which is an oxide conductive layer having the same composition as the oxide semiconductor layer to tune the optical properties of the device for making transparent wirings ([0162], Lee).
Re: Claim 2, Kim modified by Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the oxide semiconductor layer (AP, Fig. 3, Kim) includes a channel region (AP active region, Fig. 3, Kim), a source (left or right region of AP layer in Fig. 3, Kim) region and a drain (left or right region of AP layer in Fig. 3, Kim) region which sandwiches the channel region (AP active region, Kim).
Kim modified by Lee does not expressly disclose the oxide conductive layer contains the same impurity element as the source region and the drain region.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to add impurities in a wiring layer made of an oxide conductive layer and a transistor comprising an oxide semiconductor layer, would have been able to obvious to try to choose one of two possible options, the first one correspond to include a p-type elements in the wiring layer and a n-type element for the transistor, or the second one correspond to include one same element of the one of n-type or p-type in the transistor and in the wiring layer, this last option allows to reduce the cost and time of the manufacturing process (see MPEP 2143.1 (e)).
Re: Claim 3, Kim modified by Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a third wiring (SC1 first conductive layer in [0087], Fig. 4, Kim) electrically connecting the second wiring (SC2, Kim) and the first wiring (TL, Kim); and an insulating layer (152 third insulation layer in [0089], Fig. 4, Kim) between the second wiring (SC2, Kim) and the third wiring (SC1, Kim).
Re: Claim 5, Kim modified by Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a sixth wiring (SC3 third conductive layer in [0087], Fig. 4, Kim) electrically connected to the second wiring (SC2, Kim) the first wiring (TL, Kim).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ryu et al. (US 20210066435 A1) teaches “DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME”. This document is related to a display device including: a first layer including a pixel array disposed on a base substrate, a side terminal disposed on the base substrate, and a transfer wiring electrically connected to the side terminal and the pixel array; a second layer coupled with the first layer; a seal disposed between the first layer and the second layer and surrounding the pixel array; a filler, spaced apart from the seal, overlapping at least a portion of the side terminal and filling a space between the first layer and the second layer; and a conductive connection pad disposed on a side surface of the first layer and contacting the side terminal.
Lee et al. (US 20200006452 A1) teaches “DISPLAY DEVICE”. This document is related to a display device including a substrate including a display area and a peripheral area, an inspection terminal in the peripheral area and configured to transmit an inspection signal to the display area, an inspection wiring that connects the display area to the inspection terminal, a semiconductor resistor connected to each of the inspection terminal and the inspection wiring, an insulating film, and a planarization layer including a terminal opening. The planarization layer covers at least one end of the inspection terminal and the inspection terminal exposes a portion of the inspection terminal. The semiconductor resistor is below the inspection terminal, with an insulating film therebetween, and is in contact with the inspection terminal through a first contact hole defined in the insulating film. A portion of the semiconductor resistor is overlapped by the terminal opening.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA M RODRIGUEZ VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (571)272-1936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (EST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/SANDRA MILENA RODRIGUEZ VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights