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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2012/0314148).
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses a display device (1B, Fig. 4; page 5, para [0081]), comprising:
a first substrate (10, Fig. 4; page 5, para [0081]);
a first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]) disposed on the first substrate (10, Fig. 4);
a second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]) disposed on the first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4); and
a patterned metal layer (combination of: 121 and 124 in region 10A, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]; page 5, para [0081]) disposed on the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4) and comprising plural conductive lines (121 and 124, Fig. 4) comprising a TFT gate electrode (121, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]), wherein an opening region (opening region between adjacent 124, Fig. 4) is located between two adjacent conductive lines (left and right 124 in region 10A, Fig. 4) among the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer to expose the second insulating layer (second insulating layer 123b is exposed between adjacent left and right 124, Fig. 4) and form a TFT gate (121 of 11 in region 10A, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]) from the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4), the TFT gate (121, Fig. 4) comprising a semiconductor layer (122, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]),
wherein a first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 below showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is larger than a second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 below showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A), further wherein the semiconductor layer (122, Fig. 4) of the TFT gate (121, Fig. 4) comprises IGZO (page 3, para [0059]).
Annotated Fig. 1 of Yamaguchi
PNG
media_image1.png
847
916
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations above and further discloses a color filter (17A, Fig. 4; page 2, para [0054]) above the first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4) and the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Yamaguchi discloses a display device (1B, Fig. 4; page 5, para [0081]), comprising:
a first substrate (10, Fig. 4; page 5, para [0081]);
a first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]) disposed on the first substrate (10, Fig. 4);
a second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]) disposed on the first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4); and
a patterned metal layer (combination of: 121 and 124 in region 10A, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]; page 5, para [0081]) disposed on the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4) and comprising plural conductive lines (121 and 124, Fig. 4) comprising a TFT gate electrode (121, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]), wherein an opening region (opening region between adjacent 124, Fig. 4) is located between two adjacent conductive lines (left and right 124 in region 10A, Fig. 4) to expose the second insulating layer (second insulating layer 123b is exposed between adjacent left and right 124, Fig. 4) and form a TFT gate (121 of 11 in region 10A, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]) from the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4), and
a color filter (17A, Fig. 4; page 2, para [0054]) above the first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4) and the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4),
wherein a first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is larger than a second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (U.S. 2012/0314148) as applied to claims 2 and 17, respectively above.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 2 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to have the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of 10-95% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, Yamaguchi discloses that the first thickness of the second insulating layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is larger than the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 2 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to have the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of 20-80% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, Yamaguchi discloses that the first thickness of the second insulating layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is larger than the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 4 above and further discloses a color filter (17A, Fig. 4; page 2, para [0054]) above the first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4) and the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses a color filter (17A, Fig. 4; page 2, para [0054]) above the first insulating layer (123a, Fig. 4) and the second insulating layer (123b, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 17 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to have the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of 10-95% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, Yamaguchi discloses that the first thickness of the second insulating layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is larger than the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 19, Yamaguchi discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 17 above but does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to have the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of 20-80% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, Yamaguchi discloses that the first thickness of the second insulating layer (vertical thickness of 123b in region between 124 and 122 in 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A) is larger than the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (shortest distance between upper edge of sloped portion of 122 and the lower edge of the sloped portion of 123b adjacent to left 124 in region 10A, see annotated Fig. 4 above showing 11 in region 10B which is the same as 11 in region 10A). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S. 2011/0291116).
Regarding claim 13, Kang discloses a display device (Fig. 4; page 3, para [0056]), comprising:
a first substrate (111, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0057]);
a first insulating layer (140, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0052]) disposed on the first substrate (111, Fig. 4);
a second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0059]) disposed on the first insulating layer (140, Fig. 4),
a patterned metal layer (combination of: 155, 176, 177, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0059]) disposed on the second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4) and comprising plural conductive lines (176 and 177, Fig. 4) comprising a TFT gate electrode (gate electrode 155, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0049, 0059]), wherein an opening region (opening between 176 and 177, Fig. 4) is located between two adjacent conductive lines (176 and 177, Fig. 4) to expose the second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4) and form a TFT gate (gate electrode 155 of TFT 20, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0058-0059]) from the second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4); and
an organic light emitting diode unit (70, Fig. 4; page 2, para [0041]), which comprises a first electrode (710, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0051]), a second electrode (730, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0051]) and an organic light emitting layer (720, Fig. 4; page 3, para [0051]) disposed therebetween, wherein the patterned metal layer (combination of: 155, 176, 177, Fig. 4) is electrically connected to the first electrode (710, Fig. 4),
wherein the second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4) has a first thickness under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (such as a vertical thickness between upper protruding portion of 160 and the lowest recessed portion of 160 in a region overlapping 176 and 177, Fig. 4), further wherein a second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening (vertical thickness between upper surface of 160 and upper surface of 155, Fig. 4) is smaller than the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (such as a vertical thickness between upper protruding portion of 160 and the lowest recessed portion of 160 in a region overlapping 176 and 177, Fig. 4).
Kang does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second insulating layer (vertical thickness between upper surface of 160 and upper surface of 155, Fig. 4) is 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (such as a vertical thickness between upper protruding portion of 160 and the lowest recessed portion of 160 in a region overlapping 176 and 177, Fig. 4). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to have the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of 10-95% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, Kang discloses that the first thickness of the second insulating layer (such as a vertical thickness between upper protruding portion of 160 and the lowest recessed portion of 160 in a region overlapping 176 and 177, Fig. 4) is larger than the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (vertical thickness between upper surface of 160 and upper surface of 155, Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 10-95% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization.
Regarding claim 15, Kang does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (vertical thickness between upper surface of 160 and upper surface of 155, Fig. 4) is 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer (such as a vertical thickness between upper protruding portion of 160 and the lowest recessed portion of 160 in a region overlapping 176 and 177, Fig. 4).
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to have the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the range of 20-80% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, Kang discloses that the first thickness of the second insulating layer (such as a vertical thickness between upper protruding portion of 160 and the lowest recessed portion of 160 in a region overlapping 176 and 177, Fig. 4) is larger than the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region (vertical thickness between upper surface of 160 and upper surface of 155, Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the second thickness of the second insulating layer exposed from the opening region to be 20-80% of the first thickness of the second insulating layer under the conductive lines of the patterned metal layer through routine experimentation and optimization.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (U.S. 2011/0291116) as applied to claims 13 and 15, respectively above, and further in view of Fukai et al. (U.S. 2008/0180629).
Regarding claim 14, Kang discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 13 above but does not expressly disclose a color filter above the first insulating layer (140, Fig. 4) and the second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4). However, Fukai discloses a display device (Fig. 4; page 8, para [0086]) comprising a color filter (833, Fig. 4A; page 10, para [0118]) disposed over an organic light emitting diode unit (organic light emitting diode unit comprising 824, Fig. 4A; page 10, para [0113]) and first and second insulating layers (811 and 812, Fig. 4A; page 8, para [0088, 0093]) of the display device in order to improve color mixing correction (page 11, para [0130]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the display device of (Kang: Fig. 4) of Kang with the color filter (Fukai: 833, Fig. 4A) of Fukai such that the color filter (Fukai: 833, Fig. 4A) is disposed above the first insulating layer (Kang: 140, Fig. 4; Fukai: 811, Fig. 4A) and the second insulating layer (Kang: 160, Fig. 4; Fukai: 812, Fig. 4A) in order to obtain the benefits of improving color mixing correction as taught by Fukai (page 11, para [0130]).
Regarding claim 16, Kang discloses a display device with all the limitations of claim 15 above but does not expressly disclose a color filter above the first insulating layer (140, Fig. 4) and the second insulating layer (160, Fig. 4). However, Fukai discloses a display device (Fig. 4; page 8, para [0086]) comprising a color filter (833, Fig. 4A; page 10, para [0118]) disposed over an organic light emitting diode unit (organic light emitting diode unit comprising 824, Fig. 4A; page 10, para [0113]) and first and second insulating layers (811 and 812, Fig. 4A; page 8, para [0088, 0093]) of the display device in order to improve color mixing correction (page 11, para [0130]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the display device of (Kang: Fig. 4) of Kang with the color filter (Fukai: 833, Fig. 4A) of Fukai such that the color filter (Fukai: 833, Fig. 4A) is disposed above the first insulating layer (Kang: 140, Fig. 4; Fukai: 811, Fig. 4A) and the second insulating layer (Kang: 160, Fig. 4; Fukai: 812, Fig. 4A) in order to obtain the benefits of improving color mixing correction as taught by Fukai (page 11, para [0130]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art as presently searched does not disclose the display device of claim 8 (having all the combination of features including an organic light emitting diode unit, which comprises a first electrode, a second electrode and an organic light emitting layer disposed therebetween, wherein the patterned metal layer is electrically connected to the first electrode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights