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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed
in Korea, KR 2021-0149664 on November 02, 2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 10/24/2025 in response to the Office Action mailed on 07/25/2025 is
being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-Final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
On pages 9 and 10 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that the claimed ratio of a silicon atom content to a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer is critical by citing paragraph 0143 of the originally filed disclosure. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Paragraph 0143 only presents conclusory statements about unexpected results. Such conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 716.02(d)(II) (IV), “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).” For this additional reason, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of Kang/Akimoto is maintained.
On pages 9 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of amended Claim 1, Applicant argues that the insulating layer 104 of Akimoto cannot be suggestive of the claimed lower charge trap layer of the claimed invention merely because it includes silicon nitride as the structural positioning of the layer in the display device of Akimoto is different from the claimed invention. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. One cannot show non-obviousness 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). As such, the primary reference Kang already teaches the limitation “a lower charge trap layer 14 disposed between the first substrate 10 and the buffer layer 22, the lower charge trap layer 14 including silicon nitride (Fig. 8: 14, 10, 22, paragraph 0057). Akimoto was only relied upon to teach or suggest the claimed ratios. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of Kang/Akimoto is maintained.
On pages 9 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 9, Applicant argues that the prior art of record has not even recognized the problem of increasing driving current and reducing afterimage and luminance drop phenomenon. Applicant further argues that the they have discovered an unrecognized need and developed a previously undiscovered specialized range to address the need. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2144 (I), In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,"Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. As such, increasing driving current is a well-known desired and predictable result achievable with routine design change and optimization such as the inclusion of interlayers. In other words, the general need of increasing driving current has been recognized for decades and the application of silicon nitride/ silicon oxide interlayers to address the need is also long-known in the art. For example, Okita (US 6097453 A, published in 2000) has shown that the inclusion of silicon oxynitride interlayers has improved the driving current of display panel (see abstract). Thus, the recognition of the above issue as well as designing pathways to address the issue is well-known in the art and therefore does not impart patentable distinction to the claimed invention. Furthermore, under the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test for obviousness, it is not necessary to look for the same problem the patentee is trying to solve. See excerpt from MPEP § 2144 (I) below. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 will be maintained.
“The Supreme Court in KSR reaffirmed the familiar framework for determining obviousness as set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), but stated that the Federal Circuit had erred by applying the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test in an overly rigid and formalistic way. KSR, 550 U.S. at 404, 82 USPQ2d at 1391. Specifically, the Supreme Court stated that the Federal Circuit had erred in four ways: (1) "by holding that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve " (Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397); (2) by assuming "that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem" (Id.); (3) by concluding "that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘obvious to try’" (Id. at 421, USPQ2d at 1397); and (4) ….”.
On page 11 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, Applicant further argues that the crux of Applicant's argument is not that the Examiner's rationale for combination is improper, but Instead is regarding what is currently claimed as a "Result-Effective" variable for an unrecognized problem. These arguments are also fully addressed in the above paragraph.
On pages 11 and 12 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the claimed oxygen content of the upper charge trap layer is critical as the cited references fail to even consider the claimed oxygen content increases the driving current is proof of unexpected results. Applicant further professes criticality of the above range by citing paragraph 0068 of the originally filed disclosure. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Paragraph 0068 only presents conclusory statements about unexpected results. Such conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 716.02(d)(II) (IV), “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).”
On page 12 Applicant argues that Examiner’s assertion that the described function of layer 104 of Akimoto is different from that of layer 103 is based on incorrect assumptions. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The Examiner wishes to point out that no such assumptions were made. In fact, the assertion was made purely based on what was explicitly disclosed in the specification, which clearly clarifies the role of each layer. According to column 6, lines 54-58 of Akimoto, the barrier layer 103 is provided to prevent the contamination of the LTSS layer 101 by a mobile ion impurity like alkali metal or alkaline earth metal that is diffused from a glass substrate that is used as the supporting substrate 100. According to column 7, lines 16-17, the barrier layer 103 is provided to prevent the contamination of the LTSS layer 101 by an impurity, which could broadly mean impurities such as moisture and oxygen, which can not only permeate through the substrate but also from the upper layers. There is no claims in the disclosure of Akimoto that layer 104 serves to prevent impurities only diffused from the glass substrate. Thus, Applicant’s assumption that the layer 104 is described in the same way as barrier layer 103, whose purpose is to prevent intrusion of the contaminants from the glass is incorrect.
On pages 12-14 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the different layers disclosed by the prior art serve purposes different from that of the claimed invention and therefore the prior art of record has not recognized the problem that Applicant is seeking to solve. As mentioned earlier, under the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test for obviousness, it is not necessary to look for the same problem the patentee is trying to solve. See paragraph 4 above for excerpt from MPEP § 2144 (I). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 in view of the previously cited references has been maintained.
On page 14 of the remarks, Applicant argues that that device of Kang works perfectly as intended without the suggested modification to second buffer sub-layer 24 of Kang and that without a problem to be solved, there is no needed solution. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. The fact that the prior art device of Kang works perfectly as intended does not teach away from modifications or improvements. While Kang teaches a silicon oxide layer 24, it is silent about the oxygen content. Therefore, a person or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the oxygen content effects material properties and thus would still consider optimizing the content to achieve desirable properties.
On page 14 of the remarks, Applicant argues that Akimoto is not suggestive of a modification to Kang for the rejection of Claim 1, because the sole purpose of the insulating layer 104 of Akimoto is to prevent the impurities in the glass substrate 100 from migrating into the LTSS layer 101 and hence, does not apply to the polyimide substrates 10 and 20 of Kang. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. The Examiner once again respectfully clarifies that it is not layer 104, but layer 103 of Akimoto that serves to prevent the impurities in the glass substrate 100 from migrating into the LTSS layer 101 (see column 7, lines 35-47 of Akimoto). In fact, layer 104 of Akimoto serves to prevent the LTSS layer 101 of Akimoto from being contaminated by an impurity (see column 7, lines 11-17 of Akimoto). This impurity could be from environmental contaminants such as oxygen and moisture and thus, applies to Kang regardless of the type of substrate. Further, contrary to Applicant’s claim that layer 104 of Akimoto is not relevant for the plastic substrate of Kang, the inclusion of silicon oxynitride interlayers has been well supported in the prior art even for plastic substrates. For examples applied reference Lee I, discloses a silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride layer 110 applied to a polyimide substrate 100 in order to block impurities from entering the active layer of the TFT element (see Fig. 3, paragraph 0049, 0051 in English equivalent US2021265438A1 ). Thus, Applicant’s argument that the plastic substrate of Kang would not benefit from the teachings of Akimoto is incorrect. For this additional reason, this argument is not persuasive and hence the obviousness rejection of Claim 1 in view of Kang/Akimoto is maintained.
On page 15 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the relied upon silicon nitride version of buffer layer 110 of Lee l is not fairly suggestive of a modification to Kang in view of Akimoto and Yang. This argument is fully considered. Examiner apologizes for the lack of clarity in the previous office action and wishes to point out the buffer layer 110 of Lee I comprises a plurality of layers including silicon nitride and silicon oxide (see paragraph 0062 in English Translation of Lee I). The atomic contents/bond ratios of the silicon oxide portion of the buffer layer 110 is used for modification of the atomic contents/bond ratios of the upper charge trap layer of Kang and the atomic contents/bond ratios of the silicon nitride portion of the buffer layer 110 is used for modification of the of the atomic contents/bond ratios of the lower charge trap layer of Kang. The rejection will be modified to clarify the above factors to avoid further confusion.
On page 15 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the N-H bonds of Lee l in the range of 0.5% or less is intended to reduce the leakage current and not intended to alleviate the luminance drop phenomenon. Applicant further rebuts the overlapping range rejection because the N-H bonds of Applicant's claim 6 has critical significance and produces unexpected results over that of the applied art. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. However, according to MPEP § 2144 (IV), it is permissible to have the rationale to modify or combine prior art reference different from Applicant. MPEP § 2144 (IV) states:
“The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991)”.
As for Applicant’s arguments with regards to the criticality of the claimed N-H bond ratio, paragraph 0063 of the originally filed disclosure states: “In case that the charge trap layer Al includes silicon oxide, a ratio of N-H bond in the charge trap layer Al may be about 0.3 at% or less, or about 0.1 at% to about 0.2 at%. However, the ratio of the N-H bond in the charge trap layer Al is not limited thereto. (emphasis added)”. The above cited paragraph suggests that the claimed ratio is only desired and values outside the range also falls within the scope of the claimed invention and thus, contradicts the Applicant’s claim of criticality. Further, conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP § 2145 states: a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 716.02(d)(II) (IV), “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).” Therefore, the rejection of amended Claim 1 in view of all previously applied prior has been maintained.
On pages 16 and 17 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 10, Applicant argues that the claimed silicon atom content and nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer are critical by citing paragraph 0143 of the originally filed disclosure. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. As previously pointed out, conclusory statements about unexpected results unsupported by comparative data is insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness. See paragraph 1 of this section for detailed arguments. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 10 in view of previously cited prior art has been maintained.
On pages 17 and 18 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 11, Applicant argues that layer 170 in FIG. 1 of Lim is not fairly suggestive of a modification to layer 14 in FIG. 8 of Kang due to their vastly different locations. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. According to the claim language of Claim 1, “the lower charge trap layer is disposed between the first substrate and the buffer layer” (emphasis added). The BRI of Claim 1 does not preclude the presence of one or more intervening layers between the first substrate and the buffer layer, unless explicitly stated. Therefore, the layer 14 of Kang and layer 170 of Lim still meets the claim limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 11 respectively, and the combination thus meets the limitations of Claims 1 and 11. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 11 in view Kang/Yang/Akimoto/Lim has been maintained.
On page 18 of the remarks filed on 10/24/2025, with regards to the rejection of Claim 11, Applicant further argues that the previous Office Action has failed to articulate why layer 170 of Lim to be fairly suggestive of a modification to layer 14 of Kang. As the alleged benefit of "minimize humidity and/or gasses into the thin film transistor" would not make any sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the substrate in Kang is glass. These arguments are fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner wishes to point out that the substrates of Kang, as already pointed out by the Applicant, are not glass but plastic (see paragraph 0021 of Kang), and therefore, the benefit of minimizing the diffusion of humidity/gases into the TFT element would indeed make sense to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as plastic is well-known in the art as being permeable to humidity and gases. Therefore, the rejection of Claim in view of the cited prior art is maintained.
On page 19-20 of the remarks, with regards to rejection of Claim 12, Applicant argues that Azuma teaches away from the claimed N-H bond ratio as the range disclosed by Azuma does not even overlap with the claimed range. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[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). As such even though the range disclosed by Azuma does not even overlap with the claimed range, the differences in the ratio will not provide patentable distinction to the claimed invention. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed range of ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of Azuma through routine optimization and have a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer in the claimed range. Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratio range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), 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).
On page 20-21 of the remarks, with regards to rejection of Claim 13, Applicant argues that Lee III fails to teach “the lower charge trap layer 1SN is disposed between the first barrier layer 1BL and the second substrate 2PL. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner wishes to point out that first barrier layer 1BL of Lee III includes a bi-layer, the top layer 1SN is interpreted as the lower charge trap layer and the bottom SiO2 layer is interpreted as the first barrier layer (see Fig. 17). As such, the lower charge trap layer 1SN is indeed disposed between the first barrier layer (SiO2 layer of 1BL) and the second substrate 2PL. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 13 has been maintained and the rejection has been modified to clarify the above issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “and a lower surface of the lower charge trap layer contacts the first barrier layer and an upper surface of the upper charge trap layer contacts the second substrate” in lines 18-19. However, it is not clear as to how an upper surface of the upper charge trap layer AIU could contact the second substrate SUB2. According to the Fig. 10, it is not an upper surface of the upper charge trap layer AIU but an upper surface of the lower charge trap layer AIL that contacts the second substrate SUB2.
For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be read as: “and a lower surface of the lower charge trap layer contacts the first barrier layer and an upper surface of the lower charge trap layer contacts the second substrate”
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kang teaches a display device, comprising:
a first barrier layer 16 disposed on a first substrate 10 (Fig. 8: 16, 10, paragraph 0127);
a second substrate 20 disposed on the first barrier layer 16 (Fig. 8:20, 16 and paragraph 0127);
a second barrier layer 12 disposed on the second substrate 20 (Fig. 8: 12, 20 and paragraph 0055);
a buffer layer 22 disposed on the second barrier layer 12 (Fig. 8: 22, 12 and paragraph 0057);
an upper charge trap layer 24 disposed on the buffer layer 22, the upper charge trap layer 24 including silicon oxide (Fig. 8: 24, 22 and paragraph 0057);
Examiner note: According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The upper charge trap layer 24 of Kang is formed of silicon oxide, which is the same material as disclosed by applicant (see paragraph 0005 of original disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed “charge trapping” property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
a lower charge trap layer 14 disposed between the first substrate 10 and the buffer layer 22, the lower charge trap layer 14 including silicon nitride (Fig. 8: 14, 10, 22, paragraph 0057).
Examiner note: The lower charge trap layer 14 of Kang is formed of silicon nitride, which is the same material as disclosed by applicant (see paragraph 0005 of original disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
a semiconductor layer 135 disposed on the upper charge trap layer 24 (Fig. 8: 135, 24 and paragraph 0061);
a pixel electrode 710 disposed on the semiconductor layer 135 and electrically connected to the semiconductor layer 135 (Fig. 8:710, 135, 135 and paragraph 0073);
a pixel defining layer 190 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8: 190, 170 and paragraph 0074), the pixel defining layer 710 including an opening 95 exposing a portion of the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8: 95, 710 and paragraph 0075);
an intermediate layer 720 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 and disposed in the opening 95 (Fig. 8: 720, 710, 95 and paragraph 0076);
and a common electrode 730 disposed on the intermediate layer 720 (Fig. 8: 730, 720 and paragraph 0079).
Kang fails to teach:
the upper charge trap layer having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%.
the pixel defining layer having a black color
wherein the upper charge trap layer includes a hydrogen atom (H) and a nitrogen atom (N), and a ratio of N-H bonds in the upper charge trap layer is about 0.3 at % or less,
and wherein a ratio of a silicon atom content in the lower charge trap layer to a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 1.6 to about 2.5.
Akimoto discloses a display device comprising an insulating layer 104 including silicon oxide (Fig 2A, column 7, lines 3 – 10), and the insulating layer 104 having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 50 at% to about 70 at% (column 7, lines 18 – 25). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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).
Note that layer 104 is a stacked layer comprising a plurality of layers including silicon oxide and silicon nitride (column 7, lines 11-14). The atomic content of one of the silicon oxide layer of the stack is suggestive of the atomic content of the upper charge trap layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Akimoto, and have the upper charge trap layer to contain an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%. Doing so, would prevent the permeation of impurities into the active semiconductor layer, as recognized by Akimoto (column 7, lines 3 – 10).
Yang et al. teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer 70 having a black color (Fig. 8 of original document, paragraphs 0067 and 0072 in English translation of Yang et al.) to ensure good dielectric constant as well as good water and oxygen barrier performance while maintaining good light shielding properties (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Yang et al. and fabricate the pixel defining layer to have a black color. Doing so, would ensure good light shielding properties as well as good dielectric constant, water and oxygen barrier performance, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Lee et al. teaches a display device comprising of a silicon oxide layer 110 disposed between a substrate 100 and semiconductor layer 120 (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0059 in English translation of Lee et al.), wherein the silicon oxide layer 110 includes a hydrogen atom (H) and a nitrogen atom (N), and a ratio of N-H bonds in the layer is about 0.5 at % or less (paragraph 0012 in English translation of Lee et al.). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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).
Note that the buffer layer 110 of Lee I comprises a plurality of layers including silicon nitride and silicon oxide (see paragraph 0062 in English Translation of Lee I). The atomic contents/bond ratios of the silicon oxide portion of the buffer layer 110 is suggestive of a modification of the atomic contents/bond ratios of the upper charge trap layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, and Yang et al. with the teachings of Lee et al. to have the upper charge trap layer to include a hydrogen atom (H) and a nitrogen atom (N), and a ratio of N-H bonds in the upper charge trap layer to be about 0.3 at % or less. Doing so, would enhance the performance of the thin film transistor element and hence the display quality of the display device as recognized by Lee et al. (paragraphs 0004 and 0005 in English translation of Lee et al.).
Akimoto teaches an insulating layer 104 including silicon nitride (Fig 2A, column 7, lines 3 – 10), and the insulating layer 104 having a silicon atom content in a range of about 25 at% to about 35 at% and a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 20 at% to about 55 at% (column 7, lines 25 – 29), translating to a ratio of a silicon atom content to a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 0.4 to 1.8. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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).
Note that layer 104 is a stacked layer comprising a plurality of layers including silicon oxide and silicon nitride (column 7, lines 11-14). The atomic content of one of the silicon nitride layer of the stack is suggestive of the atomic content of the lower charge trap layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of a silicon atom content in the lower charge trap layer to a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer in a range of about 1.6 to 2.5. Doing so would prevent the permeation of impurities into the active semiconductor layer, as recognized by Akimoto (column 7, lines 3 – 16).
Regarding Claim 2, Yang et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the pixel defining layer 70 includes a black pigment (paragraph 0072 in English translation of Yang et al.)
Regarding Claim 4, Yang et al. teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the optical density of the pixel defining layer 70 is greater than or equal to 0.7 (paragraph 0069), which includes the claimed value of about 1. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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).
Regarding Claim 5, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the pixel defining layer 190 overlaps the semiconductor layer 135 (See Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 10, while the combination of Kang, Akimoto and Yang et al. teaches substantial features of the claimed invention as noted above, the combination fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a silicon atom content in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 60at% to about 70at%, and a nitrogen atom content in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 25at% to about 35at%.
However, Akimoto teaches the insulating layer 104 has a silicon atom content in a range of about 25 at% to about 35 at% and a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 20 at% to about 55 at% (column 7, lines 25 – 29). Akimoto fails to explicitly teach a silicon atom content in a range of about 60 at% to about 70 at%. However, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[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)
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see Examiner note below) of the claimed atomic content range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the atomic content of Akimoto through routine optimization and have a silicon atom content in a range of about 25 at% to about 35 at% and a nitrogen atom content in a range of about 20 at% to about 55 at%.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed atomic concentration range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), 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). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding Claim 15, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the lower charge trap layer 14 is disposed on the second barrier layer 12 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 16, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first barrier layer 16 and the second barrier layer 12 include silicon oxide (paragraphs 0057 and 0134).
Regarding Claim 17, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the first substrate 10 and the second substrate 20 include polyimide (paragraph 0021).
Regarding Claim 18, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the upper charge trap layer 24 is in contact with the semiconductor layer 135 (See Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the buffer layer 22 includes silicon nitride (paragraph 0059).
Regarding Claim 20, Kang teaches the display device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor layer 135 includes polycrystalline silicon (paragraph 0063).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 2 above, further in view of Ahn et al. (US 9525016 B2).
While the combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. teaches substantial features of the claimed invention as noted above, the combination fails to teach the display device of claim 2, wherein the black pigment of the pixel defining layer includes carbon black.
However, Ahn et al. teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer 180 having a black pigment, wherein the black pigment includes carbon black (column 6, lines 32 – 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. with the teachings of Ahn et al. and fabricate the pixel defining layer to include carbon black. Doing so, would ensure good light shielding properties as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of second Lee et al. reference (US 20180012947 A1), herein referred to as Lee II.
While the combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. teaches substantial features of the claimed invention as noted above, the combination fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein the lower charge trap layer is formed under an ammonia-free (NH3 free) condition.
However, Lee II discloses a display device comprising of an interlayer 172 (Fig. 3A and 3B) including silicon nitride, wherein the interlayer 172 is formed under an ammonia-free (NH3 free) condition in order to suppress hydrogen diffusion into the thin film transistor 140, and thereby improve the variation in threshold volage (Table 1 and paragraph 0108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al., and Lee et al. with the teachings of Lee II and form the lower charge trap layer under an ammonia-free (NH3 free) condition. Doing so, would improve threshold voltage variation in the thin film transistor element as recognized by Lee II (paragraph 0108).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Lim et al. (US 20210066153 A1).
While the combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. teaches substantial features of the claimed invention as noted above, the combination fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 8 at % to about 15 at %.
Lim et al. teaches a thin-film transistor device 100 comprising a silicon nitride layer 170 (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0045) serving to minimize the diffusion of humidity and/or gases into the thin-film transistor (paragraph 006), wherein a ratio of Si-H bond in the silicon nitride layer is in a range of about 0.1 at % to about 15 at % (paragraph 0027). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. with the teachings of Lim at al. and have a ratio of Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer in a range of about 8 at % to about 15 at %. Doing so, would minimize the diffusion of humidity and/or gases within the thin-film transistor as recognized by Lim et al. (paragraph 0006).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Azuma (JP H05129287 A).
While the combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. teaches substantial features of the claimed invention as noted above, the combination fails to teach the display device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 8 to about 15.
Azuma teaches a thin film transistor device comprising a silicon nitride layer 3 (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0016 in English translation of Azuma), wherein a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 0.15 to about 0.35 (paragraph 0006 in English translation of Azuma).
While Azuma fails to explicitly specify a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the silicon nitride to be in a range of about 8 to about 15, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[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). Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see Examiner note below) of the claimed range of ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio through routine optimization and have a ratio of the Si-H bond in the lower charge trap layer to the N-H bond in the lower charge trap layer is in a range of about 8 to about 15.
Examiner Note: The specification contains no disclosure of either the criticality of the claimed ratio range or any unexpected results arising from them. According to MPEP § 716.02 (d), 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). Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2145, a showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (conclusory statements regarding unusually low immune response or unexpected biological activity that were unsupported by comparative data held insufficient to overcome prima facie case of obviousness).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. with the teachings of Azuma to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would reduce the number of Si dangling bonds and thereby yield small threshold voltage shifts in the transistor even when exposed to relatively high temperatures (paragraph 0007 in English translation of Azuma).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and third refence Lee et al. (KR 20150105595 A), herein referred to as Lee III.
Regarding Claim 13, Kang teaches a display device, comprising:
a first barrier layer 16 disposed on a first substrate 10 (Fig. 8, paragraph 0127);
a second substrate 20 disposed on the first barrier layer 16 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0127);
a second barrier layer 12 disposed on the second substrate 20 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0055);
a buffer layer 22 disposed on the second barrier layer 12 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0057);
an upper charge trap layer 24 disposed on the buffer layer 22, the upper charge trap layer 24 including silicon oxide (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0057);
Examiner note: According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The upper charge trap layer 24 of Kang is formed of silicon oxide, which is the same material as disclosed by applicant (see paragraph 0005 of original disclosure), and therefore would result in the claimed “charge trapping” property. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
a semiconductor layer 135 disposed on the upper charge trap layer 24 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0061);
a pixel electrode 710 disposed on the semiconductor layer 135 and electrically connected to the semiconductor layer 135 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0073);
a pixel defining layer 190 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0074), the pixel defining layer 710 including an opening 95 exposing a portion of the pixel electrode 710 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0075);
an intermediate layer 720 disposed on the pixel electrode 710 and disposed in the opening 95 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0076);
and a common electrode 730 disposed on the intermediate layer 720 (Fig. 8 and paragraph 0079).
and an upper surface of the upper charge trap layer contacts the second substrate.
Kang fails to teach:
the upper charge trap layer having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%.
the pixel defining layer having a black color
and a lower charge trap layer disposed between the first substrate and the buffer layer, the lower charge trap layer including silicon nitride, wherein the lower charge trap layer is disposed between the first barrier layer and the second substrate, and a lower surface of the lower charge trap layer contacts the first barrier layer and an upper surface of the lower charge trap layer contacts the second substrate.
Akimoto discloses a display device comprising of an insulating layer 104 including silicon oxide (Fig 2A, column 7, lines 3 – 10), serving to prevent the permeation of impurities (column 7, lines 3 – 10), and the insulating layer 104 having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 50 at% to about 70 at% (column 7, lines 18 – 25), which includes all of the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Akimoto, and have the upper charge trap layer to contain an oxygen atom content in a range of about 54 at% to about 56 at%. Doing so, would prevent the permeation of impurities, as recognized by Akimoto (column 7, lines 3 – 10).
Yang et al. teaches a display device comprising a pixel defining layer 70 having a black color (Fig. 8 of original document, paragraphs 0067 and 0072 in English translation of Yang et al.) to ensure good dielectric constant as well as good water and oxygen barrier performance while maintaining good light shielding properties (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang and Yang et al. and fabricate the pixel defining layer to have a black color. Doing so, would ensure good light shielding properties as well as good dielectric constant, water and oxygen barrier performance, as recognized by Yang et al. (paragraph 0073 in English translation of Yang et al.).
Lee III teaches a display device comprising a lower charge trap layer 1SN disposed between the first substrate 1PL and the buffer layer 2BL, the lower charge trap layer 1SN including silicon nitride, wherein the lower charge trap layer 1SN is disposed between the first barrier layer (SiO2 layer of 1BL) and the second substrate 2PL, and a lower surface of the lower charge trap layer 1SN contacts the first barrier layer (SiO2 layer of 1BL) and an upper surface of the lower charge trap layer 1SN contacts the second substrate 2PL (Fig. 17 and paragraphs 0085 and 0086 of English translation of Lee III).
Note that the first barrier layer 1BL is a bi-layer. The lower SiO2 of the first barrier 1BL in Fig. 17 is interpreted as the first barrier layer and the upper layer 1SN is interpreted as the lower charge trap layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang with the teachings of Lee III and have a lower charge trap layer disposed between the first substrate and the buffer layer, the lower charge trap layer including silicon nitride, wherein the lower charge trap layer is disposed between the first barrier layer and the second substrate. Doing so, would improve the adhesion between the first and the second substrate as recognized by Lee III (paragraphs 0073 and 0074 in English translation of Lee III).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 20150123098 A1), in view of Akimoto (US 8759842 B2), Yang et al. (CN 111564483 A), and Lee et al. (KR 20210108508 A), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of third refence Lee et al. (KR 20150105595 A), herein referred to as Lee III.
While the combination of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al. and Lee et al. teaches substantial features of the claimed invention as noted above, the combination fails to teach, wherein the lower charge trap layer is disposed between the second substrate and the second barrier layer.
Lee III teaches a silicon nitride layer SiNx, wherein the silicon nitride layer SiNx is disposed between the second substrate 2PL and the second barrier layer (SiO2 layer of the composite layer 2BL) (see Sample 4 of Table 1, Fig. 11b, and paragraph 0073 in English translation of Lee III).
Note that in Sample 4, the second barrier layer 2BL is composite layer SiNx/SiO2/SiNx. The first SiNx layer of the composite is interpreted as the lower charge trap layer and the SiO2 layer of the composite is interpreted as the second barrier layer. Also note that the upper structure of Sample 4 of Table 1 in Lee III is similar to the structure disclosed in the present disclosure according to an embodiment (see Fig. 11 of originally filed disclosure) as summarized in the table below. Lee III further discloses that the structure of Sample 4 improves the adhesion between the first and the second substrates (paragraph 0074 and Table 1 in English translation of Lee III).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Kang, Akimoto, Yang et al., and Lee et al. with the teaching of Lee III and have the lower charge trap layer disposed between the second substrate and the second barrier layer. Doing so, would improve the adhesion between the first and the second substrate as recognized by Lee III (paragraphs 0073 and 0074 in English translation of Lee III).
Table 1: Comparison of Device Structure of Lee III (KR 20150105595 A) and Present Disclosure
Device structure (Upper Portion)
Prior Art (Lee III)
…2PL / SiNx / SiO2 / SiNx /…
Present Disclosure
…/ SUB2 / SiNx (AIL) / SiOx (BL2)/ SiNx (BF)/…
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuzaki et al. (US 20200203345 A1)
Yamazaki et al. (US 2020/0135445 A1) discloses an oxide-semiconductor-based transistor device comprising of an upper layer including silicon oxide, and having an oxygen atom content in a range of about 55 at% to about 65 at%, which includes most of the claimed range.
Kawachi et al. (JP 2021105704 A) discloses a display device having certain similarities with the structure of the present disclosure.
Park et al. (Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 784) teaches a thin-film transistor device for display applications comprising of a silicon oxide layer disposed below an oxide semiconductor active layer serving as a “charge trap layer” and subsequently improving the performance and reliability of the transistor.
Park et al. (US 20140346473 A1) discloses a display device having certain similarities with the structure of the present disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 9985082 B2) discloses a display device comprising a plurality of silicon nitride films serving to prevent hydrogen diffusion into the active layer of the multi-transistor elements.
Taylor et al. (US 2008286984 A1) discloses a process of forming a silicon nitride film using PECVD, wherein the silicon nitride film has an optimized Si-H to N-H bond ratio of 7 and a refractive index of 2.7, relevant for integrated circuit device applications.
Chen et al. (US 7655987 B2) teaches a strained-silicon MOS transistor device comprising a silicon nitride layer with a ratio of the Si-H bond to the N-H bond in a range of about 0.1 to about 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 11/13/2025
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 November 21, 2025
Prosecution Insights