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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
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 1-12 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 limitations of claim 1 including: “the source drain metal layer comprises at least one source and at least one drain, the source is disposed between two adjacent drains or the drain is disposed between two adjacent sources; an active layer, wherein the active layer is disposed between and is electrically connected to the drain and the source adjacent to the drain” does not clearly describe the boundaries of the claim. Claim 2 states “the source” comprises a first source and a second source but “the source” referred to in claim 1 is disposed between adjacent drains. Claim 10 states “the drain” comprises a first drain and a second drain but “the drain” referred to in claim 1 is disposed between adjacent source. The specification states[0042-0043]: wherein the source drain metal layer 21 may include at least one source and at least one drain. The source drain metal layer 21 thus forms a plurality of segmented structures on the substrate 102. Alternatively, the source is disposed between two adjacent drains, or the drain is disposed between two adjacent sources. At the same time, a space is provided between the source and the drain adjacent to the source, to finally form the patterned source drain metal layer 21 provided in the embodiment of the present application. The active layer 22 is disposed in the space between the source and the drain adjacent to the source, so that the active layer 22 is disposed in the same layer as the source drain metal layer 21. Examiner further notes that the limit to the number of source and drains comprised in the source drain metal layer and their connection to the active layer is unclear. 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) 1, 8, & 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (KR 20030029218 A)
Regarding claim 1, Song et al discloses A display panel Fig. 1/ Fig. 2, comprising: a substrate (10)(pp. 7 para 4); a source drain metal layer(70) disposed on the substrate(10)(pp. 8, para 2), wherein the source drain metal layer(70)
comprises at least one source (71)and at least one drain(72)(pp. 8, para 2), the source(71) is disposed between two adjacent drains(72/73) (pp. 8, para 2) or the drain is disposed between two adjacent sources; an active layer(50) (pp. 8, para 2), wherein the active layer (50)is disposed between and is electrically connected to
the drain( 72)and the source(71) adjacent to the drain(72) (pp. 8, para 2); and
a gate(21) disposed on and insulated from the source drain metal layer(70)(Examiner note that the gate is disposed on the rear side and insulated by way of element 40 from the source drain metal layer 70) fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8, Song et al discloses wherein an orthographic projection of the gate (21)on the substrate (10)covers the active layer(50) (Examiner notes the gate 21 covers the underside of active layer 50) fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, Song et al discloses wherein the drain comprises a first drain(72) and a second drain(73); wherein the source(71) is disposed between the first drain (72)and the second drain(73), the active layer (50)is provided between the first drain (72)and the source(73), and between the second drain (73)and the source(71) fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, Song et al discloses wherein an orthographic projection of the gate (21)on the substrate (10)covers the active layer(50) (Examiner notes the gate 21 covers the underside of active layer 50) fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, Song et al discloses wherein a length of the source (71)is less than a length of the first drain (72)and a length of the second drain(73) , and the length of the first drain(72) is equal to the length of the second drain(73) fig. 1/fig. 2.
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) 2- 6, 7, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (KR 20030029218 A) in view of Lee (US Pub no 2004/0094766 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Song et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the source comprises a first source and a second source; wherein the first source, the second source, and the drain are provided in a same layer; the active layer is provided between the first source and the drain, and between the second source and the drain; and the active layer electrically connected to the first source, the second drain, and the drain.
Lee et al discloses a liquid crystal display wherein the source(173) comprises a first source(173a) and a second source(173b); wherein the first source((173a), the second source(173b), and the drain(175a) are provided in a same layer(171)[0059]; the active layer(150) is provided between the first source(173a) and the drain(175a), and between the second source(173b) and the drain(175a); and the active layer(10) electrically connected to the first source(173a), the second drain(175b), and the drain(175a) fig. 7[0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Song et al with Lee et al to form an additional tft to assist in widening the viewing angle of the LCD.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al discloses wherein a first space is defined between the first source and the drain, a second space is defined between the second source and the drain, and the first space has a length same as the second space.
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al discloses wherein the first source(173a), the second source,(173b) and the drain(175a) have a same thickness fig. 7.
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al discloses the width of the first source(173a) is equal to the width of the second source(173b)(fig. 6 fig. 7) but fails to teach wherein a width of the drain is less than a width of the first source and a width of the second source. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of invention to adjust a width of the drain such that it is less than a width of the first source and a width of the second source because 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)
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al discloses further comprising a passivation layer (180)and a pixel electrode(190a or 190b)[0040-0041]; wherein the passivation layer(180) is disposed on the gate (123)and covers a part of the source drain metal layer(171) and the gate(123), and the pixel electrode (190a or 190b)is disposed on the passivation layer(180) and electrically connected to the source(173a or 173b) through a via(181 or 182) fig. 7[0040].
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al discloses wherein the pixel electrode (190a or 190b) is electrically connected to the first source(173a) through a first via(181 or 182), and connected to the second source(173b) through a second via(181 or 182) fig. 7.
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al discloses the length of the first source(173a) is equal to
the length of the second source(173b) fig. 6 but fails to teach .wherein a length of the drain is less than a length of the first source and a length of the second source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust a length of the drain such that it is less than a length of the first source and a length of the second source because 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)
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US 2014/0048797 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yu et al discloses A display panel, comprising:
a substrate (10)[0033]; a source drain metal layer(M3) disposed on the substrate(10), wherein the source drain metal layer(M3) comprises at least one source and at least one drain(M3), the source is disposed between two adjacent drains or the drain(M3) is disposed between two adjacent sources(M2_2 and M2_3); an active layer(12), wherein the active layer (12)is disposed between and is electrically connected to
the drain( M3)and the source(M2_2) adjacent to the drain(M3); and a gate(M1) disposed on and insulated from the source drain metal layer(M3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813