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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 1, Yang et al. (US Pub. 20170315415, Yang) teaches (in figures 1-2B) an electronic device, comprising: a first substrate (substrate 118); a second substrate (substrate 136) disposed opposite to the first substrate; a data line (data line 106) disposed on the first substrate and extending along a first direction (direction A2); a scan line (scan line 104) disposed on the first substrate, wherein the scan line has an extension part (portion of scan line 104 other than gate electrode 116) extending along a second direction (direction A1) and a gate electrode (gate electrode 116) extending along the first direction (direction A2), the gate electrode has an arc-shaped connection side (see figure 2A) connecting with the extension part; a drain electrode (drain electrode 114) disposed on the first substrate (substrate 118) and having a protruding part (portion of drain electrode 114 overlapping with gate electrode 116) and wherein the data line and the gate electrode overlap with each other and the protruding part of the drain electrode overlaps with the gate electrode.
Nomura (US Pub. 20130235294) teaches (in figures 3-6) providing a first spacer (spacer section 67) on the first substrate (transparent substrate 21); and a second spacer (spacer section 74) disposed between the first spacer (spacer section 67) and a second substrate (transparent substate 31), wherein the second spacer (spacer section 74), a data line (source line 63), and a gate electrode of a gate line (61a) overlap with each other (see figure 3) at the intersection of the data line (source line 63) and the scan line (gate line 61), and the first spacer (spacer section 67) covers the entire width of the scan line along the first direction (Y direction) (see figure 3) in order to maintain the cell gap while preventing damage to the display (paragraphs 75 and 91).
However, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to teach or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing an electronic device in which the protruding part of the drain electrode overlaps with the first space, the second spacer, and the gate electrode in combination with the other required elements of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 5-6 are allowable by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20170315415, Yang) in view of Nomura (US Pub. 20130235294).
As per claim 7, Yang teaches (in figures 1-2B) an electronic device, comprising: a substrate (substrate 118); a metal element (data line 106) disposed on the substrate (substrate 118) and extending along a first direction (direction A2); a scan line (scan line 104) disposed on the substrate (substrate 118), wherein the scan line has an extension part (portion of scan line 104 other than gate electrode 116) extending along a second direction (direction A1) and a first protruding part (gate electrode 116) extending along the first direction (direction A2) different from the second direction (direction A1), the first protruding part has an arc-shaped connection side connecting with the extension part (see figure 2A); a drain electrode (drain electrode 114) disposed on the first substrate and having a second protruding part (portion of drain electrode 114 overlapping with gate electrode 116) wherein in a top view, the first protruding part of the scan line (gate electrode 116), and the metal element (data line 106) overlap with each other, wherein the second protruding part of the drain electrode (portion of drain electrode 114 overlapping with gate electrode 116) overlaps with the first protruding part of the scan line (gate electrode 116).
Yang does not teach a spacer disposed on the substrate wherein in a top view, the spacer, the protruding part of the scan line, and the metal element overlapping with each other and the second protruding part of the drain electrode overlaps with the spacer.
However, Nomura teaches (in figures 3-6) providing a spacer (spacer sections 67 and 74) on the first substrate (transparent substrate 21); wherein in a top view the spacer (spacer sections 67 and 74), a metal element (source line 63), and a first protruding part of the scan line (gate electrode 61a) overlap with each other (see figure 3) at the intersection of the metal element (source line 63) and the scan line (gate line 61) such that the spacer covers the entire first protruding part of the scan line (spacer section 74 covers the entire gate electrode 61a, as shown in figure 3) in order to maintain the cell gap while preventing damage to the display (paragraphs 75 and 91).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spacers from Nomura in the device of Yang in order to maintain the cell gap while preventing damage and a lowering of transmittance of the display.
As per claim 8, Yang in view of Nomura does not explicitly teach a width of the spacer is greater than a width of the protruding part of the scan line along the second direction.
However, Nomura teaches that the lengths and the widths of the spacer (spacer sections 67 and 74) are result effective variables in that if the lengths are too short the spacer sections are more likely to become misaligned and damage the opposite substrate and if the widths are too large the light-shielding region would need to be increased lowering transmittance (paragraphs 89-92) additionally if the widths are too small the strength of the spacers will decrease.
As it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B)) it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spacers from Nomura in the device of Yang and set the lengths and widths of the spacer such that a width of the spacer is greater than the protruding part of the scan line along the second direction in order to maintain the cell gap while preventing damage and a lowering of transmittance of the display.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights