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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 03/20/2026, in which claims 1-20, 23, 26-32, 34-40 were cancelled, claims 21-22, 24, 49 were amended, claim 53 was added, has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority application JP2018145479 has been received.
Filing Dates for the Claims — All Claims Not Entitled to Foreign Priority Date
To be entitled to the filing date of the foreign priority application JP2018145479, because the foreign priority application is not in English, an English translation of the non-English language foreign application JP2018145479 and a statement that the translation is accurate in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55 is required to perfect the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). To demonstrate compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), applicant should point to support for their claimed subject matter in their translations.
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.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 33, 41-46 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hitora et al. (US Pub. 20150325659) in view of Oda et al. (US Pub. 20150225843) and Utsuno et al. (US Pub. 20110180763).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Hitora et al. discloses in paragraph [0038] a crystalline oxide thin film comprising an indium element (In), a gallium element (Ga), and an aluminum element (Al), wherein:
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element account for 99 atomic% or more of the metal elements present in the crystalline oxide thin film [the atomic ratio of the sum of gallium, indium, and aluminum to all metal elements included in the crystalline oxide semiconductor thin film is preferably 0.5 or more, more preferably 0.8 or more].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hitora et al. to include the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Hitora fails to disclose
wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3;
wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m.
Utsuno et al. discloses in Abstract, paragraph [0048]-[0049], [0089]
wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3;
wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m [10.05 Å or more].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Utsuno et al. into the method of Hitora to include wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3; wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hitora in the above manner to suppress occurrence of an abnormal discharge when using the oxide sintered body as a sputtering target [paragraph [0048] of Utsuno et al.].
Hitora et al. fails to explicitly disclose
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and
In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17).
Oda et al. discloses in paragraph [0020]-[0023], [0034], [0036], [0045]
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and
In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17).
[Oda et al. discloses “InXAlYGaZO3 where 0≤X≤2, 0≤Y≤2, 0≤Z≤2, and X+Y+Z=1.5 to 2.5”, “each of X, Y, and Z is 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented. For example, X+Y or X+Y+Z is 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented”. Thus, at least one composition of the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element in the above formula is within the claimed range.]
Further, it appears that the composition range disclosed by Oda et al. overlapped with the claimed range. “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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Oda et al. into the method of Hitora et al. to include the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram, In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16), In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3), In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17) for at least the purpose of providing suitable atomic ration of elements in the oxide semiconductor film obtaining an oxide semiconductor film having desired properties for its intended use.
Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 22 and 53, Hitora et al. discloses in paragraph [0038] a crystalline oxide thin film comprising an indium element (In), a gallium element (Ga), and an aluminum element (Al), wherein:
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element account for 99 atomic% or more of the metal elements present in the crystalline oxide thin film [the atomic ratio of the sum of gallium, indium, and aluminum to all metal elements included in the crystalline oxide semiconductor thin film is preferably 0.5 or more, more preferably 0.8 or more].
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).
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hitora et al. to include the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Hitora fails to disclose
wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3.
wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m.
Utsuno et al. discloses in Abstract, paragraph [0048]-[0049], [0089]
wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3;
wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m [10.05 Å or more].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Utsuno et al. into the method of Hitora to include wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3; wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hitora in the above manner to suppress occurrence of an abnormal discharge when using the oxide sintered body as a sputtering target [paragraph [0048] of Utsuno et al.].
Hitora et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16-1), (R3), (R4-1), and (R17-1) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=80:1:19 ...(R16-1),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:8.5:1.5 ...(R4-1), and
In:Ga:Al=80:18.5:1.5 ...(R17-1)
Oda et al. discloses in paragraph [0020]-[0023], [0034], [0036], [0045]
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and
In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17).
[Oda et al. discloses “InXAlYGaZO3 where 0≤X≤2, 0≤Y≤2, 0≤Z≤2, and X+Y+Z=1.5 to 2.5”, “each of X, Y, and Z is 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented. For example, X+Y or X+Y+Z is 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented”. Thus, at least one composition of the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element in the above formula is within the claimed range.]
Further, it appears that the composition range disclosed by Oda et al. overlapped with the claimed range. “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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Oda et al. into the method of Hitora et al. to include wherein the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16-1), (R3), (R4-1), and (R17-1) below by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram, In:Ga:Al=80:1:19 ...(R16-1), In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3), In:Ga:Al=90:8.5:1.5 ...(R4-1), and In:Ga:Al=80:18.5:1.5 ...(R17-1) for at least the purpose of providing suitable atomic ration of elements in the oxide semiconductor film obtaining an oxide semiconductor film having desired properties for its intended use. Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 25 and 33, the combination of Oda et al., Utsuno and Hitora et al. discloses the crystalline oxide thin film according to claim 21.
Oda et al. discloses in Fig. 1, paragraph [0020]-[0023], [0027], [0034], [0036], [0044]-[0045], [0047] a semiconductor device comprising the crystalline oxide thin film.
Consequently, the combination of Oda et al., Utsuno and Hitora et al. discloses a semiconductor device comprising the crystalline oxide thin film according to claim 21 and an electronic device comprising the semiconductor device according to claim 25.
Hitora et al. fails to disclose
the semiconductor device comprising a thin-film transistor.
Utsuno discloses in paragraph [0060] and claim 30 a thin-film transistor comprising a crystalline oxide thin film and a semiconductor device comprising the thin-film transistor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Utsuno into the method of Oda et al. and Hitora et al. to include the semiconductor device comprising a thin-film transistor. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oda et al. and Hitora et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable device comprising a crystalline oxide thin film.
Regarding claims 41-46, Utsuno et al. discloses in paragraph [0045], [0060],
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤15, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more; The oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %. Thus, Al / (In + Ga + Al) can be ≤ 0.05];
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 10, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more; The oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %. Thus, Al / (In + Ga + Al) can be ≤ 0.05];
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 8, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more; The oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %. Thus, Al / (In + Ga + Al) can be ≤ 0.05].
“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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 33, 41-46, 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Utsuno et al. (US Pub. 20110180763) in view of Oda et al. (US Pub. 20150225843).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Utsuno et al. discloses in Abstract, paragraph [0045], [0048]-[0049], [0060], [0087], [0089], [0091] a crystalline oxide thin film comprising an indium element (In), a gallium element (Ga), and an aluminum element (Al), wherein:
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element account for 99 atomic% or more of the metal elements present in the crystalline oxide thin film [“The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more based on total metal atoms”; “the oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %”][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). See also MPEP 2144.05 I];
wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3;
wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m [10.05 Å or more][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). See also MPEP 2144.05 I].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed ranges. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Utsuno et al. to include the claimed ranges for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Utsuno et al. fails to disclose
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and
In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17).
Oda et al. discloses in paragraph [0020]-[0023], [0034], [0036], [0045]
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and
In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17).
[Oda et al. discloses “InXAlYGaZO3 where 0≤X≤2, 0≤Y≤2, 0≤Z≤2, and X+Y+Z=1.5 to 2.5”, “each of X, Y, and Z is 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented. For example, X+Y or X+Y+Z is 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented”. Thus, at least one composition of the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element in the above formula is within the claimed range.]
Further, it appears that the composition range disclosed by Oda et al. overlapped with the claimed range. “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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Oda et al. into the method of Utsuno et al. to include the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram, In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16), In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3), In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17) for at least the purpose of providing suitable atomic ration of elements in the oxide semiconductor film obtaining an oxide semiconductor film having desired properties for its intended use.
Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 22 and 53, Utsuno et al. discloses in Abstract, paragraph [0045], [0048]-[0049], [0060], [0087], [0089], [0091] a crystalline oxide thin film comprising an indium element (In), a gallium element (Ga), and an aluminum element (Al), wherein:
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element account for 99 atomic% or more of the metal elements present in the crystalline oxide thin film [“The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more based on total metal atoms”; “the oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %”][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). See also MPEP 2144.05 I];
wherein the crystalline oxide thin film is a Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3;
wherein a lattice constant of the Bixbyite crystal represented by In2O3 is equal to or less than 10.05x 10-10 m [10.05 Å or more][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). See also MPEP 2144.05 I].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed ranges. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Utsuno et al. to include the claimed ranges for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Utsuno et al. fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16-1), (R3), (R4-1), and (R17-1) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=80:1:19 ...(R16-1),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:8.5:1.5 ...(R4-1), and
In:Ga:Al=80:18.5:1.5 ...(R17-1)
Oda et al. discloses in paragraph [0020]-[0023], [0034], [0036], [0045]
the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16), (R3), (R4), and (R17) below represented by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram,
In:Ga:Al=82:1:17 ...(R16),
In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3),
In:Ga:Al=90:9:1 ...(R4), and
In:Ga:Al=82:17:1 ...(R17).
[Oda et al. discloses “InXAlYGaZO3 where 0≤X≤2, 0≤Y≤2, 0≤Z≤2, and X+Y+Z=1.5 to 2.5”, “each of X, Y, and Z is 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented. For example, X+Y or X+Y+Z is 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented”. Thus, at least one composition of the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element in the above formula is within the claimed range.]
Further, it appears that the composition range disclosed by Oda et al. overlapped with the claimed range. “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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Oda et al. into the method of Utsuno et al. to include wherein the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element are present within a composition range surrounded by pointed (R16-1), (R3), (R4-1), and (R17-1) below by atomic% ratios in an In-Ga-Al ternary composition diagram, In:Ga:Al=80:1:19 ...(R16-1), In:Ga:Al=90:1:9 ...(R3), In:Ga:Al=90:8.5:1.5 ...(R4-1), and In:Ga:Al=80:18.5:1.5 ...(R17-1) for at least the purpose of providing suitable atomic ration of elements in the oxide semiconductor film obtaining an oxide semiconductor film having desired properties for its intended use.
Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 25 and 33, Utsuno discloses in paragraph [0060] and claim 30 a thin-film transistor comprising a crystalline oxide thin film and a semiconductor device comprising the thin film transistor.
The combination of Oda et al., and Utsuno discloses the crystalline oxide thin film according to claim 21.
Consequently, the combination of Oda et al., and Utsuno discloses a thin-film transistor comprising the crystalline oxide thin film according to claim 21 and an electronic device comprising the thin-film transistor according to claim 25.
Regarding claims 41-46, Utsuno et al. discloses in paragraph [0045], [0060],
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤15, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more; The oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %. Thus, Al / (In + Ga + Al) can be ≤ 0.05];
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 10, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more; The oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %. Thus, Al / (In + Ga + Al) can be ≤ 0.05];
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 8, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [The oxide sintered body contains indium and gallium in an amount of 80 atom % or more; The oxide sintered body according to one embodiment of the invention preferably further includes …aluminum oxide... The oxide sintered body preferably has a content of such oxides of 0.01 to 5 atom %. Thus, Al / (In + Ga + Al) can be ≤ 0.05].
“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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claims 47-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Utsuno et al. (US Pub. 20110180763) in view of Oda et al. (US Pub. 20150225843) as applied to claim 21 and claim 22 above and further in view of Kazuaki et al. (JP2012211065A).
Regarding claims 47-52, Oda et al. and Utsuno et al. fails to disclose
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of 1.5 ≤ Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 10, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film;
wherein the atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) is in range represented by formula of 3 ≤ Ga / (In + Ga + Al), and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film;
wherein the atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) is in range represented by formula of 3 ≤ Ga / (In + Ga + Al), the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of 1.5 ≤ Al / (In + Ga + Al) <10, and in these formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film.
Kazuaki et al. discloses in paragraph [0077]
wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of 1.5 ≤ Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 10, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [Al/(In+Ga+Al) of more than 0.03];
wherein the atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) is in range represented by formula of 3 ≤ Ga / (In + Ga + Al), and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [Ga/(In+Ga+Al) of more than 0.08];
wherein the atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) is in range represented by formula of 3 ≤ Ga / (In + Ga + Al), the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of 1.5 ≤ Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤10, and in these formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film [Ga/(In+Ga+Al) of more than 0.08 and an Al/(In+Ga+Al) of more than 0.03].
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). MPEP 2144.05.
Kazuaki et al. further suggests atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) and atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) have effect on mobility and crystal structure of the crystalline oxide thin film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kazuaki et al. into the method of Oda et al. and Utsuno et al. to include wherein the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of 1.5 ≤ Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤ 10, and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film; wherein the atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) is in range represented by formula of 3 ≤ Ga / (In + Ga + Al), and in this formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film; wherein the atomic % ratio of the gallium element (Ga) is in range represented by formula of 3 ≤ Ga / (In + Ga + Al), the atomic % ratio of the aluminum element (Al) is in range represented by formula of 1.5 ≤ Al / (In + Ga + Al) ≤10, and in these formula, In, Al and Ga respectively represent the number of atoms of the indium element, aluminum element and gallium element in the crystalline oxide thin film. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oda et al. and Utsuno et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a crystalline oxide thin film having desired mobility and crystal structure [paragraph [0075]-[0077] of Kazuaki et al.].
Further, Applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality of the claimed range. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-22, 24-25, 33, 41-53 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Finally, "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that Oda is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, it is noted that the claimed invention directs to a crystalline oxide thin film, not to a method of forming a crystalline oxide thin film. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments with respect to method of forming a crystalline oxide thin film is irrelevant and is not persuasive.
Both Oda and the claimed invention discloses a crystalline oxide thin film comprising In, Ga and Al. Thus, Oda is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor.
As stated in the rejection, Oda et al. discloses “InXAlYGaZO3 where 0≤X≤2, 0≤Y≤2, 0≤Z≤2, and X+Y+Z=1.5 to 2.5”, “each of X, Y, and Z is 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented. For example, X+Y or X+Y+Z is 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, or 2.5, or may be a value in a range between any two of the values presented”. Thus, at least one composition of the indium element, the gallium element, and the aluminum element in the above formula is within the claimed range.]
Therefore, it appears that the composition range disclosed by Oda et al. overlapped with the claimed range. “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)” (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Until now, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed ranges. Thus, the claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP 716.02 (d).
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
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 SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights