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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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, 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 1-6, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2014/0104527).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses a display device, comprising:
a substrate (302),
a semiconductor (320) provided above the substrate,
a pixel electrode (318) electrically connected to the semiconductor, and
a first color filter (314A) provided between the semiconductor and the pixel electrode.
Yang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the first color filter has a first layer and a second layer provided on the first layer and having the same color as that of the first layer. Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses the first color filter has a first layer and a second layer provided on the first layer and having the same color as that of the first layer (lower and upper portions of 314A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two elements separable in order to easily repair/access the inner parts of the device. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two elements separable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses wherein the first color filter is green (see at least paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses an organic insulating layer covering the first layer and the second layer, wherein the organic insulating layer is formed of a positive photosensitive resin, and the first color filter is formed of a negative photosensitive resin (332; see at least paragraph 0060).
The limitation “wherein the organic insulating layer is formed of a positive photosensitive resin, and the first color filter is formed of a negative photosensitive resin” is a product by process claim. Even 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.
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses two scanning lines adjacent to each other and provided above the substrate; and two signal lines intersecting the two scanning lines (370A and 360A), wherein the first color filter overlaps an aperture surrounded by the two scanning lines and the two signal lines, and a width of the first layer is greater than a width of the aperture (CNT1 330A and 314A; figure 10).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses wherein a width of the second layer is smaller than the width of the first layer (lower and upper portions of 314A).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses wherein the width of the second layer is greater than the width of the aperture (CNT1 330A and 314A; figure 10).
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses wherein a thickness of the first layer is smaller than a thickness of the second layer (lower and upper portions of 314A).
Regarding claim 14, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses wherein a thickness of the first layer is 2 μm or less (each of the color filter layer and the organic insulator layer has a thickness less than 2.5 .mu.m; see at least claim 35).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses an organic insulating layer covering the first layer and the second layer, wherein a sum of the thickness of the first layer, a thickness of the second layer, and a thickness of the organic insulating layer is 5 μm or more (each of the color filter layer and the organic insulator layer has a thickness less than 2.5 .mu.m; see at least claim 35).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses a second color filter having a color different from that of the first color filter; and a third color filter having a color different from those of the first color filter and the second color filter (CF of the neighboring pixels).
Yang et al. discloses the claimed invention except for at least one of the second color filter and the third color filter is formed of two layers. Yang et al. (figures 9-10) at least one of the second color filter and the third color filter is formed of two layers (lower and upper portions of 314A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two elements separable in order to easily repair/access the inner parts of the device. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the two elements separable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses a second color filter having a color different from that of the first color filter, a third color filter having a color different from those of the first color filter and the second color filter, wherein each of the second color filter and the third color filter is formed of a single layer (CF of the neighboring pixels).
Regarding claim 18, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses a first substrate comprising the substrate, the semiconductor, the first color filter, and the pixel electrode; a second substrate facing the first substrate; and a liquid crystal layer located between the first substrate and the second substrate (LCD).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2014/0104527) in view of Chong et al. (US 2017/0059907).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yang et al. is silent regarding two scanning lines adjacent to each other and provided above the substrate; and two signal lines intersecting the two scanning lines, wherein a peripheral portion of the first layer overlaps the two scanning lines and the two signal lines. Chong et al. (figures 1-2) teaches two scanning lines adjacent to each other and provided above the substrate; and two signal lines intersecting the two scanning lines (GL and DL), wherein a peripheral portion of the first layer overlaps the two scanning lines and the two signal lines (CF1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color filter layer as taught by Chong et al. in order to achieve a liquid crystal display device with improved reliability and is capable of reducing a misalignment of a liquid crystal layer.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2014/0104527) in view of Kimura et al. (US 2022/0373846).
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Yang et al. is silent regarding part of the first layer fills the first contact hole. Kimura et al. (figures 1-5) teaches an inorganic insulating layer (17; see at least paragraph 0090) provided between the semiconductor and the first color filter (SC1 and CL1 OR CL3); and a connection electrode (TE2) provided on the inorganic insulating layer, wherein the organic insulating layer (19; see at least paragraph 0098) has a first contact hole overlapping the aperture, the connection electrode is electrically connected to the semiconductor in the first contact hole (h10), and part of the first layer fills (CL1 OR CL3; figure 5) the first contact hole. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color filter layer as taught by Kimura et al. in order to obtain a liquid crystal display device DSP that can improve the aperture ratio as much as possible and can secure a design margin.
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al. as modified by Kimura et al. teaches wherein the second layer overlaps the first contact hole.
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses an organic insulating layer (332) covering the first layer and the second layer (314A), wherein the organic insulating layer has a second contact hole overlapping the scanning line (CNT2), the pixel electrode (318) is electrically connected to the connection electrode (336) in the second contact hole, and Kimura et al. (figures 1-5) teaches an angle between an inner surface of the second contact hole and a surface parallel to a main surface of the substrate is smaller than an angle between a side surface of the first layer and the surface parallel to the main surface of the substrate (first angle and second angle; see annotated drawing 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
615
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kimura et al. (figures 1-5) teaches wherein the angle between the inner surface of the second contact hole and the surface parallel to the main surface of the substrate is 72 degrees or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, Yang et al. (figures 9-10) discloses wherein the organic insulating layer covers a side surface of the first layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights