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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 09/29/2025.
Currently, claims 1, 4, and 7-23 are pending in the application. Currently, claims 2-3 and 5-6 are canceled. Currently, claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,4, 7-9 and 21-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the width of the gate being equal to that of the water-oxygen barrier layer in a direction from the source to the drain must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informality:
In claim 23, line 1, “The driving substrate according to claim 23” should read “The driving substrate according to claim 21”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MOROSAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0240998).
Regarding independent claim 1, Morosawa teaches a driving substrate (Fig. 9), comprising:
a base (Fig. 9, 11, ¶ [0105]);
an oxide semiconductor layer (Fig. 9, 20, ¶ [0106]), arranged on the base and comprising a channel (Fig. 9, 20A, ¶ [0106]); an Etch Stop Layer (ESL) (Fig. 9, 80, ¶ [0160]. The Examiner notes that the channel protecting film 80 can be a same material as the ESL disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, channel protecting film 80 can perform an etch stop function), arranged on the oxide semiconductor layer and covering the channel; and
a water-oxygen barrier layer, (Fig. 9, ¶ [0113] teaches a metal oxide film 50 that reduces an influence of oxygen or moisture on the oxide semiconductor film) arranged on the ESL, wherein an orthographic projection of the water-oxygen barrier layer on a plane where the base is located at least partially overlaps with that of the channel on the plane where the base is located (Fig. 9, film 50 at least partially overlaps with 20A);
wherein the orthographic projection of the channel on the plane where the base is located is located inside that of the water-oxygen barrier layer on the plane where the base is located (Fig. 9, the entirety of channel region 20A completely overlaps with film 50);
wherein the oxide semiconductor layer further comprises a source portion (Fig. 9, 20S, ¶ [0106]) and drain portion (Fig. 9, 20D, ¶ [0106]) which are located on opposite two sides of the channel, and the water-oxygen barrier layer covers the ESL and exposes the source portion and the drain portion (Fig. 9); and
the driving substrate further comprises a source (Fig. 9, 70S, ¶ [0115]) and a drain (Fig. 9, 70D, ¶ [0115]), both of which are arranged on a side of the water-oxygen barrier layer away from the ESL, the source is connected with the source portion, and the drain is connected with the drain portion (Fig. 9);
wherein an orthographic projection of the ESL on the plane where the base is located is located inside that of the water-oxygen barrier layer on the plane where the base is located (Fig. 9, the entirety of channel protecting film 80 overlaps with film 50);
wherein the driving substrate further comprises a gate (Fig. 9, 40, ¶ [0106]) located between the base and the oxide semiconductor layer, wherein a width of the gate is equal to that of the water-oxygen barrier layer in a direction from the source to the drain (Fig. 9, a horizontal width of the gate electrode 40 is equal to a width of the film 50 (see annotated Figure below). The Examiner notes that Morosawa’s film 50 has multiple widths);
and wherein the width of the gate is more than that of the ESL (The minimum horizontal width of the gate electrode 40 is larger than the minimum horizontal width of the channel protecting film 80) in the direction from the source to the drain.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Morosawa Fig. 9
Regarding claim 4, Morosawa teaches the driving substrate according to claim 1, and Morosawa teaches that a material of the source portion (Fig. 9, 20S, ¶ [0106]) and a material of the drain portion (Fig. 9, 20D, ¶ [0106]) are both conductors (the Examiner notes that it is inherent that the material of source and drain portions of an oxide semiconductor layer are conductors).
Regarding claim 7, Morosawa teaches the driving substrate according to claim 1, and Morosawa teaches that the width of the gate is equal to a length of the channel (Fig. 9, a minimum horizontal width of the gate electrode 40 is equal to a horizontal length of the channel region 20A) in the direction from the source to the drain.
Regarding claim 8, Morosawa teaches the driving substrate according to claim 7, and Morosawa teaches that a material of the ESL (Fig. 9, 80, ¶ [0160] teaches that channel protecting film 80 can be a silicon dioxide film) comprises a silicon oxide, and a material of the water-oxygen barrier layer (Fig. 9, 50, ¶ [0113] teaches that 50 can be aluminum oxide or titanium oxide) comprises a metal oxide.
Regarding claim 9, Morosawa teaches the driving substrate according to claim 8, and Morosawa teaches that the metal oxide (Fig. 9, 50, ¶ [0113] teaches that 50 can be aluminum oxide or titanium oxide) comprises one or more of alumina, titania, and zirconia.
Regarding claim 22, Morosawa teaches the driving substrate according to claim 1, and Morosawa teaches that the orthographic projection of the ESL on the plane where the base is located completely overlaps that of the water-oxygen barrier layer on the plane where the base is located (Fig. 9, the entirety of channel protecting film 80 overlaps with the film 50).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MOROSAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0240998) in view of MOON et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0021475).
Regarding claim 21, Morosawa teaches the driving substrate according to claim 1 and Morosawa teaches a gate insulation layer (Fig. 9, 30, ¶ [0106]) located between the gate (Fig. 9, 40, ¶ [0106]) and the oxide semiconductor layer (Fig. 9, 20, ¶ [0106]).
However, Morosawa does not explicitly teach a bonding pad and a signal input pad both arranged on a side of the gate insulation layer away from the base;
a passivation layer arranged on a side of the bonding pad away from the base; and
a guard electrode layer arranged on a side of the passivation layer away from the base.
However, Moon is a pertinent art that teaches
a bonding pad (Fig. 3, 126, ¶ [0037]) and a signal input pad (Fig. 3, 158, ¶ [0040]) both arranged on a side of the gate insulation layer (Fig. 3, 130, ¶ [0038]) away from the base (Fig. 3, 110, ¶ [0037]) (the Examiner notes that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange 126 to be on top of 130 in a similar fashion to 158 with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975));
a passivation layer (Fig. 3, 160, ¶ [0043]) arranged on a side of the bonding pad away from the base;
and a guard electrode layer (Fig. 3, 176,¶ [0062] teaches a transparent conductive material that covers the exposed portion of 158, and would therefore be capable of protecting the portion of top surface of 158 not covered by passivation layer 160) arranged on a side of the passivation layer away from the base.
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 Morosawa’s driving substrate according to the teaching of Moon (Fig. 3) in order to connect to other components while reducing signal delay (Moon ¶ [0046]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MOROSAWA et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0240998) in view of MOON et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0021475) and further in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0373433).
Regarding claim 23, Morosawa modified by Moon teaches the driving substrate according to claim 21, and Moon teaches that the passivation layer (Fig. 3, 160, ¶ [0043]) is provided with a first opening (¶ [0043] teaches that contact hole 160a can expose the drain electrode 156. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the source and drain of a transistor are interchangeable depending on polarity (see ¶ [0045] of Yamazaki et al.)) for exposing the source (Fig. 3, top surface of electrode 156 is exposed to the pixel electrode 172 (¶ [0044])), a second opening for exposing the bonding pad (Fig. 3, top surface of 126 is exposed to terminal 174 in the contact hole 160b), ¶ [0044]), and a third opening (Fig. 3, 160c, ¶ [0043]) for exposing the signal input pad (Fig. 3, 158, ¶ [0040]); and
wherein the guard electrode (Fig. 3, 176,¶ [0062] teaches a transparent conductive material that covers the exposed portion of 158,) is connected to the signal input pad through the third opening and configured to protect the signal input pad (¶ [0062] teaches that terminal 176 can be made of a same material as Applicant’s guard electrode and would therefore be capable of protecting Moon’s pad 158).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813