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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 (previous claims 2 and 12, respectively) resolve the previous rejection of claims 2-9 and 12-19 under 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, the previous rejections of claims 2-9 and 12-19 have been withdrawn.
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 “the organic insulating layer is filled in the via hole” of claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Applicant points to Figs. 7-12 as support for the claim language but the Examiner only sees conductive material filled in the vias. 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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 13, 14, 16-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (US 2023/0105200) hereinafter “Zou” in view of OH et al. (US 2023/0284475) hereinafter “OH” and Kwon et al. (US 2023/0139303) hereinafter “Kwon” and in further view of Shin et al. (US 2024/0423040) hereinafter “Shin”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 8 of Zou teaches a display panel (Paragraph 0002), comprising a first display area (Item S1) and a second display area (Item S2), wherein a light transmittance of the first display (Item S1) area is greater than a light transmittance of the second display area (Item S2), and the display panel further comprises: a substrate (Item 1); an inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64), disposed on a side of the substrate; a plurality of pixel-driving circuits (Item T6), disposed on the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) and comprising a plurality of first pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S1) disposed in the first display area (Item S1) and a plurality of second pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S2) disposed in the second display area (Item S2); an organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), disposed on a side of the inorganic insulating layer away from the substrate (Item 1); and a light-emitting layer (Not labeled but layer made up of Items 3), disposed on a side of the organic insulating layer away from the substrate (Item 1) and comprising a plurality of first light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S1) disposed in the first display area (Item S1) and a plurality of second light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S2) disposed in the second display area (Item S2), wherein the first pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S1) are electrically connected with the first light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S1), and the second pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S2) are electrically connected with the second light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S2); the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) comprises a first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61); where the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) further comprises a second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62), disposed between the first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61) and the organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), and a refractive index of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) is greater (Paragraph 0064) than the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61).
Zou does not explicitly teach a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the substrate and less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
OH teaches where a refractive index of an inorganic insulating layer (Item ILD) is less than a refractive index of an organic insulating layer (OL1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer because this results in the inorganic insulating sublayer not significantly affect a resonance structure (OH Paragraph 0137).
Kwon teaches where an inorganic insulating layer on a substrate has a lower refractive index than the substrate (Paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the substrate because this results in light being refracted at the interface between the functional layer and the substrate, whereby light can be condensed where, as a result, the amount of light reaching the light-emitting and light-receiving element can be increased (Kwon Paragraph 0106).
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer such that a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the substrate and less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Zou does not teach wherein in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide, and in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride; and wherein the silicon dioxide in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer constitutes a first silicon oxide layer, and the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer.
The process limitation of “the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer” found in product claim 1 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 1 does not require that two silicon nitride layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon nitride layer is present with silicon oxide layers above and below it.
Fig. 6 of Shin teaches where an inorganic layer (Combination of BRL and BFL) comprises an alternately laminated stack of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers (Combination of Items 0139 and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide, and in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride; and wherein the silicon dioxide in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer constitutes a first silicon oxide layer, and the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer because this allows for an inorganic layer which functions as a buffer layer and barrier layer (Shin Paragraphs 0139 and 0140).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches where the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) is a high refractive index layer (Paragraph 0064).
Zou does not explicitly teach where the second inorganic insulating sub-layer is greater than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer such that the second inorganic insulating sub-layer is greater than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches a third inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 631), disposed between the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) and the organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), and where the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating layer (Item 631) is a low refractive index layer (Paragraph 0064) such that the refractive index of the third inorganic sublayer (Item 631) is less than the refractive index of the second inorganic sublayer (Item 62).
Zou does not explicitly teach where a refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
OH teaches where a refractive index of an inorganic insulating layer (Item ILD) is less than a refractive index of an organic insulating layer (OL1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer because this results in the inorganic insulating sublayer not significantly affect a resonance structure (OH Paragraph 0137).
Kwon teaches where an inorganic insulating layer on a substrate has a lower refractive index than the substrate (Paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the substrate because this results in light being refracted at the interface between the functional layer and the substrate, whereby light can be condensed where, as a result, the amount of light reaching the light-emitting and light-receiving element can be increased (Kwon Paragraph 0106).
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer such that the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Zou does not teach wherein in the third inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide and the silicon dioxide in the second inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon dioxide in the third inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon oxide layer.
The process limitation of “in the third inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide and the silicon dioxide in the second inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon dioxide in the third inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon oxide layer” found in product claim 4 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 4 does not require that two silicon oxide layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon oxide layer is present with silicon nitride layers above and below it.
Fig. 6 of Shin teaches where an inorganic layer (Combination of BRL and BFL) comprises an alternately laminated stack of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers (Combination of Items 0139 and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in the third inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide and the silicon dioxide in the second inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon dioxide in the third inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon oxide layer because this allows for an inorganic layer which functions as a buffer layer and barrier layer (Shin Paragraphs 0139 and 0140).
Regarding claim 6, Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) further comprises: a fourth inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 64), disposed between the third inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 631) and the organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), and a refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 64) being greater than the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 61) and the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sublayers (Item 63).
Zou does not teach wherein in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride and the silicon nitride in the third inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon nitride layer.
The process limitation of “wherein in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride and the silicon nitride in the third inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon nitride layer” found in product claim 6 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 6 does not require that two silicon nitride layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon nitride layer is present with silicon oxide layers above and below it.
Fig. 6 of Shin teaches where an inorganic layer (Combination of BRL and BFL) comprises an alternately laminated stack of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers (Combination of Items 0139 and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride and the silicon nitride in the third inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon nitride layer because this allows for an inorganic layer which functions as a buffer layer and barrier layer (Shin Paragraphs 0139 and 0140).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Zou does not explicitly teach where the refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate, and greater than the refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer such that the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate and greater than the refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches where the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61) and the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 631) are identical (Paragraph 0064), and the refractive index of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) and the refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 64) are identical (Paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 9, Fig. 10 of Zou further teaches additional inorganic insulating sublayers such that a fifth inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 86) is disposed between a fourth inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 85) and an organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 87 and 88).
Zou does not explicitly teach a refractive index of the fifth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub layer.
The refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the fifth inorganic insulating sub-layer and fourth inorganic sublayer such that a refractive index of the fifth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Fig. 8 of Zou teaches a display device, comprising a sensor (Paragraph 0010) and a display panel comprising a first display area (Item S1) and a second display area (Item S2), wherein a light transmittance of the first display (Item S1) area is greater than a light transmittance of the second display area (Item S2), and the display panel further comprises: a substrate (Item 1); an inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64), disposed on a side of the substrate; a plurality of pixel-driving circuits (Item T6), disposed on the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) and comprising a plurality of first pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S1) disposed in the first display area (Item S1) and a plurality of second pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S2) disposed in the second display area (Item S2); an organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), disposed on a side of the inorganic insulating layer away from the substrate (Item 1); and a light-emitting layer (Not labeled but layer made up of Items 3), disposed on a side of the organic insulating layer away from the substrate (Item 1) and comprising a plurality of first light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S1) disposed in the first display area (Item S1) and a plurality of second light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S2) disposed in the second display area (Item S2), wherein the first pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S1) are electrically connected with the first light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S1), and the second pixel-driving circuits (Items 4 in Item S2) are electrically connected with the second light-emitting pixels (Items 3 in Item S2); the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) comprises a first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61); and the sensor (Paragraph 0010) is disposed corresponding to the first display area (Item S1) of the display panel; where the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) further comprises a second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62), disposed between the first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61) and the organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), and a refractive index of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) is greater (Paragraph 0064) than the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61).
Zou does not explicitly teach a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the substrate and less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
OH teaches where a refractive index of an inorganic insulating layer (Item ILD) is less than a refractive index of an organic insulating layer (OL1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer because this results in the inorganic insulating sublayer not significantly affect a resonance structure (OH Paragraph 0137).
Kwon teaches where an inorganic insulating layer on a substrate has a lower refractive index than the substrate (Paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the substrate because this results in light being refracted at the interface between the functional layer and the substrate, whereby light can be condensed where, as a result, the amount of light reaching the light-emitting and light-receiving element can be increased (Kwon Paragraph 0106).
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer such that a refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the substrate and less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Zou does not teach wherein in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide, and in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride; and wherein the silicon dioxide in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer constitutes a first silicon oxide layer, and the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer.
The process limitation of “the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer” found in product claim 1 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 1 does not require that two silicon nitride layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon nitride layer is present with silicon oxide layers above and below it.
Fig. 6 of Shin teaches where an inorganic layer (Combination of BRL and BFL) comprises an alternately laminated stack of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers (Combination of Items 0139 and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide, and in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride; and wherein the silicon dioxide in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer constitutes a first silicon oxide layer, and the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer because this allows for an inorganic layer which functions as a buffer layer and barrier layer (Shin Paragraphs 0139 and 0140).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Zou further teaches where the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) is a high refractive index layer (Paragraph 0064).
Zou does not explicitly teach where the second inorganic insulating sub-layer is greater than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer such that the second inorganic insulating sub-layer is greater than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches a third inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 631), disposed between the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) and the organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), and where the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating layer (Item 631) is a low refractive index layer (Paragraph 0064) such that the refractive index of the third inorganic sublayer (Item 631) is less than the refractive index of the second inorganic sublayer (Item 62).
Zou does not explicitly teach where a refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
OH teaches where a refractive index of an inorganic insulating layer (Item ILD) is less than a refractive index of an organic insulating layer (OL1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the organic insulating layer because this results in the inorganic insulating sublayer not significantly affect a resonance structure (OH Paragraph 0137).
Kwon teaches where an inorganic insulating layer on a substrate has a lower refractive index than the substrate (Paragraph 0104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer be less than a refractive index of the substrate because this results in light being refracted at the interface between the functional layer and the substrate, whereby light can be condensed where, as a result, the amount of light reaching the light-emitting and light-receiving element can be increased (Kwon Paragraph 0106).
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer such that the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Zou does not teach wherein in the third inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide and the silicon dioxide in the second inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon dioxide in the third inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon oxide layer.
The process limitation of “in the third inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide and the silicon dioxide in the second inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon dioxide in the third inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon oxide layer” found in product claim 4 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 4 does not require that two silicon oxide layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon oxide layer is present with silicon nitride layers above and below it.
Fig. 6 of Shin teaches where an inorganic layer (Combination of BRL and BFL) comprises an alternately laminated stack of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers (Combination of Items 0139 and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in the third inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon nitride is disposed on silicon dioxide and the silicon dioxide in the second inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon dioxide in the third inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon oxide layer because this allows for an inorganic layer which functions as a buffer layer and barrier layer (Shin Paragraphs 0139 and 0140).
Regarding claim 16, Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches the inorganic insulating layer (Combination of Items 61-64) further comprises: a fourth inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 64), disposed between the third inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 631) and the organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 65 and 66), and a refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 64) being greater than the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 61) and the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sublayers (Item 63).
Zou does not teach wherein in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride and the silicon nitride in the third inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon nitride layer.
The process limitation of “wherein in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride and the silicon nitride in the third inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon nitride layer” found in product claim 6 invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Anticipation of claim 6 does not require that two silicon nitride layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon nitride layer is present with silicon oxide layers above and below it.
Fig. 6 of Shin teaches where an inorganic layer (Combination of BRL and BFL) comprises an alternately laminated stack of silicon nitride and silicon oxide layers (Combination of Items 0139 and 0140).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have in in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer, silicon dioxide is disposed on silicon nitride and the silicon nitride in the third inorganic insulating sublayer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the fourth inorganic insulating sublayer to form a second silicon nitride layer because this allows for an inorganic layer which functions as a buffer layer and barrier layer (Shin Paragraphs 0139 and 0140).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Zou does not explicitly teach where the refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate, and greater than the refractive index of the organic insulating layer.
Further, the refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer such that the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the refractive index of the substrate and greater than the refractive index of the organic insulating layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18, Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches where the refractive index of the first inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 61) and the refractive index of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 631) are identical (Paragraph 0064), and the refractive index of the second inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 62) and the refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub-layer (Item 64) are identical (Paragraph 0064).
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 10 of Zou further teaches additional inorganic insulating sublayers such that a fifth inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 86) is disposed between a fourth inorganic insulating sublayer (Item 85) and an organic insulating layer (Combination of Items 87 and 88).
Zou does not explicitly teach a refractive index of the fifth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub layer.
The refractive index of an inorganic layer is a result effective variable (Zou Paragraph 0011 where the refractive index of various adjacent layers are set such that the light intensity emitting to one side of the substrate can be reduced, the light intensity reflected to a thin-film transistor is reduced, the degree of drifts in characteristics of the thin-film transistor is reduced, and the display uniformity is improved, while meeting the requirement of the first display region for the light transmittance and implementing both the optical functions and the display effect). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive index of the fifth inorganic insulating sub-layer and fourth inorganic sublayer such that a refractive index of the fifth inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than a refractive index of the fourth inorganic insulating sub layer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 22, Fig. 8 of Zou (when combined with Shin as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above) further teaches where the first silicon oxide layer is in direct contact with the substrate.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (US 2023/0105200) hereinafter “Zou” in view of OH et al. (US 2023/0284475) hereinafter “OH”, Kwon et al. (US 2023/0139303) hereinafter “Kwon” and Shin et al. (US 2024/0423040) hereinafter “Shin” and in further view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0077425) hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the third inorganic insulating sublayer is less than a thickness of the first inorganic insulating sublayer.
However, the thickness of inorganic insulating sublayers is a result effective variable (Lee Paragraph 000137 where the inorganic sublayers in a stack of inorganic insulating sublayers may have different thicknesses from each other based on the materials used for each layer). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the third inorganic insulating sublayer such that the thickness of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the thickness of the first inorganic insulating sublayer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Zou, OH and Kwon teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where a thickness of the third inorganic insulating sublayer is less than a thickness of the first inorganic insulating sublayer.
However, the thickness of inorganic insulating sublayers is a result effective variable (Lee Paragraph 000137 where the inorganic sublayers in a stack of inorganic insulating sublayers may have different thicknesses from each other based on the materials used for each layer). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the third inorganic insulating sublayer such that the thickness of the third inorganic insulating sub-layer is less than the thickness of the first inorganic insulating sublayer because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou (US 2023/0105200) hereinafter “Zou” in view of OH et al. (US 2023/0284475) hereinafter “OH”, Kwon et al. (US 2023/0139303) hereinafter “Kwon” and Shin et al. (US 2024/0423040) hereinafter “Shin” and in further view of Miyazaki et al. (US 6,482,419) hereinafter “Miyazaki”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zou, OH, Kwon and Shin teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches where the inorganic insulating sub-layer layer comprises: one or more low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers and one or more high- refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers alternately stacked, the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers being disposed adjacent to the substrate, and a refractive index of the high-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer being greater than a refractive index of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer adjacent to the high-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer.
Zou does not explicitly teach a thickness of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer satisfies a following formulas: d=(2k-1)λ/(4n); where k is a positive integer, and a value of k is determined according to a number of layers of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers along a direction from the organic insulating layer to the substrate; λ is a wavelength of light and n is a refractive index.
Miyazaki teaches where a thickness of an inorganic insulating sublayer is d=(λ*X/4)/n), where λ indicates a wavelength of visual light, X indicates an odd integer and n indicates the refractive index of the inorganic oxide of the layer (Miyazaki Column 2, Lines 32-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer satisfy a following formula: d=(2k-1)λ/(4n); where k is a positive integer, and a value of k is determined according to a number of layers of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers along a direction from the organic insulating layer to the substrate; λ is a wavelength of light and n is a refractive index because a thickness of an inorganic insulating layer is known to be defined by a wavelength of light and refractive index and layer number (Miyazaki Column 2, Lines 32-37).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Zou, OH and Kwon teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Fig. 8 of Zou further teaches where the inorganic insulating sub-layer layer comprises: one or more low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers and one or more high- refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers alternately stacked, the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers being disposed adjacent to the substrate, and a refractive index of the high-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer being greater than a refractive index of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer adjacent to the high-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer.
Zou does not explicitly teach a thickness of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer satisfies a following formulas: d=(2k-1)λ/(4n); where k is a positive integer, and a value of k is determined according to a number of layers of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers along a direction from the organic insulating layer to the substrate; λ is a wavelength of light and n is a refractive index.
Miyazaki teaches where a thickness of an inorganic insulating sublayer is d=(λ*X/4)/n), where λ indicates a wavelength of visual light, X indicates an odd integer and n indicates the refractive index of the inorganic oxide of the layer (Miyazaki Column 2, Lines 32-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layer satisfy a following formula: d=(2k-1)λ/(4n); where k is a positive integer, and a value of k is determined according to a number of layers of the low-refractive-index inorganic insulating sub-layers along a direction from the organic insulating layer to the substrate; λ is a wavelength of light and n is a refractive index because a thickness of an inorganic insulating layer is known to be defined by a wavelength of light and refractive index and layer number (Miyazaki Column 2, Lines 32-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have wherein the first display area is formed with a via hole, the via hole penetrates the inorganic insulating layer, a bottom of the via hole is located inside the inorganic insulating layer, and the organic insulating layer is filled in the via hole along with all of the limitations in claim 1, from which claim 21 depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s REMARKS, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11, and more specifically the order of the silicon oxide and silicon nitride layers, under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shin.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 11, and more specifically the formation of a single silicon nitride or silicon oxide layer based on the bringing together of two silicon nitride of silicon oxide layers, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the references do not teach where silicon nitride layers are in contact with ach other to form a single silicon nitride layer. While the Examiner agrees that the references do not teach having two silicon nitride layers in contact with each other to form a single silicon nitride layer the Examiner avers that “the silicon nitride in the first inorganic insulating sub-layer is in direct contact with the silicon nitride in the second inorganic insulating sub-layer to form a first silicon nitride layer” is a process limitation found in product claim 1 which invokes the product-by-process doctrine. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (MPEP § 2113). Thus, anticipation of claim 1 does not require that two silicon nitride layers come together to form one layer but instead that one silicon nitride layer (which the Applicant’s structure effectively is) is present with silicon oxide layers above and below it. The claim language or Applicant’s disclosure does not require any specific structure (i.e. thickness or additional materials) of the single silicon nitride layer which would make it unique to other silicon nitride layers alternately stacked with silicon oxide layers. Thus, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive.
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 ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights