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 .
Specification
The specification submitted 9/02/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 9/02/2024 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nonaka (JP # 2014074225, cited by the applicant in an IDS dated 11/28/2024).
Regarding Claim 4, Nonaka-225 teaches a sputtering target (described at [0019, 31-32], see especially Example 13 of Table 2) adapted to deposit the silver alloy layer according to claim 1 ([0020]), wherein a material of the sputtering target comprises silver with the atomic percentage greater than 96.5% (described at [0011, 19, 31] and Table 2), zinc with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 2.0% (described at [0019, 31-32]), and antimony with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5% (described at [0019, 31-32]).
Regarding Claim 12, Nonaka-225 teaches sputtering target ([0036, 40] and Table 4, see especially Example 24) adapted to deposit the silver alloy layer according to claim 5 ([0020, 36, 40]), wherein a material of the sputtering target comprises silver with the atomic percentage greater than 95% ([0011] Table 4) and other elements with the atomic percentage less than or equal to 5%, and the other elements comprise at least one of zinc, antimony, and neodymium with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% ([0011] Table 4) and at least one of indium, tin, palladium, and gold with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% ([0011] and Table 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara-773 (US # 20050275773) in view of Nonaka-225 (JP # 2014074225, cited by the applicant in an IDS dated 11/28/2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Fujiwara-773 teaches a reflective display panel (embodiment starting at [0073]), comprising a pixel structure (310, 301t, see Figs. 4 and corresponding text at [0074-75]) having a reflective area ([0074-76]), wherein the pixel structure comprises:
an active device (301t) and an insulation layer (307), wherein the insulation layer is located above the active device ([0075]); and
a reflective layer (308) disposed on the insulation layer and located in the reflective area (shown), wherein the reflective layer comprises a silver alloy layer, and a material of the silver [[alloy]] layer ([0081] describes Ag) comprises silver
Although Fujiwara-773 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the material of the reflective layer, specifically the silver alloy layer comprising silver with an atomic percentage greater than 96.5%, zinc with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 2.0%, and antimony with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5%.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Nonaka-225 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a silver alloy layer (described at [0012-13, 20, 30-31], see especially Example 13 of Table 2) wherein the silver alloy layer comprises silver with the atomic percentage greater than 96.5% (described at [0011, 31] and Table 2), zinc with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 2.0% (described at [0019, 31-32]), and antimony with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5% (described at [0019, 31-32]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the reflector material of Fujiwara-773 with the silver alloy suggested by Nonaka-225 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Nonaka-225 would be to employ a material of the reflective layer, specifically the silver alloy layer comprising silver with an atomic percentage greater than 96.5%, zinc with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 2.0%, and antimony with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5%. The rationale for this obvious modification is that this silver alloy provides resistance to corrosion and improves hardness ([004, 10, 12-13]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use this Ag alloy since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 2, Fujiwara-773 teaches a reflective display panel according to claim 1, wherein the reflective layer further comprises:
a protective layer (309) covering the silver alloy layer, wherein a material of the protective layer comprises a light-transmitting conductive material or a light-transmitting insulation material ([0080, 83] describes an insulative material that would transmit at least some light wavelengths).
Regarding Claim 5, Fujiwara-773 teaches a reflective display panel (embodiment starting at [0073]), comprising a pixel structure (310, 301t, see Figs. 4 and corresponding text at [0074-75]) having a reflective area ([0074-76]), wherein the pixel structure comprises:
an active device (301t) and an insulation layer (307), wherein the insulation layer is located above the active device ([0075]); and
a reflective layer (308) disposed on the insulation layer and located in the reflective area (shown), wherein the reflective layer comprises a silver alloy layer, and a material of the silver [[alloy]] layer ([0081] describes Ag) comprises silver
Although Fujiwara-773 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the material of the reflective layer, specifically the silver alloy layer comprising silver with an atomic percentage greater than 95% and other elements with an atomic percentage less than or equal to 5%, and the other elements comprise at least one of zinc, antimony, and neodymium with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and at least one of indium, tin, palladium, and gold with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1%.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Nonaka-225 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a silver alloy layer (described at [0012-13, 20, 30-31], see especially Example 13 of Table 2) wherein the silver alloy layer comprises silver with the atomic percentage greater than 96.5% (described at [0012-13, 20, 39-40] and Table 4), zinc with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 2.0% (Table 4), and antimony with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5% (Table 4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the reflector material of Fujiwara-773 with the silver alloy suggested by Nonaka-225 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Nonaka-225 would be to employ a material of the silver alloy layer comprises silver with an atomic percentage greater than 95% and other elements with an atomic percentage less than or equal to 5%, and the other elements comprise at least one of zinc, antimony, and neodymium with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and at least one of indium, tin, palladium, and gold with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1%. The rationale for this obvious modification is that this silver alloy provides resistance to corrosion and improves hardness ([004, 10, 12-14, 42]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use this Ag alloy since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 6, Nonaka-225, as applied to claim 5, further teaches the reflective display panel according to claim 5, wherein the other elements (Example 26; Table 4) comprise zinc with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.0% (Table 4), tin with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5% (Table 4), at least one of antimony, neodymium, and indium with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5% (Table 4), and palladium or gold with an atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.0% (Table 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Nonaka-225, as applied to claim 5, further teaches the reflective display panel according to claim 6, wherein the other elements comprise zinc with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.0%, tin with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5%, at least one of antimony and neodymium with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5%, and palladium or gold with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.0% (Example 26; Table 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Nonaka-225, as applied to claim 5, further teaches the reflective display panel according to claim 7, wherein the other elements comprise zinc with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.0%, tin with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5%, antimony with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.5%, and palladium or gold with the atomic percentage greater than or equal to 0.1% and less than or equal to 1.0% (Example 26; Table 4).
Regarding Claim 9, Fujiwara-773 teaches the reflective display panel according to claim 5, wherein the pixel structure further comprises:
a pixel electrode (310, Fig. 4B, [0075, 84]) disposed above the reflective layer (shown), wherein the pixel electrode overlaps the reflective layer (shown); and
another insulation layer (309) sandwiched between the pixel electrode and the reflective layer (Fig. 4B, [0075, 83]).
Regarding Claim 10, Fujiwara-773 teaches the reflective display panel according to claim 5, wherein the reflective layer further comprises:
a protective layer (309) covering the silver alloy layer, wherein a material of the protective layer comprises a light-transmitting conductive material or a light-transmitting insulation material ([0080, 83] describes an insulative material that would transmit at least some light wavelengths).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara-773 (US # 20050275773) in view of Nonaka-225 (JP # 2014074225, cited by the applicant in an IDS dated 11/28/2024) and Liu-982 (CN # 114994982; examiner cites to an English-language equivalent for Liu-982 (US # 20260259454).
Regarding Claim 3, although Fujiwara-773 in view of Nonaka-225 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the reflective display panel according to claim 1, wherein the reflective layer further comprises a buffer layer sandwiched between the insulation layer and the silver alloy layer, wherein a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Liu-982 teaches a buffer layer ([0095] the lower ITO layer of an ITO/metal/ITO stack 41) sandwiched between the insulation layer (44, Fig. 15, [0094-95]) and the metal layer of silver (upper layers of 41, [0095]) wherein a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material (ITO is conductive; see [0095, 97]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the layers of Fujiwara-773 in view of Nonaka-225 with the ordering suggested by Liu-982 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Liu-982 would be to employ a reflective display panel according to claim 1, wherein the reflective layer further comprises a buffer layer sandwiched between the insulation layer and the silver alloy layer, wherein a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material. The rationale for this obvious modification is that ITO provides better adhesion to certain layers, Ag and Ag-based films are well known to adhere poorly to underlying oxide and organic resin layers, and a thin conductive oxide such as ITO is commonly placed beneath an Ag reflector to improve its adhesion to the layer on which it is formed.
Regarding Claim 11, the analysis is essentially the same as claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights