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 Objections
Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites in part “….an orthographic projection of the avoidance opening on a first reference plane having a first edge…”. In the view of the Examiner, this should read “…….an orthographic projection of the avoidance opening on a first reference plane has a first edge… Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 and 18-20 are objected to as they are dependent on Claim 1.
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 1-10 and 18-20 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 1, the claim recites in part “at least one positioning structure, provided on a side of the substrate, wherein a positioning structure…”. Examiner is unclear whether “a positioning structure” should be “the positioning structure”, and if so, whether each of the one or more positioning structures has a main portion, etc.
Applicant could rewrite claim 1 to say “….a positioning structure,…..wherein the positioning structure…”. Because comprising already carries the meaning of at least, Applicant is not limiting itself to only one positioning structure, and can later add more positioning structures as needed. For example, in Claim 10, Applicant could say “The array substrate of Claim 1, comprising a plurality of positioning structures, wherein each of the plurality of positioning structures is made of the same material and is located in the same layer.”
Further, Claim 1 also recites in part “…the first reference plane is a plane where a surface, away from the positioning structure, of the substrate is located.” Examiner is unclear what this means. Does Applicant mean that the first reference plane is the plane of the surface of the substrate that is on the opposite side of the positioning structure?
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites in part “…a plurality of conductive portions and a plurality of transfer lines, wherein a transfer line is connected to a conductive portion…” Does Applicant mean that each transfer line is connected a respective conductive portion?
Regarding Claim 7, the claim depends on Claim 5, which recites “wherein the positioning structure is located in any one of the first conductive metal layer, the second conductive metal layer, and the first insulating layer.” Claim 7 then adds “wherein the positioning structure is located in any one of …… and the second insulating layer.”. This seems inconsistent. In the view of the Examiner, it is better to write the limitation of claim 5 as follows: “wherein the positioning structure is located in any one of a group of layers comprising the first conductive metal layer, the second conductive metal layer, and the first insulating layer.” Then, Claim 7 can be rewritten as follows: “wherein the group of layers further comprises the second insulating layer.”
Regarding Claim 8, similar to claim 7, the claim should be rewritten as follows: “wherein the group of layers further comprises the alignment mark layer;”
Further, Examiner is unsure what Applicant means by “in a case where the array substrate further comprises a second insulating layer…” A second insulating layer is recited only in Claim 7, and Claim 8 has been amended to only depend on Claim 5. Perhaps Applicant meant to remove this limitation.
Regarding Claim 9, similar to claim 8, Examiner is unsure what Applicant means by “in a case where the array substrate further comprises a second insulating layer…”. Perhaps Applicant meant to remove this limitation.
Claims 11-17 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 11, many of the same issues as above apply: For example, Applicant recites “a plurality of array sub-boards” but then states “the array sub-board includes:”. Applicant states “at least one positioning structure…” and then states “a positioning structure”. Additionally Examiner is unsure what the scope of this claim is. For example, Applicant states “wherein the first preset value is a process accuracy at which a portion, located in the functional device arrangement region, of the array sub-board is removable…”. Examiner is unclear as to what this means.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1-10 and 18-20 none of the prior art of record teaches, suggests or renders
obvious, either alone or in combination at least one positioning structure, provided on a side of the substrate, wherein a positioning structure includes a main portion, the main portion being substantially parallel to the first edge.
Regarding Claims 11-17, none of the prior art of record teaches, suggests or renders
obvious, either alone or in combination at least one positioning structure, provided on the substrate motherboard and located in the test region, a positioning structure including a main portion, and the main portion being substantially parallel to the first demarcation line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHIT PARTHASARATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-2572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5p.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/ROHIT PARTHASARATHY/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights