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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed September 4th, 2025 (“AMSB”), in which: Claims 1 and 11 are amended; no claims are canceled; claim 21 is added; and the rejections of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17, and 19 – 21 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed September 4th, 2025 (“AMSB”), in which: claims 1 and 11 are amended, rendering the rejection of claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17, and 19 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as moot. Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17, and 19 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 7, 9 – 17, and 19 – 21 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
Examiner thanks applicant for providing clarity regarding the amended features of claims 1 and 11 in the instant Remarks. Examiner will address applicant’s arguments on pages 5 – 6 of the instant Remarks, wherein:
Applicant clarifies the intention behind the previous amendments and the instant amendments of claims 1 and 11 regarding the first metal layer structure of the array substrate. Examiner now understands that the first metal layer disclosed within the instant specification has grain sizes that decrease from the surface of the substrate towards the second metal layer above (similar to what is shown in Fig. 8 of US 7868456 B2). However, the language presented in the instant claims, specifically claims 1 and 11, includes broad interpretations, as shown in the rejections below, that does not read over the prior art of record.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 11, 16, 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20220069100 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20150009461 A1).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Hwang teaches an array substrate, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A; substrate 101), a seed layer (Fig. 2A; seed layer 182) disposed on a side of the substrate (Fig. 2A), and a first metal layer (Fig. 2A; contact plug 185) disposed on a side of the seed layer and away from the substrate (Fig. 2A),
wherein the first metal layer is in direct contact with the seed layer (Figs. Fig. 2A),
wherein a grain size of the first metal layer in a middle region is greater than grain sizes of the first metal layer respectively on two sides (Fig. 3), …
wherein a diameter of grains (Fig. 3; grains G having a diameter) in a first portion of the first metal layer (See excerpt of Fig. 3 below showing grains G in a first region) diameter of grains in a second portion of the first metal layer (See excerpt of Fig. 3 showing a second region wherein the exploded-view shows that the size of the grains decreasing from the middle to the sides of the first metal layer), wherein the first portion is in direct contact with the seed layer and the second portion is not in direct contact with the seed layer- (Fig. 3 and excerpt below show that the second portion is not in contact with the seed layer due to the tapered shape of the contact plug 185);
wherein the gains in the first and second portions of the first metal layer are of a same metal ([0049] teach the contact plug 185 materials).
PNG
media_image1.png
803
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hwang remains silent regarding the array substrate:
… wherein the grain sizes of the first metal layer are greater than a first threshold value, which is a grain size of the first metal layer when the seed layer is not provided; …
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a grain compensation layer 230 which may be used as a seed layer ([0045]). The grain compensation layer 230 allows for the control of conductive layer 240’s grain size during formation. The conductive layer 240 is a layer made of metal, i.e., a first metal layer ([0044]). Park teaches specifically that a grain size of the conductive layer 240 formed on the grain compensation layer 230 is greater than that of the conductive layer 240 formed on the color layer 220 without the grain compensation layer 230. The grain compensation layer 230 increases the grain size of the conductive layer 240, i.e., the seed layer allows for a grain size greater than the first threshold value. Thus, Park discloses forming an array substrate wherein the grain sizes of the first metal layer are greater than a first threshold value, which is a grain size of the first metal layer when the seed layer is not provided.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the array substrate of Hwang to include a seed layer that allows the first metal layer to have a grain size greater than the first threshold value, as disclosed by Park, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the first metal layer of Hwang to include a seed layer with the specific purpose of forming a first metal layer with a grain size greater than the first threshold value, as disclosed by Park, is expressly provided by Park, stating that their grain compensation layer 230, i.e., seed layer, leads to controlling the capacitance between the conductive layer 240 and the pixel electrode PE such that a power consumption of the display device DP may be increased ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the array substrate of Hwang to include a seed layer that allows the first metal layer to have a grain size greater than the first threshold value, as disclosed by Park, with the motivation of controlling the capacitance between the first metal layer and other conductive components coupled thereto. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of controlling the electrical parameters of the first metal layer during the formation thereof.
Regarding dependent Claim 6, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the array substrate according to claim 1, wherein:
the seed layer has a thickness ranging from 50 to 1000 angstroms.
Hwang teaches in [0044] that the seed layer 182 may have a thickness of 5 nm, which converts to 50 angstroms.
When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)). (MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding dependent Claim 10, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the array substrate according to claim 1; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a material of the seed layer is at least one of tungsten, niobium, tantalum, a tungsten molybdenum compound, an aluminum molybdenum compound or a titanium molybdenum compound.
However, in another embodiment (Fig. 11); Hwang teaches that the seed layer 232 may include tungsten. It would have been obvious to form a seed layer of a tungsten in the first embodiment as the materials listed for the two seed layers between the embodiments overlap ([0042] and [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hwang’s seed layer to include tungsten, as disclosed in another embodiment of Hwang, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the materials listed for seed layer 182 and the materials listed for the seed layer 232 perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being to form metal layers thereon. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the material used in seed layer 182 by replacing it with tungsten. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding independent Claim 11, Hwang teaches … an array substrate, the array substrate comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A; substrate 101), a seed layer (Fig. 2A; seed layer 182) disposed on a side of the substrate (Fig. 2A), and a first metal layer (Fig. 2A; contact plug 185) disposed on a side of the seed layer and away from the substrate (Fig. 2A),
wherein the first metal layer is in direct contact with the seed layer (Figs. Fig. 2A),
wherein a grain size of the first metal layer in a middle region is greater than grain sizes of the first metal layer respectively on two sides (Fig. 3), …
wherein a diameter of grains (Fig. 3; grains G having a diameter) in a first portion of the first metal layer (See excerpt of Fig. 3 below showing grains G in a first region) diameter of grains in a second portion of the first metal layer (See excerpt of Fig. 3 showing a second region wherein the exploded-view shows that the size of the grains decreasing from the middle to the sides of the first metal layer), wherein the first portion is in direct contact with the seed layer and the second portion is not in direct contact with the seed layer- (Fig. 3 and excerpt below show that the second portion is not in contact with the seed layer due to the tapered shape of the contact plug 185);
wherein the gains in the first and second portions of the first metal layer are of a same metal ([0049] teaches the contact plug 185 materials.).
PNG
media_image1.png
803
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hwang remains silent regarding:
A display panel, comprising … the array substrate …
… wherein the grain sizes of the first metal layer are greater than a first threshold value, which is a grain size of the first metal layer when the seed layer is not provided; …
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park teaches a display device, interpreted by the examiner to be a display panel; wherein the display panel includes forming a seed layer that increases the size of grains in a metal layer grown thereon ([0052]).Thus, Park teaches that a seed layer may be implemented such that the grain sizes of the first metal layer are greater than a first threshold value, which is a grain size of the first metal layer when the seed layer is not provided. This teaching may be combined with Hwang to yield the array substrate wherein the grain sizes of the first metal layer are greater than a first threshold value, which is a grain size of the first metal layer when the seed layer is not provided.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the array substrate of Hwang to be included into a display panel; wherein forming the display panel includes using a seed layer that allows the first metal layer to have a grain size greater than the first threshold value, as disclosed by Park, because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify the first metal layer of Hwang to include a seed layer with the specific purpose of forming a first metal layer with a grain size greater than the first threshold value, as disclosed by Park, is expressly provided by Park, stating that their grain compensation layer 230, i.e., seed layer, leads to controlling the capacitance between the conductive layer 240 and the pixel electrode PE such that a power consumption of the display device DP may be increased ([0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the array substrate of Hwang to include a seed layer that allows the first metal layer to have a grain size greater than the first threshold value, as disclosed by Park, with the motivation of controlling the capacitance between the first metal layer and other conductive components coupled thereto. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of controlling the electrical parameters of the first metal layer during the formation thereof.
Regarding dependent Claim 16, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the display panel according to claim 11, wherein:
the seed layer has a thickness ranging from 50 to 1000 angstroms.
Hwang teaches in [0044] that the seed layer 182 may have a thickness of 5 nm, which converts to 50 angstroms.
When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)). (MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding dependent Claim 20, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the display panel according to claim 11, however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a material of the seed layer is at least one of tungsten, niobium, tantalum, a tungsten molybdenum compound, an aluminum molybdenum compound or a titanium molybdenum compound.
However, in another embodiment (Fig. 11); Hwang teaches that the seed layer 232 may include tungsten. It would have been obvious to form a seed layer of a tungsten in the first embodiment as the materials listed for the two seed layers between the embodiments overlap ([0042] and [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hwang’s seed layer to include tungsten, as disclosed in another embodiment of Hwang, because such a modification is the result of simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result. More specifically, the materials listed for seed layer 182 and the materials listed for the seed layer 232 perform the same general and predictable function, the predictable function being to form metal layers thereon. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the material used in seed layer 182 by replacing it with tungsten. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention.
Regarding dependent claim 21, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the array substrate according to claim 6, wherein
the thickness of the seed layer is 50 angstroms (Hwang: [0044]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20220069100 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20150009461 A1) and Machuca et al. (US 20160380045 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the array substrate according to claim 1; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a lattice structure of the first metal layer is same as a lattice structure of the seed layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Machuca teaches in [0024] - [0025] that the seed layer 105 defines the crystal structure of the crystal matching surface 107. Thus, it would be obvious to form the array substrate wherein a lattice structure of the first metal layer is same as a lattice structure of the seed layer. The examiner is interpreting the crystal matching surface 107 to be the first metal layer as Machuca discloses this is a layer made of metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hwang’s lattice structure for the first metal layer grown on the seed layer to include a same lattice structure as the seed layer, as disclosed by Machuca, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Machuca’s preparation of an array substrate is comparable to Hwang’s because they both provide seed layers with metal layers formed thereon. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang’s array substrate to include a lattice structure of the first metal layer is same as a lattice structure of the seed layer, as disclosed by Machuca, with the predictable result of lowering the resistivity of the first metal layer.
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the display panel according to claim 11; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a lattice structure of the first metal layer is same as a lattice structure of the seed layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Machuca teaches in [0024] - [0025] that the seed layer 105 defines the crystal structure of the crystal matching surface 107. Thus, it would be obvious to form the array substrate wherein a lattice structure of the first metal layer is same as a lattice structure of the seed layer. The examiner is interpreting the crystal matching surface 107 to be the first metal layer as Machuca discloses this is a layer made of metal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hwang’s lattice structure for the first metal layer grown on the seed layer to include a same lattice structure as the seed layer, as disclosed by Machuca, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Machuca’s preparation of an array substrate is comparable to Hwang’s because they both provide seed layers with metal layers formed thereon. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang’s array substrate to include a lattice structure of the first metal layer is same as a lattice structure of the seed layer, as disclosed by Machuca, with the predictable result of lowering the resistivity of the first metal layer.
Claims 3 – 5 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20220069100 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20150009461 A1), Machuca et al. (US 20160380045 A1), and Ptak et al. (US 20130256751 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 3, Hwang, further in view of Park and Machuca, teach the array substrate according to claim 2; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a ratio of a difference between a lattice constant of the first metal layer and a lattice constant of the seed layer to the lattice constant of the first metal layer is smaller than or equal to 20%.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ptak teaches in [0036] that the deposited material and the substrate material should have similar lattice constants. Additionally, in [0037] Ptak discloses that the material deposited on the growing layer of the substrate are typically limited to lattice constants that are within 2% of each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the seed and first metal layer of Hwang, further in view of Machuca’s lattice structure, to include similar lattice constants as taught by Ptak because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Ptak’s disclosure of the relationship between a seed layer on which the deposited material is grown is a standard technique used in the preparation of semiconductor substrates because of its well documented success and ability to mitigate undesirable effects such as increasing resistance between layers and minimizing internal stresses to the substrate structure (Ptak: [0036]; lines 6 – 11). Ptak addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of matching the lattice patterns between the seed layer and the layer which is deposited over, easily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, since the technique taught by Ptak is a known technique in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding dependent Claim 4, Hwang, further in view of Park, Machuca, and Ptak, teach the array substrate according to claim 3; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
the lattice constant of the first metal layer is same as the lattice constant of the seed layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ptak teaches in [0037]; lines 9 – 12 that the deposited material may have a 1:1 matching of its lattice constant to the growing layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the seed and first metal layer of Hwang, further in view of Machuca’s lattice structure, to include similar lattice constants as taught by Ptak because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Ptak’s disclosure of the relationship between a seed layer on which the deposited material is grown is a standard technique used in the preparation of semiconductor substrates because of its well documented success and ability to mitigate undesirable effects such as increasing resistance between layers and minimizing internal stresses to the substrate structure (Ptak: [0036]; lines 6 – 11). Ptak addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of matching the lattice patterns between the seed layer and the layer which is deposited over, easily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, since the technique taught by Ptak is a known technique in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding dependent Claim 5, Hwang, further in view of Park, Machuca, and Ptak, teach the array substrate according to claim 4; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
both the lattice structure of the first metal layer and the lattice structure of the seed layer are body-centered cubic lattices, and both the lattice constant of the first metal layer and the lattice constant of the seed layer are 3.14 angstroms.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Machuca teaches both the lattice structure of the first metal layer and the lattice structure of the seed layer are body-centered cubic lattices (Machuca: [0025]; lines 19 – 20. Body Centered Cubic structures are also known as BCC), and both the lattice constant of the first metal layer and the lattice constant of the seed layer are 3.14 angstroms.
Machuca teaches in [0025]; lines 6 – 8 that the seed layer 105 may be Molybdenum. When molybdenum has a BCC structure, its lattice constant is 3.14 Angstroms. The lattice constant is a physical property that one could, would, and should be calculated via the formula for BCC, lattice constant = a = [4 x r / (3)1/2], where r is the atomic radius of the element (e.g., Molybdenum (Mo)) in the unit cell. See excerpt from a Wikipedia article on lattice constants below.
PNG
media_image2.png
229
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
●
●
●
PNG
media_image3.png
145
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner notes the Wikipedia page containing the information relied upon dates back at least November 22, 2015 (https://web.archive.org/web/20151122165639/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_constant). The above excerpt came from (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_constant).
Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to use Machuca’s materials to modify Hwang’s array substrate to yield the array substrate wherein both the lattice structure of the first metal layer and the lattice structure of the seed layer are body-centered cubic lattices, and both the lattice constant of the first metal layer and the lattice constant of the seed layer are 3.14 angstroms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hwang’s lattice structures for the first metal layer and the seed layer to include Machuca’s disclosure of a body centered cubic structure, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Machuca’s seed layer is comparable to Hwang’s seed layer because they both function to ensure proper grain size and lattice structure for the layers formed thereon, e.g., BBC lattice structure. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang’s lattice structures for the first metal layer and the seed layer to include Machuca’s disclosure of a body centered cubic structure with the predictable result of having lattice structures match and lowering resistivity in the conductive connections formed.
Regarding dependent Claim 13, Hwang, further in view of Park, Machuca, and Ptak, teach the display panel according to claim 12. However, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a ratio of a difference between a lattice constant of the first metal layer and a lattice constant of the seed layer to the lattice constant of the first metal layer is smaller than or equal to 20%.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ptak teaches in [0036] that the deposited material and the substrate material should have similar lattice constants. Additionally, in [0037] Ptak discloses that the material deposited on the growing layer of the substrate are typically limited to lattice constants that are within 2% of each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the seed and first metal layer of Hwang, further in view of Machuca’s lattice structure, to include similar lattice constants as taught by Ptak because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Ptak’s disclosure of the relationship between a seed layer on which the deposited material is grown is a standard technique used in the preparation of semiconductor substrates because of its well documented success and ability to mitigate undesirable effects such as increasing resistance between layers and minimizing internal stresses to the substrate structure (Ptak: [0036]; lines 6 – 11). Ptak addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of matching the lattice patterns between the seed layer and the layer which is deposited over, easily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, since the technique taught by Ptak is a known technique in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Hwang, further in view of Park, Machuca, and Ptak, teach the display panel according to claim 13. However, Hwang remain silent wherein:
the lattice constant of the first metal layer is same as the lattice constant of the seed layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ptak teaches in [0037]; lines 9 – 12 that the deposited material may have a 1:1 matching of its lattice constant to the growing layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the seed and first metal layer of Hwang, further in view of Machuca’s lattice structure, to include similar lattice constants as taught by Ptak because such a modification would have been obvious to try. More specifically, Ptak’s disclosure of the relationship between a seed layer on which the deposited material is grown is a standard technique used in the preparation of semiconductor substrates because of its well documented success and ability to mitigate undesirable effects such as increasing resistance between layers and minimizing internal stresses to the substrate structure (Ptak: [0036]; lines 6 – 11). Ptak addresses the design need and/or other recognized problem of matching the lattice patterns between the seed layer and the layer which is deposited over, easily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, since the technique taught by Ptak is a known technique in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this teaching with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding dependent Claim 15, Hwang, further in view of Park, Machuca, and Ptak, teach the display panel according to claim 14; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
both the lattice structure of the first metal layer and the lattice structure of the seed layer are body-centered cubic lattices, and both the lattice constant of the first metal layer and the lattice constant of the seed layer are 3.14 angstroms.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Machuca teaches both the lattice structure of the first metal layer and the lattice structure of the seed layer are body-centered cubic lattices (Machuca: [0025]; lines 19 – 20. Body Centered Cubic structures are also known as BCC), and both the lattice constant of the first metal layer and the lattice constant of the seed layer are 3.14 angstroms.
Machuca teaches in [0025]; lines 6 – 8 that the seed layer 105 may be Molybdenum. When molybdenum has a BCC structure, its lattice constant is 3.14 Angstroms. The lattice constant is a physical property that one could, would, and should be calculated via the formula for BCC, lattice constant = a = [4 x r / (3)1/2], where r is the atomic radius of the element (e.g., Molybdenum (Mo)) in the unit cell. See excerpt from a Wikipedia article on lattice constants below.
PNG
media_image2.png
229
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
●
●
●
PNG
media_image3.png
145
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to use Machuca’s materials to modify Hwang’s array substrate to yield the array substrate wherein both the lattice structure of the first metal layer and the lattice structure of the seed layer are body-centered cubic lattices, and both the lattice constant of the first metal layer and the lattice constant of the seed layer are 3.14 angstroms.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify Hwang’s lattice structures for the first metal layer and the seed layer to include Machuca’s disclosure of a body centered cubic structure, because such a modification is based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, Machuca’s seed layer is comparable to Hwang’s seed layer because they both function to ensure proper grain size and lattice structure for the layers formed thereon, e.g., BBC lattice structure. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hwang’s lattice structures for the first metal layer and the seed layer to include Machuca’s disclosure of a body centered cubic structure with the predictable result of having lattice structures match and lowering resistivity in the conductive connections formed.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20220069100 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20150009461 A1) and Araki et al. (US 20090147403 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 9, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the array substrate according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second metal layer (Fig. 2A; interconnection line 190) disposed on the first metal layer (Fig. 2A), wherein materials of forming the second metal layer and the first metal layer are same ([0049] and [0063]), …
However, Hwang, does not explicitly teach:
… and a grain size of the second metal layer is smaller than a grain size of the first metal layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Araki discloses a substrate comprising a seed layer, an intermediate layer comprising metal ([0032]), and a magnetic metal layer comprising metal [0033]. The intermediate layer and the magnetic layer are being interpreted as a first and second metal layer, respectively. Araki teaches in [0034] that the magnetic recording crystal grain size may be smaller than the crystal grain size of the first metal layer. Araki further explains in [0034] how crucial it is for the magnetic recording layer grain size to no exceed the grain size of the intermediate layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Hwang, further in view of Park, and Araki’s teaching of forming grain sized in layers to create the difference in grain size between the first and second metal layer as disclosed in the instant application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the grain size of Hwang’s first metal layer, further in view of Park, to include a change in the grain size of the first metal layer in sections further from the seed layer as disclosed by Araki because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. While Araki teaches the known method towards what is interpreted to be the first and second metal layers, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply the technique to the seed layer and first metal layer. More specifically, Hwang’s first metal layer, further in view of Park, as modified by Araki can yield a predictable result of decreasing the grain size of subsequent layers formed thereon to achieve favorable functional characteristics of the subsequent layers such as an increase to the signal to noise ratio since it is known in the art that crystal grains that are made finer reduce the noise in a signal (Araki: [0004] – [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Hwang’s first metal layer, further in view of Park, the ability to refine the grain size as disclosed by Araki since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the display panel according to claim 11, wherein the array substrate further comprises:
a second metal layer (Fig. 2A; interconnection line 190) disposed on the first metal layer (Fig. 2A), wherein materials of forming the second metal layer and the first metal layer are same ([0049] and [0063]), …
However, Hwang, does not explicitly teach:
… and a grain size of the second metal layer is smaller than a grain size of the first metal layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Araki discloses a substrate comprising a seed layer, an intermediate layer comprising metal ([0032]), and a magnetic metal layer comprising metal [0033]. The intermediate layer and the magnetic layer are being interpreted as a first and second metal layer, respectively. Araki teaches in [0034] that the magnetic recording crystal grain size may be smaller than the crystal grain size of the first metal layer. Araki further explains in [0034] how crucial it is for the magnetic recording layer grain size to no exceed the grain size of the intermediate layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Hwang, further in view of Park, and Araki’s teaching of forming grain sized in layers to create the difference in grain size between the first and second metal layer as disclosed in the instant application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the grain size of Hwang’s first metal layer, further in view of Park, to include a change in the grain size of the first metal layer in sections further from the seed layer as disclosed by Araki because such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. While Araki teaches the known method towards what is interpreted to be the first and second metal layers, one of ordinary skill in the art could apply the technique to the seed layer and first metal layer. More specifically, Hwang’s first metal layer, further in view of Park, as modified by Araki can yield a predictable result of decreasing the grain size of subsequent layers formed thereon to achieve favorable functional characteristics of the subsequent layers such as an increase to the signal to noise ratio since it is known in the art that crystal grains that are made finer reduce the noise in a signal (Araki: [0004] – [0005]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated including in Hwang’s first metal layer, further in view of Park, the ability to refine the grain size as disclosed by Araki since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20220069100 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (US 20150009461 A1) and Lee et al. (US 20060263727 A1).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the array substrate according to claim 1; however, Hwang remains silent wherein:
a grain distribution density in the seed layer is greater than a grain distribution density in the first metal layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches in [0071] a seed layer 154 and a metal layer 156, interpreted as a first metal layer, wherein the grain size of the seed layer is 1000 angstroms (0.1 microns) and the grain size of the first metal layer is more than 2 microns [0077]. Per the applicant’s specification, since the seed layer 154 induces the metal crystallization of the first metal layer 156 (Lee: via electroplating on the seed layer disclosed in [0071]), and the grain size is smaller in the seed layer 154, the grain distribution density is greater in the seed layer 154 than in the first metal layer 156.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the relative grain size of the seed layer and first metal layer of Hwang, further in view of Park, to obtain a grain distribution density in the seed layer greater than a grain distribution density in the first metal layer as disclosed by Lee because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Hwang, further in view of Park, to include the disclosure of Lee is to create a clear interface between the seed and first metal layer as cited in Lee [0077], stating that, “The interface is caused by the difference of grain size and grain orientation between the seed layer 154 and the thick metal layer 156”. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, would have recognized the benefit of creating a clear interface, especially if utilizing etching techniques to remove residual material of the seed layer.
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Hwang, further in view of Park, teach the display panel according to claim 11; however, Hwang remain silent wherein:
a grain distribution density in the seed layer is greater than a grain distribution density in the first metal layer.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches in [0071] a seed layer 154 and metal layer 156, interpreted as a first metal layer, wherein the grain size of the seed layer is 1000 angstroms (0.1 microns) and the grain size of the first metal layer is more than 2 microns ([0077]). Per the applicant’s specification, since the seed layer 154 induces the metal crystallization of the first metal layer 156 (Lee: via electroplating on the seed layer disclosed in [0071]), and the grain size is smaller in the seed layer 154, the grain distribution density is greater in the seed layer 154 than in the first metal layer 156.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the relative grain size of the seed layer and first metal layer of Hwang, further in view of Park, to obtain a grain distribution density in the seed layer greater than a grain distribution density in the first metal layer as disclosed by Lee because such a modification is taught, suggested, or motivated by the art. More specifically, the motivation to modify Hwang, further in view of Park, to include the disclosure of Lee is to create a clear interface between the seed and first metal layer as cited in Lee [0077], stating that, “The interface is caused by the difference of grain size and grain orientation between the seed layer 154 and the thick metal layer 156”. A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, would have recognized the benefit of creating a clear interface, especially if utilizing etching techniques to remove residual material of the seed layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20030057527 A1 considered for its teachings of seed layers.
US 20080296660 A1 considered for teaching of seed layers.
US 20220069129 A1 considered for teachings of lattice structures.
US 7868456 B2 considered for Fig. 8.
US 7504725 B2 considered for teachings of seed layers and nucleation layers.
US 20050227479 A1 considered for its teachings of grain sizes.
US 20180037019 A1 and US 20060269794 A1 were previously relied upon.
US 7166502 B1 and CN 102446811 A considered due to it being cited in The State Intellectual Property Office of People’s Republic of China’s search report regarding this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO A AUTORE whose telephone number is (571)270-0059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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.
MARIO A. AUTORE JR.
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/MARIO ANDRES AUTORE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2897 /CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897