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 01/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nee (US 20060255727).
Regarding claim 1, Nee discloses a reflective display panel (Figs. 2-3 and 5; Paras. [0012] “thin silver alloy films”, [0014] “a reflective type liquid crystal display … including a silver alloy film of the invention … said first substrate contains a highly reflective layer”), having a pixel structure ([Claim 1] “a first substrate including an array of pixel electrodes”), wherein the pixel structure has a reflective area ([Claim 1] and Para. [0038] teaching the pixel structure includes a high reflective layer, comprising a reflective area) and comprises:
an active device (50 in Fig. 3; Para. [0051] “semiconductor 50”); and
a reflective layer (55) and located in the reflective area ([Claim 1] and Para. [0038]), wherein the reflective layer comprises a silver alloy layer (Para. [0051]), a material of the silver alloy layer include silver with a weight percentage greater than 90% and indium with a weight percentage greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 8% (see Para. [0026] and TABLE I teaching a Ag-2.5% In for a/o percent, i.e., 97.34 wt % silver and 2.66 wt % indium) (see Para. [0033] teaching the silver alloy thin film in the Figure 3 embodiment can have compositions listed in TABLE I).
In the Figure 3 embodiment, Nee does not explicitly disclose an insulation layer, disposed above the active device; and the reflective layer, disposed on the insulation layer.
However, Nee teaches a reflective layer can be sandwiched by dielectric layers (Para. [0031]; choose a lower dielectric layer, i.e., an insulation layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Figure 3 embodiment, to have an insulation layer disposed above the active device, for the purpose providing additional corrosion resistance for a silver alloy thin film (Nee: Para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the material of the silver alloy layer further comprises at least one of antimony and palladium (see Para. [0030] teaching silver copper alloys can be further alloyed with elements, such as Sb and Pd).
Regarding claim 3, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the material of the silver alloy layer further comprises antimony with a weight percentage of less than or equal to 3% (see Para. [0026] and TABLE 1 teaching a Ag-1.2% Sb – 0.3% Li for a/o percent, i.e., 98.62 wt % silver, 1.36 wt % antimony and 1.48 wt % lithium) (see Para. [0033] teaching the silver alloy thin film in the Figure 3 embodiment can have compositions listed in TABLE I).
Regarding claim 4, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 2 above, and further discloses wherein the material of the silver alloy layer further comprises palladium with a weight percentage of less than or equal to 3% (see Para. [0026] and TABLE 1 teaching a Ag-1.2% Pd for a/o percent, i.e., 98.52 wt % silver and 1.48 wt % palladium) (see Para. [0033] teaching the silver alloy thin film in the Figure 3 embodiment can have compositions listed in TABLE I).
Regarding claim 5, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
In the Figure 3 embodiment, Nee does not explicitly disclose the reflective layer further comprises: a protective layer, covering the silver alloy layer, wherein a material of the protective layer comprises a light-transmissive conductive material or a light-transmissive insulation material.
However, Nee further teaches the reflective layer can be sandwiched by dielectric layers (Para. [0031], choose an upper dielectric layer, i.e., a protective layer), wherein a material of the protective layer comprises a light-transmissive conductive material or a light-transmissive insulation material (Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Figure 3 embodiment, wherein the reflective layer further comprises: a protective layer, covering the silver alloy layer, wherein a material of the protective layer comprises a light-transmissive conductive material or a light-transmissive insulation material, for the purpose of enhancing the corrosion resistance of the silver alloy layer (Nee: Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 5 above, and further discloses wherein the material of the protective layer is selected from at least one of an oxide, a nitride, and an oxynitride (see Para. [0046] teaching suitable materials including silicon oxide).
Regarding claim 7, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 5 above, and further discloses wherein the silver alloy layer and the protective layer are formed by continuous deposition in the same process equipment ("[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, forming the silver alloy layer and the protective layer by continuous deposition in the same process equipment does not change the product made).
Regarding claim 9, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein a thickness of the silver alloy layer is 70 nanometers to 200 nanometers (see Para. [0038] teaching the thickness is preferably in the range of 50 to 100 nm)(A prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art [MPEP 2144.05]).
Regarding claim 10, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the reflective display panel is a fully reflective display panel or a transflective display panel (see Fig. 5 and Para. [0014]) (the examiner considers the reflective display panel of Nee should be a fully reflective display panel, because a transparent display panel, a reflective display panel or a transflective display panel is generally used in the art to identify the transmissive characteristics of a display panel).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nee in view of Shin et al. (US 20070096613, hereinafter “Shin”).
Regarding claim 8, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Nee does not explicitly disclose the reflective layer further comprises a buffer layer disposed between the insulation layer and the silver alloy layer, and a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material.
However, Shin teaches a buffer layer is disposed between the insulation layer and the silver alloy layer, and a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material (see Paras. [0035], [0037]-[0038] teaching a buffer layer 180a formed of Ti is disposed between the insulation layer 170 and a silver alloy layer 180b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reflective display panel as disclosed by Nee with the teachings of Shin, wherein the reflective layer further comprises a buffer layer disposed between the insulation layer and the silver alloy layer, and a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material, for the purpose of using the material providing a low resistance for the silver alloy layer, so as to be used with, for example, a drain electrode (Shin: Para. [0037]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nee in view of Shida et al. (US 20170330643, hereinafter “Shida”).
Regarding claim 11, Nee discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a sputtering target (Para. [0050] “a silver alloy sputtering target”), suitable for depositing the silver alloy layer according to claim 1 (Para. [0033] and TABLE I).
Nee does not explicitly disclose a material of the sputtering target comprises silver with a weight percentage greater than 90% and indium with a weight percentage greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 8%.
However, Shida teaches a material of a sputtering target comprises silver with a weight percentage greater than 90% and indium with a weight percentage greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 8% (see Para. [0025] “The Ag alloy sputtering target … comprises In in an amount of larger than 2.0 atomic % and smaller than or equal to 2.7 atomic %”. For example, choose 2.5 atomic %, i.e., 97.34 wt % silver and 2.66 wt % indium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the sputtering target as disclosed by Nee with the teachings of Shida, wherein a material of the sputtering target comprises silver with a weight percentage greater than 90% and indium with a weight percentage greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 8%, for the purpose of depositing an Ag alloy film using a sputtering target (Shida: Para. [0025]) and as conventionally known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights