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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed February 11, 2026. Claims 1-13 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 14-26 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Namely, with regard to the double patenting and prior art rejection, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 14, as newly amended. Specifically, the claim now requires the second organic passivation film to continuously extend to a next through-hole. However, as set forth below, Akiyoshi discloses the second organic passivation film 114 exists also outside the through-hole 130 and continuously extends to a next through-hole (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0050] and note that 114 extends to at least a through-hole 122 in pixel electrode 113).
Therefore, claims 14-26 are rejected, as set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 14, 23, and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,591 in view of Akiyoshi (2019/0056620 A1).
In regard to claim 14, US 12,072,591 claims a liquid crystal display device, comprising (see e.g. Column 12, claim 1, line 20):
a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate (see e.g. Column 12, claim 1, line 21), the TFT substrate including a first organic passivation film, a semiconductor film, a gate electrode, a drain electrode, a source electrode, a pixel electrode, and a common electrode formed on the first organic passivation film, the first organic passivation film including a through-hole to connect the pixel electrode and the source electrode (see e.g. Column 12, claim 1, lines 21-29),
wherein a second organic passivation film is formed in the through-hole (see e.g. Column 12, claim 1, line 33 and Claim 7, lines 59-60),
the second organic passivation film exists also outside the through-hole (see e.g. Column 12, claim 1, lines 37-40), and
a thickness of the second organic passivation film inside the through-hole is greater than a thickness of the second organic passivation film outside the through-hole (see e.g. Column 12, Claim 1, lines 38-40), and
a recess is formed in the through-hole by an upper surface of the second organic passivation film and a sidewall of the through-hole (see e.g. Column 12, Claim 1, lines 34-35),
an upper surface of the second organic passivation film at the through-hole is lower than an upper surface of the second organic passivation film outside the through-hole (see e.g. Column 12, claim 1, lines 41-43).
US 12,072,591 does not claim
the second organic passivation film continuously extends to a next through-hole.
However, Akiyoshi discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
the second organic passivation film continuously extends to a next through-hole (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0050] and note that 114 extends to at least a through-hole 122 in pixel electrode 113).
Given the teachings of Akiyoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed invention of US 12,072,591 with the second organic passivation film continuously extends to a next through-hole.
Providing the passivation film prevents unwanted electrical shorting between layers.
In regard to claim 23, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but does not claim
wherein the semiconductor film is formed of an oxide semiconductor.
However, Akiyoshi discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
wherein the semiconductor film is formed of an oxide semiconductor 102 (see e.g. paragraph [0083]).
Given the teachings of Akiyoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591 with wherein the semiconductor film is formed of an oxide semiconductor.
Doing so would provide a material that is known within the art to provide an effective semiconductive layer for use in thin film transistor switching device.
In regard to claim 24, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but does not claim
color filters formed on a side of the TFT substrate.
However, Akiyoshi discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
color filters 108 formed on a side of the TFT substrate 100 (see e.g. paragraph [0047]).
Given the teachings of Akiyoshi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591 with color filters formed on a side of the TFT substrate.
Doing so would prevent misalignment of the color filter regions with the pixel electrode regions that may occur when the layers are on opposing substrates.
Claims 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,591 in view of Akiyoshi (2019/0056620 A1) and further in view of Tomioka et al. (US 2013/0021552 A1).
In regard to claim 15, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
a counter substrate disposed opposite to the TFT substrate with a liquid crystal layer in between (see e.g. Column 12, Claim 1, lines 20-23); and
a columnar spacer formed on the counter substrate to define a distance between the TFT substrate and the counter substrate (see e.g. Column 12, Claim 1, lines 30-32), wherein a tip end of the columnar spacer exists in the recess (see e.g. Column 12, Claim 1, line 36).
US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi, fails to disclose
US 12,072,591 does not claim
the recess restricts lateral displacement of a columnar spacer formed on a counter substrate,
the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole and the recess has a planar shape of a square.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1B, 3):
the recess restricts lateral displacement of a columnar spacer 210 (denoted “columnar projection) formed on a counter substrate 200 (see e.g. paragraph [0072] where it is noted that misalignment is resisted),
the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole (see e.g. Figure 1B and note that the recess is at least part of an upper portion of the through-hole). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the recess have a planar shape of a square, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi, with the recess restricts lateral displacement of a columnar spacer formed on a counter substrate, and the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole and the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole and the recess has a planar shape of a square.
Providing the recess would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates by restricting motion of the spacer structure (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.). Further, by selecting a specific shape, the spacer may be adequately prevented from movement.
In regard to claim 16, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but does not claim
wherein the columnar spacer is in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
wherein the columnar spacer 210 is in contact with the upper surface of the passivation film 109 (i.e. at least indirectly) in the recess.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591 with wherein the columnar spacer is in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 17, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but does not claim
wherein the columnar spacer is not in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1B):
wherein the columnar spacer 210 is not in contact with the upper surface of the passivation film 109 in the recess.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591 with wherein the columnar spacer is not in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 18, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but does not claim
wherein the columnar spacer comes into contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess when the TFT substrate or the counter substrate receives a pressing force.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1B):
wherein the columnar spacer 210 comes into contact with the upper surface of the passivation film 109 (i.e. at least indirectly) in the recess when the TFT substrate 100 or the counter substrate 200 receives a pressing force. Note that the compression of the device will naturally cause contact. Further the claim is conditional, and would be satisfied for the device not having a pressing force applied.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591 with wherein the columnar spacer comes into contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess when the TFT substrate or the counter substrate receives a pressing force.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 19, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but does not claim
wherein a diameter of the recess is larger than a diameter of the columnar spacer in plan view.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses
wherein a diameter of the recess is larger than a diameter of the columnar spacer 210 in plan view (see e.g. Figures 1B and 3 and note the recess must be larger to accommodate the spacer).
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591 with wherein a diameter of the recess is larger than a diameter of the columnar spacer in plan view.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 20, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but does not claim
wherein a depth of the recess is 0.4 to 0.8µm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a ratio of about 3 a depth of the recess is 0.4 to 0.8 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591, in view of Tomioka et al., with a depth of the recess is 0.4 to 0.8 µm.
Doing so would provide a recess depth that prevents translational movement of the substrates with respect to one another without an excessive thickness of the display panel needed to prevent such movement where the depth of the recess would have predictable behavior.
In regard to claim 21, US 12,072,591 claims the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, and wherein the second organic passivation film is formed of a same material as the first organic passivation film (see e.g. Column 12, claim 7, lines 58-60).
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,591 in view of Akiyoshi (2019/0056620 A1) in view of Tomioka et al. (US 2013/0021552 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0252926 A1).
In regard to claim 22, US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi and Tomioka et al., claims the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but does not claim
wherein the columnar spacer, the second organic passivation film in the through-hole, the gate electrode, and the semiconductor film overlap one another in plan view.
However, Li et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 7):
wherein the columnar spacer PS2, the film 14 in the through-hole 121, the gate electrode (i.e. of transistor in region Q22), and the semiconductor film (i.e. of transistor in region Q22) overlap one another in plan view.
Given the teachings of Li et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi and Tomioka et al., with wherein the columnar spacer, the second organic passivation film in the through-hole, the gate electrode, and the semiconductor film overlap one another in plan view.
Doing so would overlap elements that do not contribute to the image such that a larger pixel aperture may be formed.
Claims 25 and 26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,072,591 in view of Akiyoshi (2019/0056620 A1) and further in view of Ono et al. (US 2002/0101557 A1).
In regard to claim 25, US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi, claims the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to claim
a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode.
However, Ono et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a light shielding film BM including a metal film (see e.g. paragraph [0057]) formed overlapping the common electrode CL.
Given the teaching of Ono et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi, with a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode.
Doing so would allow the common potential to be transmitted under the lower resistance through the shielding files with the common lines (see e.. paragraph [0075] of Ono et al.).
In regard to claim 26, US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi, claims the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to claim
a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode, and wherein no black matrix exists in a display region of the counter substrate.
However, Ono et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a light shielding film BM including a metal film (see e.g. paragraph [0057]) formed overlapping the common electrode CT, and wherein no black matrix exists in a display region of the counter substrate SUB2.
Given the teachings of Ono et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of US 12,072,591, in view of Akiyoshi, with a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode, and wherein no black matrix exists in a display region of the counter substrate.
Doing so would allow the common potential to be transmitted under the lower resistance through the shielding files with the common lines (see e.. paragraph [0075] of Ono et al.).
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 14-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyoshi (2019/0056620 A1) in view of Tomioka et al. (US 2013/0021552 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Akiyoshi discloses a liquid crystal display device, comprising (see e.g. Figure 3):
a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate 100,
the TFT substrate 100 including a first organic passivation film 109, a semiconductor film 102, a gate electrode 104, a drain electrode 106, a source electrode 107, a pixel electrode 113, and a common electrode 110 formed on the first organic passivation film 109 (see e.g. Figure 3 and note the common electrode is formed on film 109),
the first organic passivation film 109 including a through-hole 130 to connect the pixel electrode 113 and the source electrode 107,
wherein a second organic passivation film 114 (denoted “black matrix”, formed of acrylic resin, see paragraphs [0053]-[0057]) is formed in the through-hole 130,
the second organic passivation film 114 exists also outside the through-hole 130 and continuously extends to a next through-hole (see e.g. Figure 3 and paragraph [0050] and note that 114 extends to at least a through-hole 122 in pixel electrode 113), and a thickness of the second organic passivation film inside the through-hole 130 is greater than a thickness of the second organic passivation film outside the through-hole 130 (see e.g. Figure 3), and
an upper surface of the second organic passivation film 114 at the through-hole 130 is lower than an upper surface of the second organic passivation film 114 outside the through-hole 130 (see e.g. Figure 3).
Akiyoshi fails to disclose
a recess is formed in the through-hole by an upper surface of the second organic passivation film and a sidewall of the through-hole.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1B, 3):
a recess (i.e. not labeled in the figures and is the portion that accommodates spacer 210) is formed in the through-hole by an upper surface of the insulating film 109 and a sidewall of the through-hole.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomioka et al. with a recess is formed in the through-hole by an upper surface of the second organic passivation film and a sidewall of the through-hole.
Providing the recess would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates by restricting motion of the spacer structure (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 15, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
the counter substrate 200 disposed opposite to the TFT substrate 100 with a liquid crystal layer 300 in between.
Akiyoshi fails to disclose
the recess restricts lateral displacement of a columnar spacer formed on a counter substrate,
the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole and the recess has a planar shape of a square,
the columnar spacer is formed on the counter substrate to define a distance between the TFT substrate and the counter substrate, wherein a tip end of the columnar space exists in the recess.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1B, 3):
the recess restricts lateral displacement of a columnar spacer 210 (denoted “columnar projection) formed on a counter substrate 200 (see e.g. paragraph [0072] where it is noted that misalignment is resisted), and
the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole (see e.g. Figure 1B and note that the recess is at least part of an upper portion of the through-hole),
the columnar spacer 210 is formed on the counter substrate 200 to define a distance between the TFT substrate 100 and the counter substrate 200, wherein a tip end of the columnar space 210 exists in the recess.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the recess have a planar shape of a square, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.04, in re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Tomioka et al. with the recess restricts lateral displacement of a columnar spacer formed on a counter substrate, the recess is formed in an upper portion of the through-hole and the recess has a planar shape of a square, the columnar spacer is formed on the counter substrate to define a distance between the TFT substrate and the counter substrate, wherein a tip end of the columnar space exists in the recess.
Providing the recess would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates by restricting motion of the spacer structure (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.). Further, by selecting a specific shape, the spacer may be adequately prevented from movement.
In regard to claim 16, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the columnar spacer is in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
wherein the columnar spacer 210 is in contact with the upper surface of the passivation film 109 (i.e. at least indirectly) in the recess.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi with wherein the columnar spacer is in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 17, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the columnar spacer is not in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1B):
wherein the columnar spacer 210 is not in contact with the upper surface of the passivation film 109 in the recess.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi with wherein the columnar spacer is not in contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 18, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the columnar spacer comes into contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess when the TFT substrate or the counter substrate receives a pressing force.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1B):
wherein the columnar spacer 210 comes into contact with the upper surface of the passivation film 109 (i.e. at least indirectly) in the recess when the TFT substrate 100 or the counter substrate 200 receives a pressing force. Note that the compression of the device will naturally cause contact. Further the claim is conditional, and would be satisfied for the device not having a pressing force applied.
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi with wherein the columnar spacer comes into contact with the upper surface of the second organic passivation film in the recess when the TFT substrate or the counter substrate receives a pressing force.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 19, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a diameter of the recess is larger than a diameter of the columnar spacer in plan view.
However, Tomioka et al. discloses
wherein a diameter of the recess is larger than a diameter of the columnar spacer 210 in plan view (see e.g. Figures 1B and 3 and note the recess must be larger to accommodate the spacer).
Given the teachings of Tomioka et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi with wherein a diameter of the recess is larger than a diameter of the columnar spacer in plan view.
Doing so would prevent unwanted misalignment of the substrates (see e.g. paragraph [0072] of Tomioka et al.).
In regard to claim 20, Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
a depth of the recess is 0.4 to 0.8 µm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a ratio of about 3 a depth of the recess is 0.4 to 0.8 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., with a depth of the recess is 0.4 to 0.8 µm.
Doing so would provide a recess depth that prevents translational movement of the substrates with respect to one another without an excessive thickness of the display panel needed to prevent such movement where the depth of the recess would have predictable behavior.
In regard to claim 21, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
wherein the second organic passivation film 114 is formed of a same material as the first organic passivation film 109 (see e.g. paragraphs [0047] and [0056] where the material is acrylic).
In regard to claim 23, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
wherein the semiconductor film is formed of an oxide semiconductor 102 (see e.g. paragraph [0083]).
In regard to claim 24, Akiyoshi discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
color filters 108 formed on a side of the TFT substrate 100 (see e.g. paragraph [0047]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyoshi (US 2019/0056620 A1) in view of Tomioka et al. (US 2013/0021552 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0252926 A1).
In regard to claim 22, Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the columnar spacer, the second organic passivation film in the through-hole, the gate electrode, and the semiconductor film overlap one another in plan view.
However, Li et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 7):
wherein the columnar spacer PS2, the film 14 in the through-hole 121, the gate electrode (i.e. of transistor in region Q22), and the semiconductor film (i.e. of transistor in region Q22) overlap one another in plan view.
Given the teachings of Li et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., with wherein the columnar spacer, the second organic passivation film in the through-hole, the gate electrode, and the semiconductor film overlap one another in plan view.
Doing so would overlap elements that do not contribute to the image such that a larger pixel aperture may be formed.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyoshi (US 2019/0056620 A1) in view of Tomioka et al. (US 2013/0021552 A1) and further in view of Ono et al. (US 2002/0101557 A1).
In regard to claim 25, Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode.
However, Ono et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a light shielding film BM including a metal film (see e.g. paragraph [0057]) formed overlapping the common electrode CL.
Given the teaching of Ono et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al. with a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode.
Doing so would allow the common potential to be transmitted under the lower resistance through the shielding files with the common lines (see e.. paragraph [0075] of Ono et al.).
In regard to claim 26, Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., discloses all of the limitations of claim 15 as cited above, but fails to disclose
a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode, and wherein no black matrix exists in a display region of the counter substrate.
However, Ono et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a light shielding film BM including a metal film (see e.g. paragraph [0057]) formed overlapping the common electrode CT, and wherein no black matrix exists in a display region of the counter substrate SUB2.
Given the teachings of Ono et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Akiyoshi, in view of Tomioka et al., with a light shielding film including a metal film formed overlapping the common electrode, and wherein no black matrix exists in a display region of the counter substrate.
Doing so would allow the common potential to be transmitted under the lower resistance through the shielding files with the common lines (see e.. paragraph [0075] of Ono et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871