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 .
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 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0007015 to Yokoyama et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Yokoyama discloses (e.g., Figs. 1–3 and their description) a pixel array substrate 10, comprising: a substrate 11; an insulation layer 12A/13 disposed on the substrate; and a plurality of pixel structures 10R/G/B disposed on the substrate, and each comprising: an active device 12 disposed between the substrate and the insulation layer; and a reflective layer 14 disposed on the insulation layer (paragraph [0046], “laminated structure 14 also has a function as a reflective layer”), and comprising: a silver-based reflective layer 14A having a reflective surface (paragraph [0046]); and a protective layer 14C covering the silver-based reflective layer, wherein a thickness of the protective layer along a normal direction of the reflective surface is greater than or equal to 30 angstroms and less than or equal to 80 angstroms (paragraph [0051], substantially overlapping range).
Regarding Claim 2, Yokoyama discloses wherein a material of the protective layer comprises a light-transmitting conductive material (paragraph [0054], ITO or IZO).
Regarding Claim 3, Yokoyama discloses wherein the thickness of the protective layer is greater than or equal to 50 angstroms and less than or equal to 60 angstroms (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yokoyama discloses wherein the reflective layer further comprises a buffer layer 14B disposed between the insulation layer and the silver-based reflective layer, and a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material (e.g., ITO/IZO, paragraph [0054]).
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.
Claims 5–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama.
Regarding Claim 5, Yokoyama discloses wherein the insulation layer 13 has an opening and a side wall surface defining the opening (Fig. 2), the silver-based reflective layer 14A and the buffer layer 14B extend to cover the side wall surface of the insulation layer (Fig. 2), and a first thickness of a side wall portion of the buffer layer covering the side wall surface along a normal direction of the side wall surface is greater than or equal to 30 angstroms and less than or equal to 80 angstroms (paragraph [0053], teaching an overlapping range, and while not explicitly stating the thickness along a normal direction of the side wall, such would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to have the thickness in a normal direction be nearly consistent throughout the device, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results, and also likely to be similar to the thickness elsewhere due to the sputtering, laminating, or other manufacturing method used, paragraphs [0053], [0074], and [0120]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yokoyama discloses wherein the insulation layer further has a surface connected to the side wall surface, the surface faces away from the substrate, and a second thickness of a horizontal portion of the buffer layer covering the surface of the insulation layer along a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 40 angstroms and less than or equal to 100 angstroms (Fig. 2; paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yokoyama would have rendered obvious wherein the first thickness is greater than or equal to 50 angstroms and less than or equal to 60 angstroms, and the second thickness is greater than or equal to 70 angstroms and less than or equal to 80 angstroms (where Yokoyama teaches a range of 50-500 angstroms, paragraph [0053], and also suggests that the first thickness, or thickness along the side wall, will naturally be smaller than the second thickness, or thickness along the flat portion, due to the sputtering used during manufacture, e.g., paragraphs [0053] and [0074], and where selecting appropriate thickness would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 8, Yokoyama discloses (e.g., Figs. 1–3 and their descriptions) a pixel array substrate 10, comprising: a substrate 11; an insulation layer 12A/13 disposed on the substrate; and a plurality of pixel structures 10R/G/B disposed on the substrate, and each comprising: an active device 12 disposed between the substrate and the insulation layer; and a reflective layer 14 disposed on the insulation layer (paragraph [0046], “laminated structure 14 also has a function as a reflective layer”), and comprising: a silver-based reflective layer 14A having a reflective surface (paragraph [0046]); and a buffer layer 14B disposed between the insulation layer and the silver-based reflective layer (Fig. 2), wherein a material of the buffer layer comprises a conductive material (e.g., ITO/IZO, paragraph [0054]), wherein the insulation layer has an opening and a side wall surface defining the opening (Fig. 2), the silver-based reflective layer and the buffer layer extend to cover the side wall surface of the insulation layer (Fig. 2), and a first thickness of a side wall portion of the buffer layer covering the side wall surface along a normal direction of the side wall surface is greater than or equal to 30 angstroms and less than or equal to 80 angstroms (paragraph [0053], teaching an overlapping range, and while not explicitly stating the thickness along a normal direction of the side wall, such would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to have the thickness in a normal direction be nearly consistent throughout the device, and yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results, and also likely to be similar to the thickness elsewhere due to the sputtering, laminating, or other manufacturing method used, paragraphs [0053], [0074], and [0120]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yokoyama would have rendered obvious wherein the reflective layer further comprises: a protective layer covering the silver-based reflective layer, wherein a thickness of the protective layer along a normal direction of the reflective surface is greater than or equal to 30 angstroms and less than or equal to 80 angstroms (paragraph [0051], substantially overlapping range).
Regarding Claim 10, Yokoyama would have rendered obvious wherein the insulation layer further has a surface connected to the side wall surface, the surface faces away from the substrate (Fig. 2), and a second thickness of a horizontal portion of the buffer layer covering the surface of the insulation layer along a normal direction of the surface is greater than or equal to 40 angstroms and less than or equal to 100 angstroms (Fig. 2; paragraph [0053]).
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
Prosecution Insights