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 .
Requirement for Information under 37 CFR 1.105
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
MPEP 704.11 (a) discloses “37 CFR 1.105(a)(1)(i)-(vii) list specific examples of information that may be reasonably required. Other examples, not meant to be exhaustive, of information that may be reasonably required for examination of an application include:… (S) Interrogatories or Stipulations….(3) Of precisely which portion(s) of the disclose provide the written description and enablement support for specific claim element(s)”.
In response to the requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
What are the specific materials that would result in a “stretchable electrode layers”? What are the specific materials that would result in a “stretchable insulation layers”?
What are the specific materials that would result in the “Young’s modulus of the first insulation layer is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate”?
What are the specific materials that would result in the “Young’s modulus of the stretchable electrode layers and Young’s modulus of the stretchable insulation layers are both smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate”?
What are the specific materials that would result in the “Young’s modulus of the second insulation layer is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate”?
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163 II A 3 (a) (ii) discloses "[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.' (internal quotation marks omitted)."
Claim 1 discloses “a plurality of stretchable electrode layers and a plurality of stretchable insulating layers”.
The specification paragraph [0021] discloses “Young’s modulus of the stretchable electrode layers 410 and Young’s modulus of the stretchable insulation layer 420 are both smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate 310” and “the stretchable electrode layers 410 and the stretchable insulation layers 420 are relatively soft and susceptible to being stretched or deformed”. MPEP 2163 I discloses “question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”.
The specification fails to disclose specific materials of the stretchable electrode layers or stretchable insulation layers that would result in a Young’s modulus of the stretchable electrode layers and Young’s modulus of the stretchable insulation layer both being smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate, or the stretchable electrode layers and the stretchable insulation layers being soft and susceptible to being stretched or deformed.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 112(a) as dependents which encompass the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 2 discloses “wherein Young’s modulus of the first insulation layer is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate”.
The specification paragraph [0021] discloses “Young’s modulus of the first insulation layer 330 is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate 310”. MPEP 2163 I discloses “question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”.
The specification fails to disclose specific materials of the first insulation layer that would result in the Young’s modulus of the first insulation layer being smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate.
Claim 3 discloses “wherein Young’s modulus of the stretchable electrode layers and Young’s modulus of the stretchable insulation layers are both smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate”.
The specification paragraph [0021] discloses “Young’s modulus of the stretchable electrode layers 410 and Young’s modulus of the stretchable insulation layer 420 are both smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate 310” and “the stretchable electrode layers 410 and the stretchable insulation layers 420 are relatively soft and susceptible to being stretched or deformed”. MPEP 2163 I discloses “question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”.
The specification fails to disclose specific materials of the stretchable electrode layers or stretchable insulation layers that would result in a Young’s modulus of the stretchable electrode layers and Young’s modulus of the stretchable insulation layer both being smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate, or the stretchable electrode layers and the stretchable insulation layers being soft and susceptible to being stretched or deformed.
Claim 5 discloses “wherein Young’s modulus of the second insulation layer is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate”.
The specification paragraph [0023] discloses “Young’s modulus of the second insulation layer 340 is smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate 310”, and paragraph [0025] discloses “the second insulation layer 340 and the gate insulation layer 313 are flexible and stretchable”. MPEP 2163 I discloses “question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”.
The specification fails to disclose specific materials of the second insulation layer that would result in a Young’s modulus of the second insulation layer being smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate.
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 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.
The term “stretchable” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stretchable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. More specifically, it is unclear what range of elastic modulus, Young’s modulus, or other measures of elasticity are necessary for the material to be defined as “stretchable”.
Regarding claim 3, the claim cannot be addressed with respect to prior art because of its dependence on claim 1, and "As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims".
Regarding claim 6, the claim cannot be addressed with respect to prior art because of its dependence on claim 1, and "As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims".
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202215661 A) in view of Xu (US 20210354435 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a transistor backplane structure (Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of pixel structures, wherein each of the pixel structures comprises a substrate (101), a transistor disposed on the substrate (120), and a first insulation layer disposed on the transistor (104), wherein a plurality of conductive vias are disposed in the first insulation layer (portions of 150 disposed in 104); and a wire distribution layer (comprises 105, 106, 107 and 150), disposed on the pixel structures, wherein the wire distribution layer comprises a plurality of electrode layers (150), and a plurality of stretchable insulation layers (105, 106, 107; bottom of pg. 3 "third inorganic layer 105, which can be made of... silicon oxide", top of pg. 4 "the material of the interlayer dielectric layer 107 is silicon oxynitride"; silicon oxide and silicon oxynitride are both known to be flexible especially as films), the electrode layers are connected to a gate (124g) and a source (124a) of the transistor of the pixel structure through the
PNG
media_image1.png
130
285
media_image1.png
Greyscale
conductive vias of the first insulation layer of the each of the pixel structures (Shown), and the electrode layer at a side (upper side) of the wire distribution layer away from the pixel structure is connected to a contact of the transistor of the pixel structure through a conductive via in the first insulation layer of the pixel structure to form a pixel electrode (see attached figure). However, Chen in view of Xu does not disclose wherein the electrode layers are stretchable.
On the other hand, Xu discloses wherein the electrode layers are stretchable (Fig. 5F; Para. 54 "stretchable signal lines 50 include metals, alloys, graphene, carbon nanotubes, flexible conductive polymers, and other flexible conductive materials"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chen according to the teachings of Xu such that the electrode layers would be stretchable, in order to provide electrodes that can flex with the rest of the layers of the device, as is necessary in flexible displays.
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses wherein a material of the transistor comprises amorphous silicon, polycrystalline silicon, oxide semiconductor material, organic semiconductor material, or a combination thereof (Top of pg. 4 "The material of the first active layer 112 may be polysilicon,... or a compound oxide semiconductor material", where polysilicon is known to be the same as polycrystalline silicon).
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202215661 A) in view of Xu (US 20210354435 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee (TW 202115540 A).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Xu discloses the transistor backplane structure according to claim 1. However, Chen in view of Xu does not disclose wherein Young’s modulus of the first insulation layer is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate.
On the other hand, Lee discloses wherein Young’s modulus of an insulating layer (Fig. 1, insulating layer 130) is smaller than Young’s modulus of a substrate (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chen in view of Kwon and Xu according to the teachings of Lee such that the Young’s modulus of the first insulation layer would be smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate, in order to allow the device to flex and absorb stress well while still having the substrate provide a strong base.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202215661 A) in view of Xu (US 20210354435 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kwon (US 20180212188 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Xu discloses the transistor backplane structure according to claim 1. However, Chen in view of Xu does not disclose wherein a second insulation layer is disposed between the adjacent pixel structures and a gap is between the second insulation layer and the adjacent pixel structure.
On the other hand, Kwon discloses wherein a second insulation layer (Fig. 5, 320) is disposed between the adjacent pixel structures (Shown), and a gap (C) is between the second insulation layer and the adjacent pixel structure (Shown). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chen in view of Xu according to the teachings of Kwon such that the transistor backplane would further include a second insulation layer disposed between the adjacent pixel structures and a gap would be between the second insulation layer and the adjacent pixel structure, in order to provide a portion of the device that can withstand the majority of stretching, bending, or other deformation (Para. 17 "The first crack may include a longitudinal crack formed to be stretched in a first planar direction of the substrate, and a transversal crack formed to be stretched in a second planar direction of the substrate crossing the first planar direction").
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202215661 A) in view of Kwon (US 20180212188 A1) and Xu (US 20210354435 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lee (TW 202115540 A).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Kwon and Xu discloses the transistor backplane structure according to claim 4. However, Chen in view of Kwon and Xu does not disclose wherein Young’s modulus of the second insulation layer is smaller than Young’s modulus of the substrate.
On the other hand, Lee discloses wherein Young’s modulus of an insulating layer (Fig. 1, insulating layer 130) is smaller than Young’s modulus of a substrate (110). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chen in view of Kwon and Xu according to the teachings of Lee such that the Young’s modulus of the second insulation layer would be smaller than the Young’s modulus of the substrate, in order to allow the device to flex and absorb stress well while still having the substrate provide a strong base.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW 202215661 A) in view of Xu (US 20210354435 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kang (US 10916588 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Xu discloses the transistor backplane structure according to claim 1. However, Chen in view of Xu does not disclose wherein the each of the pixel structures further comprises a storage capacitor disposed on the substrate and the first insulation layer is disposed on the storage capacitor.
On the other hand, Kang discloses wherein the each of the pixel structures further comprises a storage capacitor (Fig. 7, CST) disposed on the substrate (100), and the first insulation layer is disposed on the storage capacitor (209). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chen in view of Xu according to the teachings of Kang such that each of the pixel structures would comprise a storage capacitor disposed on the substrate and the first insulation layer would be disposed on the storage capacitor, in order drive the pixels as is common in display circuitry.
Regarding claim 8, Kang discloses wherein one of the electrode layers (Fig. 7, drain electrode DE) is connected to a ground terminal of the storage capacitor (Fig. 4 shows CE1 connecting to ground through the drain electrode of the TFT) through one of the conductive vias (Fig. 7, drain electrode DE) in the first insulation layer of the each of the pixel structures (portion of electrode 221 connecting to DE in first insulating layer 209).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Xu disclose the transistor backplane structure according to claim 1, comprising stretchable electrode layers and stretchable insulation layers (See rejection to claim 1). However, Chen in view of Xu does not disclose wherein two of the electrode layers and an insulation layer between the two layers form a storage capacitor.
On the other hand, Kang discloses the capacitor (Fig. 7, Cst) being formed of two electrode layers (CE1 and CE2) and an insulation layer (205) disposed between the two layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Chen in view of Xu according to the teachings of Kang such that the capacitor would be formed of two electrode layers with an insulation layer disposed between the two layers, in order drive the pixels as is common in display circuitry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at (571) 272-2063. 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.
/S.J.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights