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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/10/2026 has been entered.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwo et al. [US PGPUB 20120223289] in view of Kim [US PGPUB 20110049543], in view of Kwon et al. [US PGPUB 20160343878], in view of Yamazaki [New crystalline structure yields reliable thin-film transistors] and in view of Daniels et al. [US PGPUB 20080067527] (hereinafter Gwo, Kwon, and Daniels).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Fig. 5a of Gwo viewed flipped 180º, Gwo teaches an inorganic light-emitting element comprising:
a first film (transparent ITO layer 6, Para 51); and
a second film (5, Para 51) comprising gallium and nitrogen (GaN film, Para 51), the second film over and in contact with the first film (Fig. 5a),
wherein the second film comprises a wurtzite structure (Para 45/Claim 20), and
wherein the first film is one electrode (Para 51) of the inorganic light-emitting element (Para 51, Fig. 5a).
Gwo does not specifically disclose that the first film comprising indium, oxygen, gallium, zinc and nitrogen, the first film over and in contact with a substrate; and
wherein the first film comprises a hexagonal crystal structure or a cubic crystal structure.
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches in forming a transparent electrode 900 for light emitting element, the electrode can be one of numerous materials to include at least ITO and IGZnO (Para 43).
In view of such teaching by Kim, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Gwo use one of well-known suitable alternate material as taught by Kim (i.e., IGZnO as the electrode material) as least based on the rationale of simple substitution of one known element with a suitable another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B) such as an electrode with better durability (damage resistance).
Referring to the invention of Kwon, Kwon teaches improving the reliability of an IGZnO layer by introducing nitrogen to the IGZnO layer in order to address oxygen vacancies that are generally present IGZnO layers (Para 56-65) n.
In view of such further teaching by Kwon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrode of Gwo’s invention as modified by Kim (InGZnO electrode) further comprise nitrogen in order to further improve the reliability of the InGZnO electrode (i.e., forming an electrode comprising indium, oxygen, gallium, zinc, and nitrogen).
Referring to the invention of Yamazaki, Yamazaki teaches that amorphous IGZO has been mainly investigated as a TFT channel material. However, due to its reliability issues, crystalline IGZO with hexagonal structure was fabricated (Page 1, Para 2/4).
In view of such teaching by Yamazaki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrode of Gwo’s invention be crystalline IGZO with hexagonal structure in order to have better electrical characteristics.
Referring to the invention of Daniels, Daniels teaches packaging of an array of light emitting elements (Fig. 78), wherein the array of light emitting elements share a transparent electrode (ITO) and wherein the transparent electrode is over and in contact with a transparent substrate (Fig. 78).
In view of such teaching by Daniels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transparent electrode 6 of Gwo over and in contact with a substrate based on the teachings Daniels at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements/teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A), such as, protecting the transparent electrode of the device and/or allowing for easy integration of the package in other structures such a scattering layer or a lens.
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Gwo specifically in view of Kwon teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film comprises a metal oxynitride film (where Kwon discloses introducing nitrogen to IGZnO layer, Para 56-65).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. [US PGPUB 20230246059] in view of Gwo, Kim, Kwon, and Yamazaki [New crystalline structure yields reliable thin-film transistors] with support from Maeda [US PGPUB 20040061817] (hereinafter Ikeda).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda (referring to Fig. 4, where the figure is viewed flipped 90º counterclockwise) teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
an inorganic light-emitting element (100, Para 36) comprising:
a first film (upper terminal (cathode terminal) 55p, Para 50, Fig. 6/14), the first film over and in contact with a substrate (where film 55p is over and in contact with structure 55e or 55e/150/160, wherein layer 55e or composite 55e/150/160 are structurally capable of functioning or referred to as a substrate, Fig. 4); and
a second film (103, Para 50, Fig. 6/14), the second film over and in contact with the first film;
a transistor (Tr3, Para 32); and
a structure (50e/45/43 in the region overlapping with Tr3, Para 34),
wherein one electrode of the structure (electrode 50e, Para 41) is over the second film (Fig. 4, where the figure is viewed flipped 90º counterclockwise), and
wherein the transistor is formed over the other electrode of the structure (electrode 43, Para 41, Fig. 4).
Ikeda does not specifically disclose the first film comprising indium, oxygen, gallium, zinc and nitrogen, the first film over and in contact with a substrate; and
the second film comprising gallium and nitrogen,
the structure is a capacitor;
wherein the first film comprises a hexagonal crystal structure or a cubic crystal structure,
wherein the second film comprises a wurtzite structure,
wherein the inorganic light-emitting element emits light through the first film.
Referring to Fig. 5a of Gwo viewed flipped 180º, Gwo teaches a structure of an inorganic light-emitting element, the inorganic light-emitting element comprising:
a first film (transparent upper electrode 6, Para 51) comprising indium and oxygen (ITO, Para 51); and
a second film (5, Para 51) comprising gallium and nitrogen (GaN, Para 51), the second film over and in contact with the first film (Fig. 5a);
wherein the second film has a wurtzite structure (Para 45/Claim 20).
Although, the Gwo does not specifically disclose wherein the inorganic light-emitting element emits light through the first film in the embodiment of Fig. 5a, it is noted that layer 6 is a transparent similar to that of layer 6 in the embodiment of Fig. 1a, wherein it is understood that layer 6 in Fig. 1a is also formed to be transparent to allow the layer to emit light (Para 46).
In view of such teaching by Gwo, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Ikeda comprise the implementing of an inorganic light emitting element as taught by Gwo to help prevent formation of leakage current (Para 53).
Wherein having the inorganic light-emitting element emits light through the first film will also be obvious to increase the amount of light being outputted by the inorganic light-emitting element.
Moreover, the implementation of Gwo invention in Ikeda’s invention would be obvious at least based on the rationale of simple substitution of one known element/structure with a suitable another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B), or using known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way using (MPEP 2143.I.C).
Referring to the invention of Kim, Kim teaches in forming a transparent electrode 900 for light emitting element, the electrode can be one of numerous materials to include at least ITO and IGZnO (Para 43).
In view of such teaching by Kim, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Gwo use one of well-known suitable alternate material as taught by Kim (i.e., IGZnO as the electrode material) as least based on the rationale of simple substitution of one known element with a suitable another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.B) such as an electrode with better durability (damage resistance).
Referring to the invention of Kwon, Kwon teaches improving the reliability of an IGZnO layer by introducing nitrogen to the IGZnO layer in order to address oxygen vacancies that are generally present IGZnO layers (Para 56-65) n.
In view of such further teaching by Kwon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrode of Gwo’s invention as modified by Kim (InGZnO electrode) further comprise nitrogen in order to further improve the reliability of the InGZnO electrode (i.e., forming an electrode comprising indium, oxygen, gallium, zinc, and nitrogen).
Referring to the invention of Yamazaki, Yamazaki teaches that amorphous IGZO has been mainly investigated as a TFT channel material. However, due to its reliability issues, crystalline IGZO with hexagonal structure was fabricated (Page 1, Para 2/4).
In view of such teaching by Yamazaki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the electrode of Gwo’s invention be crystalline IGZO with hexagonal structure in order to have better electrical characteristics.
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Ikeda specifically in view of Kwon teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film comprises a metal oxynitride film (where Kwon discloses introducing nitrogen to IGZnO layer, Para 56-65).
Regarding claim 21, the modified invention of Ikeda as applied in the rejection of claim 3 upon which claim 21 discloses the limitation of claim 3 but fails to specifically disclose that the one electrode of the capacitor
However, it is noted that in the embodiment of Fig. 4-5, Ikeda discloses that structure 50e/45/43 forms a capacitor CS2 (Para 34, Fig. 5).
Furthermore, it is noted that Ikeda discloses that in the embodiment of Fig. 14, the one electrode of the capacitor (electrode 50e) could be one of numerous materials to include at least silver and aluminum (Para 47) and that light is emitting to the outside through hole H250 (Para 88).
At least in view of the further teaching by Ikeda, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embodiment of Fig. 14 have a capacitor structure as disclosed in Fig. 4-5 of Ikeda in order to suppress the fluctuation of the gate voltage caused by the parasitic capacitance and leak current (Para 34).
Furthermore, at least in view of the teaching by Ikeda that layer 50e could be one of plurality of materials, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embodiment of Fig. 14 implement layer 50e as reflective material such as aluminum or silver in order to effectively reflect light to the opening H250 thus improving luminance (were aluminum and/or silver are well-known light reflecting layers used in the art (see Maeda [US PGPUB 20040061817])). Thus, Ikeda makes obvious wherein the one electrode of the capacitor
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Gwo, Kim, Kwon, Yamazaki, and Maeda and further in view of Zhu et al. [US PGPUB 20190018531] (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda teaches a semiconductor device wherein the transistor is a TFT transistor (Para 32).
The modified invention of Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the transistor comprises a metal oxide in a semiconductor layer.
Referring to the invention of Zhu, Zhu teaches implementing various types of TFTs to drive light emitting elements and wherein the TFT could be a IGZO transistor (metal oxide in a semiconductor layer) (Para 32).
In view of such teaching by Zhu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Ikeda comprise the teaching of Zhu (using a transistor which comprises a metal oxide in a semiconductor layer) as least based on the rationale of applying a known structure to a known device to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D) such as improving electron mobility and/or speed, resolution, and size of display devices).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention specifically in view of Zhu teaches a semiconductor device wherein the semiconductor layer of the transistor comprises indium, gallium, zinc, and oxygen (Para 32).
Claims 1 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki et al. [US PGPUB 20100092800] in view of Mallikarjunan et al. [US PGPUB 20150014823], in view of Daniels (hereinafter Itagaki and Mallikarjunan).
Regarding claim 1, Itagakki teaches a light-emitting element (Para 23) comprising:
a first film comprising (metal oxynitride 12, Fig. 9) indium, oxygen, gallium, zinc, and nitrogen (Para 60); and
a second film (11. Fig. 9) comprising gallium and nitrogen (Para 58), the second film over and in contact with the first film (Fig. 9),
wherein the first film comprises a hexagonal crystal structure or a cubic crystal structure (Para 11, where wurtzite structure is a hexagonal crystal structure),
wherein the second film comprises a wurtzite structure (Para 11).
Itagaki does not specifically disclose that the light emitting element is an inorganic light-emitting element,
the first film over and in contact with a substrate and
wherein the first film is one electrode of the inorganic light-emitting element.
Referring to the invention of Mallikarjunan, Mallikarjunan teaches using transparent metal oxide layer in a LED device, and wherein the transparent metal oxide layer includes InGaZnON layer (Para 50).
In view of such teaching by Mallikarjunan, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Itagaki comprise the teachings of Mallikarjunan (wherein InGaZnON is used as a transparent conductive layer in a light-emitting element), at least based on the rationale of applying teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G) or combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Referring to the invention of Daniels, Daniels teaches an exemplary structure of an inorganic light-emitting element (Fig. 78), wherein transparent electrode (ITO) is commonly shared, and the transparent electrode is over and in contact with a transparent substrate (Fig. 78).
In view of such teaching by Daniels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transparent electrode 6 of Gwo over and in contact with a substrate based on the teachings Daniels at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements/teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A), such as, protecting the transparent electrode of the device and/or allowing for easy integration of the package in other structures such a scattering layer or a lens.
Regarding claim 10, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film comprises a metal oxynitride film (Para 60).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film comprises an in-plane oriented film (Itagaki, Para 19).
Regarding claim 12, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film is a c-axis epitaxial film (Itagaki, Para 44), and
wherein the second film is an epitaxially grown metal nitride film (Itagaki, Para 68/69).
Regarding claim 13, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film comprises a wurtzite structure (Itagaki, Para 44).
Claims 3 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Mallikarjunan and Daniels, and further in view of Ikeda et al. [US PGPUB 20230246059] (hereinafter Ikeda).
Regarding claim 3, Itagaki teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a light-emitting element (Para 23) comprising:
a first film comprising (metal oxynitride 12, Fig. 9) indium, oxygen, gallium, zinc, and nitrogen (Para 60); and
a second film (11. Fig. 9) comprising gallium and nitrogen (Para 58), the second film over and in contact with the first film (Fig. 9),
wherein the first film comprises a hexagonal crystal structure or a cubic crystal structure (Para 11, where wurtzite structure is a hexagonal crystal structure),
wherein the second film comprises a wurtzite structure (Para 11).
Itagaki does not specifically disclose that the light emitting element is an inorganic light-emitting element, and
a transistor; and
a capacitor,
wherein one electrode of the capacitor is formed above the second film,
wherein the transistor is formed above the other electrode of the capacitor,
wherein the inorganic light-emitting element emits light through the first film.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the inorganic light-emitting element emits light through the first film,” teachings of Mallikarjunan and Daniels are relied upon.
Referring to the invention of Mallikarjunan, Mallikarjunan teaches using transparent metal oxide layer in a LED device, and wherein the transparent metal oxide layer includes InGaZnON layer (Para 50).
In view of such teaching by Mallikarjunan, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Itagaki comprise the teachings of Mallikarjunan (wherein InGaZnON is used as a transparent conductive layer in a light-emitting element), at least based on the rationale of applying teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143.I.G) or combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Referring to the invention of Daniels, Daniels teaches an exemplary structure of an inorganic light-emitting element (Fig. 78), wherein transparent electrode (ITO) is commonly shared, and the transparent electrode is over and in contact with a transparent substrate (Fig. 78).
In view of such teaching by Daniels, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transparent electrode 6 of Gwo over and in contact with a substrate based on the teachings Daniels at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements/teachings according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A), such as, protecting the transparent electrode of the device and/or allowing for easy integration of the package in other structures such a scattering layer or a lens.
Regarding the remaining limitations not taught by Itagaki or made obvious by Mallikarjunan and Daniels, it is noted that Ikeda teaches an exemplary structure of a display device:
an inorganic light-emitting element (100, Para 36) comprising:
a first film (upper terminal (cathode terminal) 55p, Para 50, Fig. 6/14); and
a second film (103, Para 50, Fig. 6/14), the second film over and in contact with the first film;
a transistor (Tr3, Para 32); and
a structure (50e/45/43 in the region overlapping with Tr3, Para 34),
wherein one electrode of the structure (electrode 50e, Para 41) is formed above the second film (Fig. 4, where the figure is viewed flipped 90º counterclockwise), and
wherein the transistor is formed above the other electrode of the structure (electrode 43, Para 41, Fig. 4);
wherein structure 50e/45/43 forms a capacitor CS2 (Para 34, Fig. 5).
In view such teaching by Ikeda, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified invention of Itagaki (in view of Mallikarjunan and Daniels) implemented in the structure of Ikeda at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A), such a functional display device that suppress the fluctuation of the gate voltage caused by the parasitic capacitance and leak current (Para 34).
Furthermore, at least in view of the teaching by Ikeda that “layer 50e could be one of plurality of materials”, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the embodiment of Fig. 14 implement layer 50e as reflective material such as aluminum or silver in order to effectively reflect light to the opening H250 thus improving luminance (were aluminum and/or silver are well-known light reflecting layers used in the art (see Maeda [US PGPUB 20040061817])). Thus, Ikeda makes obvious wherein the one electrode of the capacitor
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches an inorganic light-emitting element wherein the first film comprises a metal oxynitride film (where Kwon discloses introducing nitrogen to IGZnO layer, Para 56-65).
Regarding claim 16, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches a semiconductor device wherein the first film comprises an in-plane oriented film (Itagaki, Para 19).
Regarding claim 17, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches a semiconductor device wherein the first film is a c-axis epitaxial film (Itagaki, Para 44), and
wherein the second film is an epitaxially grown metal nitride film (Itagaki, Para 68/69).
Regarding claim 18, the modified invention of Itagaki teaches a semiconductor device wherein the first film comprises a wurtzite structure (Itagaki, Para 44).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itagaki in view of Mallikarjunan, Daniels, and Ikeda and further in view of Zhu et al. [US PGPUB 20190018531] (hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 4, modified invention of Itagaki specifically in view Ikeda teaches a semiconductor device wherein the transistor is a TFT transistor (Para 32).
The modified invention of Ikeda does not specifically disclose wherein the transistor comprises a metal oxide in a semiconductor layer.
Referring to the invention of Zhu, Zhu teaches implementing various types of TFTs to drive light emitting elements and wherein the TFT could be a IGZO transistor (metal oxide in a semiconductor layer) (Para 32).
In view of such teaching by Zhu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Itagaki comprise the teaching of Zhu (using a transistor which comprises a metal oxide in a semiconductor layer) as least based on the rationale of applying a known structure to a known device to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.D) such as improving electron mobility and/or speed, resolution, and size of display devices).
Regarding claim 5, the modified invention specifically in view of Zhu teaches a semiconductor device wherein the semiconductor layer of the transistor comprises indium, gallium, zinc, and oxygen (Para 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 14 and 19 are is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6-9 and 20 are allowed because all prior arts on record on record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a method for manufacturing an inorganic light-emitting element comprising:
a first step of forming a first film over and in contact with a single crystal substrate by a sputtering method using an oxide target comprising zinc and at least one of indium and gallium and having conductivity in an atmosphere containing a first deposition gas comprising nitrogen or a mixed gas of nitrogen and one of oxygen and a rare gas, (as claimed in claim 6), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights