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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (US 2019/0056626), of record.
Regarding claim 1, Lu discloses a method of manufacturing a display device (Figs. 1-7), comprising:
disposing a first insulating layer (15) comprising a contact hole (17) on a substrate (10), the contact hole extending entirely through the first insulating layer (Figs. 5-7);
disposing a conductive material (16) on the first insulating layer (15) and inside the contact hole (17) (Figs. 5-7);
disposing a second insulating layer (19) on the conductive material (16) and inside the contact hole (17) to completely fill the contact hole (Fig. 5), a top surface of the second insulating layer (19) being flat (Fig. 5; each portion of the top surface of layer 19 is flat);
forming a masking pattern (18) by exposing and developing the second insulating layer (19) (Figs. 5-6);
etching the conductive material (16) to form a conductive pattern (Fig. 6; paras. [0056-0057]);
etching back the masking pattern (18) such that the masking pattern remains in the contact hole (17), wherein the conductive pattern (16) is interposed between the masking pattern (18) and the first insulating layer (15) while the masking pattern does not contact the first insulating layer after etching back the masking pattern (Figs. 6-7); and
disposing a third insulating layer (paras. [0078-0080, 0092]; “alignment film”) on the conductive pattern (16) and the masking pattern (18).
Regarding claim 2, Lu discloses wherein after the etching back, the conductive pattern (16) is at least partially exposed (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Lu discloses wherein the first insulating layer (15) includes a first region (e.g., region surrounding connecting portion 17) that overlaps the conductive pattern (16) and a second region (e.g., rightmost region in Figs. 5-7) that does not overlap the conductive pattern (16), and
a thickness of the first region of the first insulating layer (15) is greater than a thickness of the second region of the first insulating layer (Figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, Lu discloses wherein the forming of the masking pattern (18) by exposing and developing the second insulating layer (19) is performed using a half-tone mask (20-22) (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Lu discloses wherein the masking pattern (18) includes a first masking pattern part (18) having a first thickness and a second masking pattern part (19) having a second thickness smaller than the first thickness (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Lu discloses wherein the second masking pattern part (19) is removed by the etching back (Figs. 6-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2019/0056626), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LG Display Co Ltd (KR 2016-0002596), of record.
Regarding claim 7, Lu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer, and the third insulating layer include a siloxane polymer.
However, LG Display Co Ltd discloses a method of manufacturing a display device (Figs. 1-2), wherein an insulating layer includes a siloxane polymer (paras. [0046, 0050, 0053-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first insulating layer, the second insulating layer, and the third insulating layer include a siloxane polymer, as in LG Display Co Ltd, into the method of Lu, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation “a top surface of the second insulating layer being flat,” and has argued that the corresponding layer 19 of Lu has a stepped upper surface. However, although the layer of Lu may show a stepped shape, the upper surface along the shape is shown to be flat in the figures.
Therefore, the previous ground of rejection over Lu has been maintained and modified as necessary due to the amendments to the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. To potentially address Applicant’s more narrow interpretation of the amended claim limitation, Kim et al. (US 2005/0082534) (Fig. 2A) and Yuan et al. (US 2021/0233982) (Fig. 3f) disclose methods of manufacturing a display device, comprising disposing a second insulating layer, a top surface of the second insulating layer being flat.
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 PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights