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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, and 16 stand rejected under Section 102 in view of Tanaka. Claims 1 and 11 stand rejected under Section 102 in view of Koyama. Claims 3, and 13 stand rejected under Section 103 in view of Tanaka. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under Section 112(a) for lack of enablement for the full scope of the claims. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under Section 112(b). Claims 8 and 18 stand objected to. The drawings and specification stand objected to. Claims 4, 5, 7-10, 14, 15, and 17-20 stand objected to for depending from a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if placed in independent form and if the Section 112(a) rejections were addressed, and for claims 8 and 18, if the Section 112(b) rejections and the informalities were addressed.
Applicants amended claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 18, canceled claims 4 and 14, and added new claims 21 and 22. Applicants provided amendments to the specification, and provided replacement drawings. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the drawings: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted drawing objections, but each sheet does not have “Replacement Sheet” as required by USPTO rules. For these reasons, the drawings have not been entered.
Next, specification: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted specification objections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted specification objections are withdrawn.
Claim objections: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted claim objections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted claim objections are withdrawn. However, the Office identified additional informalities, which are noted below.
Section 112(b) rejections: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted Section 112(b) rejections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted Section 112(b) rejections are withdrawn. However, in placing the subject matter of claim 4 in claim 1, and the subject matter of claim 14 in claim 11, dependent claim 7 now conflicts with claim 1 and dependent claim 17 now conflicts with claim 11. These are discussed further in the Section 112(b) section, below.
Section 112(a) enablement rejections: Applicants’ amendments address the previously noted Section 112(a) enablement rejections and are accepted and entered. No new matter has been added. The previously noted Section 112(a) enablement rejections are withdrawn.
Section 102 rejections: By placing allowable subject matter in independent form, applicants have overcome the previously noted Section 102 rejections. These rejections are withdrawn.
Section 103 rejections: By placing allowable subject matter in independent form, applicants have overcome the previously noted Section 103 rejections. These rejections are withdrawn.
Updated searches yielded no further prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claims, or that could be used with previously cited prior art to render obvious the claims. For these reasons, claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 21 are allowed, with claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 being allowable once the informalities are addressed.
The Office attempted to reach applicants’ representative to discuss potential amendments to place the application in condition for allowance, but the phone number associated with applicants’ representative was not working.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 7, 2026. These drawings have addressed the informalities, but lack the label “Replacement Sheet” at the top of each sheet, which is required by USPTO rules. For these reasons, the drawings are not entered.
The drawings are objected to because they lack the label “Replacement Sheet” at the top of each page. 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 Objections
Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12, 13, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 7: Add “and” after the comma.
Claims 3 and 6-10 are objected to for depending from objected-to claim 2.
Claim 3, lines 1-2: Delete “the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction, and”. This language is a duplicate of the newly added language to claim 1.
Claim 12, line 7: Add “and” after the comma.
Claims 13 and 16-20 are objected to for depending from objected-to claim 12.
Claim 13, lines 1-2: Delete “the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction, and”. This language is a duplicate of the newly added language to claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 has been amended to require: “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction….” Claim 7 requires “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction.” The features of original claim 7 were disclosed in Figure 5, while the features of original claim 4, which has been incorporated in claim 1, were shown in Figure 3. However, once claim 4 was incorporated in claim 1, the requirements of claim 1 now conflict with claim 7. If the gate auxiliary structure is on the gate and the width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction, then the gate auxiliary structure cannot be on a side wall of the gate along the first direction because, if it were, the width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction would be greater than the width of the gate along the first direction. Because claim 7 is now not supported by the originally filed disclosure, claim 7 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Claim 8 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11: Claim 11 has been amended to require: “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction….” Claim 17 requires “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction.” The features of original claim 17 were disclosed in Figure 5, while the features of original claim 14, which has been incorporated in claim 11, were shown in Figure 3. However, once claim 14 was incorporated in claim 11, the requirements of claim 11 now conflict with claim 17. If the gate auxiliary structure is on the gate and the width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction, then the gate auxiliary structure cannot be on a side wall of the gate along the first direction because, if it were, the width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction would be greater than the width of the gate along the first direction. Because claim 17 is now not supported by the originally filed disclosure, claim 17 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Claim 18 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from claim 21: Claim 21 requires “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction.” Claim 22, which depends from claim 21, requires: “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction….”
If the gate auxiliary structure is on the gate along the first direction and a width of the gate auxiliary structure is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction, as required by claim 21, and then the gate auxiliary structure cannot be disposed on a sidewall of the gate along with first direction because, if it were, the width of the gate auxiliary structure in the first direction would be greater than the width of the gate in the first direction. Because claim 22 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, claim 22 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
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 7, 8, 17, 18, and 22 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 7, which depends from claim 2, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 has been amended to require: “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction….” Claim 7 requires “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction.” If the gate auxiliary structure is on the sidewall of the gate along the first direction, as required by claim 1, and then also on the gate, as required by claim 7, then the width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is not equal to the width of the gate along the first direction. Because claim 7’s requirements conflict with claim 1, claim 7 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 8 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 12, which depends from claim 11: Claim 11 has been amended to require: “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction….” Claim 17 requires “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction.” As discussed above, if the gate auxiliary structure is on the sidewall of the gate along the first direction, as required by claim 11, and then also on the gate, as required by claim 17, then the width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is not equal to the width of the gate along the first direction. Because claim 17’s requirements conflict with claim 11, claim 17 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 18 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, which depends from claim 21: Claim 21 requires “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction.” Claim 22, which depends from claim 21, requires: “wherein the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on a side wall of the gate along the first direction….”
If the gate auxiliary structure is on the gate along the first direction and a width of the gate auxiliary structure is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction, as required by claim 21, and then the gate auxiliary structure cannot be disposed on a sidewall of the gate along with first direction because, if it were, the width of the gate auxiliary structure in the first direction would be greater than the width of the gate in the first direction. Because claim 22’s requirements conflict with claim 21, claim 22 is rejected as indefinite.
As to claim 22, the Office recommends that applicants include the subject matter of claim 18 and portion of the subject matter that was newly added in claim 11, as follows:
Claim 22, line 1: Change “the gate auxiliary structure” to “the display”.
Claim 22, line 2: Change this line to “panel further comprises a gate wiring connected to the gate,”.
Claim 22, line 3: Change this line to “the gate auxiliary structure is further disposed a second ohmic contact layer and”.
Claim 22, line 4: Change this line to “on two side walls of the gate wiring along the first direction, wherein the active layer comprises a first ohmic contact layer and the second ohmic contact layer.”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15, and 21 are allowed.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 20 stand objected to for informalities, but would be allowable if the informalities were addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “an orthographic projection of the first ohmic contact layer on the gate auxiliary structure is within the gate auxiliary structure”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 11: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “an orthographic projection of the first ohmic contact layer on the gate auxiliary structure is within the gate auxiliary structure”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 11 above.
With regard to claim 21: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “the gate auxiliary structure is disposed on the gate and a width of the gate auxiliary structure along the first direction is equal to the width of the gate along the first direction”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights