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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re Claim 1, lines 13 and lines 23-24 both recite “a portion of the second line”, where the two instances should read, and will be interpreted as, “a first portion of the second line” and “a second portion of the second line”, respectively, for clarity. Alternatively, if they are both the same portion of the second line, “a portion of the second line” in lines 23-24 should be “the portion of the second line” or “the second electrode”.
Similarly, lines 5-6 of Claim 5 and line 7 of Claim 6 recite “a portion of the third extending portion”, where the two instances should read, and will be interpreted as, “a first portion of the third extending portion” and “a second portion of the third extending portion”, respectively, for clarity. Alternatively, if they are both the same portion of the third extending portion, “a portion of the third extending portion” in lines 23-24 should be “the portion of the third extending portion” or “the first overlapping portion”.
Re Claim 7, “an opposed substrate disposed to opposite the array substrate” in lines 3-4 should be, and will be interpreted as, “an opposed substrate disposed opposite of the array substrate” for grammatical correctness.
Claims 2-7 inherit the objection to Claim 1, due to their dependency from Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al (US 2022/0043314 A1, hereafter Yamazaki).
Re Claim 1, Yamazaki discloses an array substrate (FIG. 1A; [0085]-[0099]) comprising:
a first line (421a, 421b; [0086]-[0089]);
a second line (425a, 425b; [0086]) that crosses the first line (421a, 421b; [0086]);
a semiconductor section (442; [0086]) being made of semiconductor material ([0086]), extending to cross the first line (421a, 421b; [0086]), and including a first end portion (424a, 424c; [0087]) that overlaps the second line (425a, 425b; [0087]) and a second end portion (424b, 424d; [0087]);
a first insulation film (402; [0086]) disposed between the first line (421a, 421b) and the semiconductor section (442; [0086]);
a first electrode (421a; [0086]) that is a portion of the first line (421a, 421b; [0086]) and overlaps the semiconductor section (442) via the first insulation film (402; [0086]);
a second electrode (425a, section shown along line D1-D2 in FIG. 1B; [0086]) that is a portion of the second line (425a, 425b; [0086]) and overlaps the semiconductor section (442; [0086]) and is connected to the semiconductor section (442; [0087]); and
a third electrode (425b; [0086]) that is disposed to overlap the second end portion (424b, 424d) of the semiconductor section (442; [0086]) and connected to the semiconductor section (442; [0087]), wherein
the semiconductor section (442) includes a resistance lowered section (424a; [0117]) that does not overlap the first electrode (442; [0117], at least a section of) and in which resistance is lowered ([0117]), and
the semiconductor section (442) includes a first overlapping portion (424a, 424e; [0087]) that overlaps a portion of the first electrode (421a; [0087]) and a portion of the second line (425a, 425b; [0087]).
Re Claim 5, Yamazaki discloses the array substrate according to Claim 1, while further disclosing wherein:
the semiconductor section (442) includes a third extending portion (423, 424a, 424b, 424e, 424f; [0086]-[0087]) that extends along the second line (425a, 425b; [0086]) and overlaps the second line (425a, 425b; [0086]) and crosses the first line (421a, 421b; [0089]), and
the first overlapping portion (424a, 424e) is a portion of the third extending portion (423, 424a, 424b, 424e, 424f; [0086]-[0087]).
Re Claim 7, Yamazaki discloses a display device (FIG. 24; [0393]), comprising:
the array substrate (600; [0393]) according to claim 1 ([0396], see rejection of Claim 1); and
an opposed substrate (601; [0394]) disposed to opposite the array substrate (600; [0394]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (assuming outstanding objections were addressed) 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:
Re Claim 2, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: the first overlapping portion is a portion of the first extending portion, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 2.
Re Claim 6, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: the first light blocking portion including a second overlapping portion that does not overlap the first line and overlaps a portion of the third extending portion, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 6.
In Re Claims 3-4, they are objected to due to their dependence from Claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST.
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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights