DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claims 1, 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “central region” has been changed to “the central region”
In claim 21, line 10, “central region” has been changed to “the central region”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (2016/0300950).
With regard to claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a thin film transistor (for example, see figs. 10, 11) comprising:
an active layer (154); and
a gate electrode (124) spaced apart from the active layer (154) and at least partially overlapping with the active layer (154),
wherein a central region (referred to as “154A” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 10 below) of the active layer (154) includes copper that has a concentration that decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface (for example, a top surface) of the active layer to a lower surface (for example, a bottom surface) of the active layer (a change in the amount of the threshold voltage of a transistor by NBTIS while changing a content ratio of copper (Cu) in a semiconductor layer (154). Therefore, a central region (154A) of the active layer (154) includes copper that has a concentration that inherently decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer based on the change in the amount of the threshold voltage of a transistor wherein the changing of the copper concentration of the channel layer with a content ratio of copper of 0%, 0.3%, and 0.6% including the concentration of copper decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer based the change degree of the threshold voltage V of each transistor; for example, see paragraphs [0109], [0110]).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 4, Lee et al. disclose the active layer (154) is disposed on a substrate (110), and the concentration of the copper is reduced along a direction toward the substrate in the active layer (at least the concentration of the copper is inherently reduced along a direction toward the substrate in at least a portion of the active layer based on changing a content ratio of copper (Cu) in a semiconductor layer; for example, paragraphs [0109], [0110]).
With regard to claim 8, Lee et al. disclose the active layer (154) includes an oxide semiconductor material (for example, see paragraph [0088]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2016/0300950) in view of Huang et al. (11,844,227).
With regard to claim 2, Lee et al. do not clearly disclose a uniform concentration on a surface of the active layer.
However, Huang et al. disclose a uniform concentration on a surface of the active layer. (the channel region functioning as the active layer with uniform doping concentration; for example, column 9, lines 42 - 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Lee et al.’s device to have a uniform concentration on a surface of the active layer as taught by Huang et al. in order improve the turn-on state current for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2016/0300950) in view of ISONO et al. (2021/0005717).
With regard to claim 3, Lee et al. do not clearly disclose a same concentration at different points with a same depth from a surface of the active layer.
However, ISONO et al. disclose a same concentration at different points with a same depth from a surface of the active layer (an upper end of the channel layer 130, functioning as the active layer, is defined as a depth position at which the concentration reaches the same concentration as the concentration defining the lower end of the channel layer 130; for example, paragraph [0039], fig. 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Lee et al.’s device to have a same concentration at different points with a same depth from a surface of the active layer as taught by ISONO et al. in order improve the turn-on state current for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5, 6, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2016/0300950) in view of ABE et al. (2017/0301738).
With regard to claim 5, Lee et al. do not clearly disclose the copper includes Cu+ and Cu2+.
However, ISONO et al. disclose the copper includes Cu+ and Cu2+ (for example, see paragraph [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Lee et al.’s device to have the copper includes Cu+ and Cu2+ as taught by ABE et al. in order to enhance a carrier mobility efficiency of the device for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regard to claim 6, Lee et al. and ABE et al. are silent to disclose for the Cu2+ has a higher concentration than Cu2+ in the active layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the Cu2+ has a higher concentration than Cu2+ in the active layer based on ABE et al.’s copper material having Cu2+ and Cu+ is identical to the claimed invention. Thus, ABE et al.’s device results the same as that of applicant’s device and appears that these changes produce no result differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note in re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With regard to claim 21, Lee et al. disclose a thin film transistor (for example, see figs. 10, 11) comprising:
an active layer (154); and
a gate electrode (124) spaced apart from the active layer (154) and at least partially overlapping with the active layer (154),
wherein a central region (referred to as “154A” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 10 below) of the active layer (154) includes copper that has a concentration that decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface (for example, a top surface) of the active layer to a lower surface (for example, a bottom surface) of the active layer (a change in the amount of the threshold voltage of a transistor by NBTIS while changing a content ratio of copper (Cu) in a semiconductor layer (154). Therefore, a central region (154A) of the active layer (154) includes copper that has a concentration that inherently decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer based on the change in the amount of the threshold voltage of a transistor wherein the channel layer with a content ratio of copper of 0%, 0.3%, and 0.6%, the change degree of the threshold voltage V of each transistor; for example, see paragraphs [0109], [0110]).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. do not clearly disclose a display element; and a pixel driving circuit to drive the display element.
However, ABE et al. disclose a display element (350); and a pixel driving circuit (20 or 320) to drive the display element (350). (for example, see paragraph [0181], fig. 7).
PNG
media_image3.png
501
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Lee et al.’s device to have a display element; and a pixel driving circuit to drive the display element as taught by ABE et al. in order to induce emission of the organic EL element for performing a operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2016/0300950).
With regard to claims 7, 12, Lee et al. disclose a thin film transistor (for example, see figs. 10, 11) comprising:
a substrate (110);
an oxide semiconductor layer (154) functioning as an active layer; and a gate electrode (124) overlapping with the active layer without contacting each other, copper (II) oxide (for example, see paragraphs [0065], [0099]) disposed in the oxide semiconductor layer (154) and inherently functioning as an acceptor like trap (for example, see paragraphs [0109], [0110])
PNG
media_image1.png
463
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. disclose a concentration ratio of copper of a range 0% to 0.3% in the active layer (for example, see paragraph [0110]), wherein a concentration of 0.18 at % within a range 0% to 0.3%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the copper has a concentration of 0.18 at % in the active layer because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap approximately that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Moreover, the Federal Circuit informs us that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 2003) citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); and In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05.
It is well understood that obviousness based upon a combination of elements requires a suggestion, motivation or teaching to those skilled in the art for such a combination. In re Fine, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988). This requirement prevents the use of “the inventor’s disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to defeat patentability—the essence of hindsight.” Ecolochem, Inc. v. So. Cal. Edison Co., 56 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting In re Dembiczak, 50 USPQ2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, as the Federal Circuit points out in Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports Inc., when the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art rests only in the fact that applicants claim a narrower range than that found in the prior art, the case for obviousness does not rest on combining elements, and evidence of motivation/suggestion is not required to avoid using hindsight. Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports Inc., 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1227 (Fed. Cir 2004). Iron Grip also teaches us that whether the prior art range is found in one, two, or many references is “a distinction without a difference.” Id at 1228. See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2016/0300950) in view of SUZUKI et al. (2020/0287054).
With regard to claim 5, Lee et al. do not clearly disclose the active layer includes: a second oxide semiconductor layer on the first oxide semiconductor layer; wherein the active layer further includes a third oxide semiconductor layer on the second oxide semiconductor layer.
However, SUZUKI et al. disclose the active layer (7) includes: a first oxide semiconductor layer (73); and a second oxide semiconductor layer (71) on the first oxide semiconductor layer (73); wherein the active layer (7) further includes a third oxide semiconductor layer (72) on the second oxide semiconductor layer (71). (for example, see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
378
601
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Lee et al.’s device to have the active layer includes: a second oxide semiconductor layer on the first oxide semiconductor layer; wherein the active layer further includes a third oxide semiconductor layer on the second oxide semiconductor layer as taught by SUZUKI et al. in order to enhance a carrier mobility efficiency of the device for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (2016/0300950) in view of CHOI et al. (2020/0203535).
With regard to claims 11, 14, Lee et al. do not clearly disclose the thin film transistor has an s-factor of 0.2 or greater.
However, CHOI et al. disclose the thin film transistor has an s-factor of 0.3. (for example, see paragraph [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the Lee et al.’s device to have the thin film transistor has an s-factor of 0.3 as taught by CHOI et al. in order to enhance display a high-brightness image and realize a display device with low power consumption for enhancing a stability operation of the semiconductor device, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/02/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is argued, at pages of the remarks, that “the cited references do not suggest or teach ‘a central region of the active layer includes copper that has a concentration that decreases along a thickness direction of the central region of the active layer from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer’”. However, figs. 10, 11 of Lee et al. does show a central region (referred to as “154A” by examiner’s annotation shown in fig. 10 below) of the active layer (154) includes copper that has a concentration that decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface (for example, a top surface) of the active layer to a lower surface (for example, a bottom surface) of the active layer (a change in the amount of the threshold voltage of a transistor by NBTIS while changing a content ratio of copper (Cu) in a semiconductor layer (154). Therefore, a central region (154A) of the active layer (154) includes copper that has a concentration that inherently decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer based on the change in the amount of the threshold voltage of a transistor wherein the changing of the copper concentration of the channel layer with a content ratio of copper of 0%, 0.3%, and 0.6% including the concentration of copper decreases along a thickness direction of the central region (154A) of the active layer (154) from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer based the change degree of the threshold voltage V of each transistor; for example, see paragraphs [0109], [0110]). Since claims 1, 21 do not recite a central region of the active layer includes copper that has a concentration that only decreases along a thickness direction of the central region of the active layer from an upper surface of the active layer to a lower surface of the active layer, applicant’s claims 1 and 21 do not distinguish over cited reference.
It is argued, at pages of the remarks, that “a concentration of copper ions in the oxide semiconductor is in a range of 0.1 at% to 0.18 at%”. However, Lee et al. disclose a concentration ratio of copper of a range 0% to 0.3% in the active layer (for example, see paragraph [0110]), wherein a concentration of 0.18 at % within a range 0% to 0.3%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the copper has a concentration of 0.18 at % in the active layer because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap approximately that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Moreover, the Federal Circuit informs us that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art. In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 2003) citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); and In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). See MPEP § 2144.05.
PNG
media_image1.png
463
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
560
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAN N TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 1923. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on (571) 272-1945. 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.
/TAN N TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812