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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/07/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1-8 and 10-14 in the reply filed on August 07th, 2025 are acknowledged. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled. Claims 15-22 have been withdrawn from consideration. New claim 23 has been added. Claims 1-8 and 10-23 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-8, 10-14 and 23 as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-2, 9-10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura (US 2016/0284856, hereinafter as Shim ‘856) in view of Yamazaki (US 2015/0255612, hereinafter as Yama ‘612).
Regarding Claim 1, Shim ‘856 teaches a display panel comprising:
a light-emitting element (Fig. 42C, (719); [0477]); and
a pixel circuit electrically connected to the light-emitting element, wherein the pixel circuit comprises a first transistor (Fig. 42C, (741); [0476]), the first transistor including a gate (704; [0472]), a first insulating pattern (706c; [0471]) overlapping the gate (704), and disposed under the gate (704),
a second insulating pattern including a certain part (710; [0471]), wherein the certain part is disposed outside the first insulating pattern (706c) in a plan view, and
a first semiconductor pattern (706b; [0471]) comprising an oxide semiconductor (see para. [0143]-[0149]), disposed under the first insulating pattern (706c) and the second insulating pattern (710), and overlapping the first insulating pattern (706c) and the second insulating pattern (710) in the plan view.
Shim ‘856 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the second insulating pattern disposed under the first insulating pattern and extending further than the first insulating pattern to include the certain part disposed outside the first insulating pattern in a plan view”.
Yama ‘612 teaches the second insulating pattern (Fig. 4C, (57a); [0180]) disposed under the first insulating pattern (Fig. 4C, (57b); [0180]) and extending further than the first insulating pattern (57a) to include the certain part disposed outside the first insulating pattern (57a) in a plan view (see Fig. 4C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 by having the second insulating pattern disposed under the first insulating pattern and extending further than the first insulating pattern to include the certain part disposed outside the first insulating pattern in a plan view in order to improve the reliability of a display device with less deterioration in electrical characteristics (see para. [0200]) as suggested by Yama ‘612.
Regarding Claim 23, Shim ‘856 teaches a display panel comprising:
a light-emitting element (Fig. 42C, (719); [0477]); and
a pixel circuit electrically connected to the light-emitting element, wherein the pixel circuit comprises a first transistor (Fig. 42C, (741); [0476]), the first transistor including a gate (704; [0472]), a first insulating pattern (706c; [0471]) overlapping the gate (704), and disposed under the gate (704),
a second insulating pattern being contact with a side surface of the first insulating pattern, and including a certain part (710; [0471]), wherein the certain part is disposed outside the first insulating pattern (706c) in a plan view, and
a first semiconductor pattern (706b; [0471]) disposed under the first insulating pattern (706c) and the second insulating pattern (710), and overlapping the first insulating pattern (706c) and the second insulating pattern (710) in the plan view, comprising a source region and a drain region, wherein a source region and the drain region overlap the certain part of the second insulating pattern.
Shim ‘856 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the second insulating pattern disposed under the first insulating pattern and not being contact with the gate; wherein a source region and the drain region overlap the certain part of the second insulating pattern”.
Yama ‘612 teaches the second insulating pattern (Fig. 4C, (57a); [0180]) disposed under the first insulating pattern (Fig. 4C, (57b); [0180]) and not being contact with the gate; wherein a source region and the drain region (55b/55c) overlap the certain part of the second insulating pattern (57b) (see Fig. 4C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 by having the second insulating pattern disposed under the first insulating pattern and not being contact with the gate; wherein a source region and the drain region overlap the certain part of the second insulating pattern in order to improve the reliability of a display device with less deterioration in electrical characteristics (see para. [0200]) as suggested by Yama ‘612.
PNG
media_image1.png
252
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 42C (Shim ‘856)
PNG
media_image2.png
204
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4C (Yama ‘612)
Regarding Claim 2, Shim ‘856 teaches the first semiconductor pattern comprises a first region (Fig. 9B, (606b); [0275]) having a first doping concentration, a second region (Fig. 9B, (607a and 607b); [0275]) having a second doping concentration higher than the first doping concentration, and the first region (606b) overlaps the first insulating pattern (606c; [0105]);
the second region (607a and 607b) overlaps the certain part of the second insulating pattern (610), and the third region is disposed outside the second insulating pattern in the plan view (see Fig. 9B).
Thus, Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a third region having a third doping concentration higher than the second doping concentration”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a third region having a third doping concentration higher than the second doping concentration on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a third region having a third doping concentration higher than the second doping concentration in order to improve the performance of the display device.
PNG
media_image3.png
620
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 (Nishi ‘673)
Regarding Claim 9, Shim ‘856 teaches the second insulating pattern (610) is in contact with a side surface of the first insulating pattern (606c) (see Fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 10, Shim ‘856 teaches the second insulating pattern (610; [0031])
Thus, Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the second insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the second insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the second insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide material in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishiyama (US 2013/0256673, hereinafter as Nishi ‘673).
Regarding Claim 11, Shim ‘856 teaches first insulating pattern (606c).
Thus, Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the first insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide; the second insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide which has a hydrogen concentration lower than a hydrogen concentration of the first insulating pattern”.
Nishi ‘673 teaches the first insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide (13; [0101]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 by having the first insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide in order to protect against the permeation of hydrogen without increasing parasitic capacitance for improving the characteristics of a semiconductor device (see para. [0006]) as suggested by Nishi ‘673.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to have the second insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide which has a hydrogen concentration lower than a hydrogen concentration of the first insulating pattern on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the second insulating pattern comprises silicon oxide which has a hydrogen concentration lower than a hydrogen concentration of the first insulating pattern in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claims 3-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ji (US 2019/0165184, hereinafter as Ji ‘184).
Regarding Claim 3, Shim ‘856 teaches the first semiconductor pattern comprises an oxide semiconductor (706b; [0471], [0143]-[0149]); and the first region (606b) overlaps the first insulating pattern (606c) (see Fig. 9B); the second region (607a and 607b; [0228]) overlaps the certain part of the second insulating pattern (610; [0223), and the third region is disposed outside the second insulating pattern in the plan view (see Fig. 9B).
Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a first region having a first hydrogen concentration, a second region having a second hydrogen concentration higher than the first hydrogen concentration”.
Ji ‘184 teaches a first region (Fig. 1, (131); [0062]) having a first hydrogen concentration, a second region (Fig. 1, (133a); [0062]) having a second hydrogen concentration higher than the first hydrogen concentration.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 by having a first region having a first hydrogen concentration, a second region having a second hydrogen concentration higher than the first hydrogen concentration in order to improve the characteristics (e.g. increasing the conductivity of the source/drain…) and provide excellent reliability of a display device (see para. [0165] and [0174]) as suggested by Ji ‘184.
Thus, Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Ji ‘184 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a third region having a third hydrogen concentration higher than the second hydrogen concentration”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a third region having a third hydrogen concentration higher than the second hydrogen concentration on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a third region having a third region having a third hydrogen concentration higher than the second hydrogen concentration in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 4, Shim ‘856 teaches the first region (see Fig. 9B; [0152]) is defined as a channel region,
Thus, Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Ji ‘184 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the channel region has a length of about 3 micrometers (µm) or less”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the channel region has a length of about 3 micrometers (µm) or less on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the channel region has a length of about 3 micrometers (µm) or less in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Regarding Claim 5, Shim ‘856 teaches a source region and a drain region (607a and 607b; [0345]) which are disposed with the first region therebetween include the second region (see Fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 6, Shim ‘856 teaches the certain part of the second insulating pattern (610) surrounds, in the plan view, a conductive pattern (604; [0345]) which defines the gate.
Regarding Claim 7, Shim ‘856 teaches a second transistor, the second transistor comprises a second semiconductor pattern disposed on a different layer from the first semiconductor pattern (see Fig. 42C).
Ji ‘184 teaches the semiconductor pattern comprises polysilicon (see para. [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ji ‘184 teaches a conductive pattern (Fig. 3, (180); [0085]) overlapping the first semiconductor pattern (130; [0086]), and disposed on a lower side of the first semiconductor pattern; and a plurality of inorganic layers (121; [0087]) disposed between the conductive pattern and the first semiconductor pattern, wherein the plurality of inorganic layers comprises: a first silicon oxide layer in contact with the first semiconductor pattern; a second silicon oxide layer disposed under the first silicon oxide layer; and a silicon nitride layer disposed under the first silicon oxide layer. Since the buffer layer (121) include at least one (two or more films; [0087]) of a silicon oxide and a silicon nitride, it would appear that a first silicon oxide layer in contact with the first semiconductor pattern; a second silicon oxide layer disposed under the first silicon oxide layer; and a silicon nitride layer disposed under the first silicon oxide layer.
Thus, Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Ji ‘184 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a hydrogen concentration of the first silicon oxide layer is equal to or less than about 1/10 of a hydrogen concentration of the second silicon oxide layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a hydrogen concentration of the first silicon oxide layer is equal to or less than about 1/10 of a hydrogen concentration of the second silicon oxide layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a hydrogen concentration of the first silicon oxide layer is equal to or less than about 1/10 of a hydrogen concentration of the second silicon oxide layer in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Ji ‘184 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sasagawa (US 2017/0012139, hereinafter as Sasa ‘139).
Regarding Claim 13, Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Ji ‘184 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the conductive pattern is electrically connected to the gate”.
Sasa ‘139 teaches the conductive pattern (Fig. 5, (310c); [0100]) is electrically connected to the gate (404; [0100]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Ji ‘184 by having the conductive pattern is electrically connected to the gate in order to provide a transistor with low parasitic capacitance and high frequency characteristics (see para. [0010]) as suggested by Sasa ‘139.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2015/0084035, hereinafter as Kim ‘035).
Regarding Claim 14, Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a conductive pattern overlapping the first semiconductor pattern, and disposed under the first semiconductor pattern; a hydrogen diffusion barrier layer disposed between the conductive pattern and the first semiconductor pattern, and contacting the conductive pattern; and a silicon oxide layer, a silicon nitride layer, or a silicon oxynitride layer disposed between the conductive pattern and the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer, wherein the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer comprises an aluminum oxide layer, a chromium oxide layer, or a silicon oxide layer”.
Kim ‘035 teaches a conductive pattern (70; [0046]) overlapping the first semiconductor pattern (134; [0051]), and disposed under the first semiconductor pattern; a hydrogen diffusion barrier layer (120; [0048]) disposed between the conductive pattern and the first semiconductor pattern, and contacting the conductive pattern; a silicon oxide layer, a silicon nitride layer, or a silicon oxynitride layer disposed between the conductive pattern and the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer; and the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer comprises a silicon oxide layer (see para. [0048]). Since the buffer layer (120) made of the insulating materials such as, for example, silicon oxide (SiO2), silicon nitride (SiNx), and oxynitride silicon (see para. [0072]), examiner considers the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer is the silicon oxide layer in the buffer layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Shim ‘856 and Yama ‘612 by having a conductive pattern overlapping the first semiconductor pattern, and disposed under the first semiconductor pattern; a hydrogen diffusion barrier layer disposed between the conductive pattern and the first semiconductor pattern, and contacting the conductive pattern; and a silicon oxide layer, a silicon nitride layer, or a silicon oxynitride layer disposed between the conductive pattern and the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer, wherein the hydrogen diffusion barrier layer comprises an aluminum oxide layer, a chromium oxide layer, or a silicon oxide layer in order to improve the reliability of a display device (see para. [0010]) as suggested by Kim ‘035.
Shim ‘856, Yama ‘612 and Kim ‘035 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a hydrogen concentration of about 2x1018 atoms per cubic centimeters (at/cm3) or less”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a hydrogen concentration of about 2x1018 atoms per cubic centimeters (at/cm3) or less on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
PNG
media_image4.png
18
19
media_image4.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a hydrogen concentration of about 2x1018 atoms per cubic centimeters (at/cm3) or less in order to improve the performance of the display device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Son et al. (US 2021/0066421 A1)
Yan et al. (US 2017/0162606 A1)
Lee et al (US 2009/0278120 A1)
Jeon. (US 6559014 B1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893