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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,212,575 to Kojima et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0033976 to Yin et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Kojima discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 1–4 and their descriptions) an electronic device, comprising: a first substrate (e.g., 14A); a second substrate (e.g., 14B) disposed opposite to the first substrate (Fig. 4, noting that the two substrates have similar structures, oriented at 90° with each other, col. 6, lines 54–68); a liquid crystal layer 42 disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (Fig. 4); a plurality of first electrodes (e.g., 11A) disposed between the first substrate and the liquid crystal layer; a plurality of second electrodes (e.g., 11B) disposed between the second substrate and the liquid crystal layer; a first signal line (e.g., 12A) disposed between the first substrate and the liquid crystal layer, and electrically connected to one of the plurality of first electrodes (col. 4, lines 25–32); and a second signal line (e.g., 12B) disposed between the second substrate and the liquid crystal layer (Fig. 4), and electrically connected to one of the plurality of second electrodes (col. 4, lines 25–32).
Kojima teaches that signal lines 12A/12B are low-resistivity electrodes with a light-screening function (e.g., col. 4, lines 33–34), such as a metal material “applied with a reflection preventative treatment (e.g., col. 4, lines 54–64), but Kojima does not explicitly disclose that the first signal line and the second signal line comprise a blackened metal1.
Yin discloses a display device, and teaches that the function of a black matrix may be achieved using electrodes, where the electrodes include blackened metal layers (e.g., at least paragraphs [0004], [0011], [0041], and [0073]).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Kojima such that the signal lines 12A/12B which are described as having a light-screening function, are formed such that they comprise a blackened metal, as suggested by Yin as a suitable configuration for such light-screening electrodes, and in order to simplify manufacture by eliminating the need for a separate black matrix, as taught by Yin.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Yin, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0370105 to Hong et al.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kojima and Yin would have rendered obvious a spacer structure (44 of Kojima) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate.
The combination of Kojima and Yin does not explicitly disclose wherein the first signal line and the second signal line are overlapped with the spacer structure, and in a cross-sectional view, a width of the first signal line and a width of the second signal line are greater than a width of the spacer structure.
Hong discloses a display, and teaches forming a spacer with a width less than that of a black matrix, at an intersection of the black matrix, in order to reduce light leakage when the spacer is misaligned (e.g., Figs. 2, 6, and 7 and paragraphs [0085]–[0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Kojima and Yin such that the first signal line and the second signal line are overlapped with the spacer structure, and in a cross-sectional view, a width of the first signal line and a width of the second signal line are greater than a width of the spacer structure, as suggested by Hong, in order to reduce light leakage when the spacer is misaligned (where the signal lines of Kojima are taught as light blocking, thus reasonably corresponding to the teachings of Hong regarding light blocking layers covering the spacer with a larger width at an intersection).
Claims 5–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kojima and Yin, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0098127 to Higuchi et al.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kojima and Yin does not explicitly disclose wherein the first signal line comprises a first conductive layer, a second conductive layer, and a third conductive layer, wherein the second conductive layer is disposed between the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer, the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer comprise yttrium oxide (Y2O3) alloy.
Higuchi discloses an electronic device, and teaches a connecting electrode (similar to the claimed signal lines) that connects to an electrode (similar to the claimed electrodes), where the connecting electrode has a low resistance (similar to the corresponding signal lines 12A/B of Kojima which are taught as low resistance), and the connecting electrode may be formed of layers of metal including yttrium oxide and copper (e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Kojima and Yin such that the first signal line comprises a first conductive layer, a second conductive layer, and a third conductive layer, wherein the second conductive layer is disposed between the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer, the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer comprise yttrium oxide (Y2O3) alloy, as suggested by Higuchi as a suitable configuration for a low resistance connecting or signal line connected to an electrode (e.g., also MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kojima, Yin, and Higuchi would have rendered obvious wherein the second conductive layer comprises copper (Cu) (e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0098] of Higuchi).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kojima, Yin, and Higuchi would have rendered obvious wherein the second signal line comprises a first conductive layer, a second conductive layer, and a third conductive layer, wherein the second conductive layer is disposed between the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer, the first conductive layer and the third conductive layer comprise yttrium oxide (Y2O3) alloy (e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0098] of Higuchi, as discussed above with respect to Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kojima, Yin, and Higuchi would have rendered obvious wherein the second conductive layer comprises copper (Cu) (e.g., paragraphs [0071] and [0098] of Higuchi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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 Caley can be reached at 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 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
1 Note that the term “blackened metal” does not appear to be a specific term of art; Applicant describes it as a “blackened metal with the light absorbing property resulted from a blackening treatment” (paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s specification), which will be the claim interpretation used.
Prosecution Insights