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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the prior art does not teach “the composite oxide semiconductor comprises a single-layer structure”. Applicant states that Yamazaki teaches a multi-layer composite oxide semiconductor structure. Applicant cites ¶¶, 0051-54, 69-73, 503, and 505-506 for support for their argument. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s ¶¶ 0051-54,
These paragraphs discuss Applicant’s figures 1A-1B which purport to show the oxide semiconductor film along the a-b plane direction (figure 1A), and the c-axis direction (figure 1B). It is noted that these are slices of the oxide semiconductor film shown the mixing of the region A1 and region B1. These figures do not show the actual three-dimensional structure of the composite oxide semiconductor. Applicant’s figure 13 (below) appears to show a three-dimensional image of the composite oxide semiconductor. In this figure we can see that the layer is not a single atomic layer structure. Therefore, the term single-layer as used must mean that there can be sub-layers to the composite oxide semiconductor which can be viewed in the totality as a single-layer structure. Since this is a case, a multi-layer structure can be viewed in the totality as a single-layer structure comprising a plurality of sub-layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
263
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding ¶¶ 0069-73,
Paragraph 0069 back this interpretation up as it states that the clusters, as shown in Applicant figure 13B above, may be clusters which overlap with each other, or as shown in the figure on top of each other. This means that there is no literal single-layer structure. Rather, Applicant is using the term single-layer to define a plurality of layers of clusters on top of each other. Further, the rest of the paragraph discuss how the different regions, or clusters, can be scattered around the oxide semiconductor structure.
Regarding ¶ 0503,
This paragraph discusses the diameter of the particulate portions, or clusters. This paragraph does not further define the singe-layer structure.
Regarding ¶¶ 0505-506,
These paragraphs further illustrate that the regions are cloud-like as shown in figure 13B above. This cloud like pattern further illustrates that the single-layer is not a single atomic layer. Rather, as previously stated it further illustrates that the single-layer structure claimed is a plurality of sub-layers.
Based upon the above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In order to more align with Applicant’s interpretation Examiner will refer to the multi-layer structure of the prior art as a single layer structure, and the layers making up the multi-layer structure will be called sub-layers.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamazaki et al. (US 2015/0034947 A1) (“Yamazaki”).
Examiner note: the rejection is based off of 102/103 because Examiner includes the additional/alternative rejection at the end of the analysis.
Examiner note: Examiner will examine the narrowest claim, claim 3, first. Thus, the prior art would read on both claims 1 and 2 because they are broader than, and read on, claim 3.
Regarding claim 3, Yamazaki teaches:
a pixel portion (fig. 22A element 901/903) and a driver circuit portion (fig. 22A element 904), each over a substrate (fig. 23B element 811),
wherein the pixel portion (901/903) includes a first transistor (902) and the driver circuit portion (904) includes a second transistor (while not explicitly shown it would have been obvious that 904 would include a transistor to drive the pixel display),
wherein each of the first transistor (901/903) and the second transistor (transistor in 904) includes a composite oxide semiconductor in a channel region (figure 18A-18C; ¶¶ 0222-235, where the oxide semiconductor 206 can comprise two sub-layers; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first and second transistor the same as it would simplify the processing of the device, and thus reduce the cost of making the device.),
wherein the composite oxide semiconductor (206) comprises a single-layer structure (as shown in figure 18B1 element 206 is a single-layer structure in that there is a single layer of 206, and said 206 can comprise sub-layers),
wherein the composite oxide semiconductor (206) includes a first region and a second region (¶ 0231-235, where 206 can comprise a first region (first oxide semiconductor film (sub-layer); hereinafter “A”) and a second region (second oxide semiconductor film (a second sub-layer); hereinafter “B”)) in EDX mapping images (¶¶ 0069-70, where x-ray diffraction can be used to measure each of the regions. See figures 4A-5C),
wherein each of the first region (A) and the second region (B) includes In, an element M, and Zn, wherein the element M is at least one of Al, Ga, Y and Sn (¶ 0234),
wherein the first region has a higher atomic ratio of In to the element M than the second region (¶ 0234, where one can adjust the concentration of In to M in the In-M-Zn oxide),
wherein the first region (A) comprises a plurality of first particulate portions (in Applicant’s ¶ 0069 Applicant equates particulate form to be synonymous with cluster form when they state “For example, a plurality of Regions A1 are present in particulate form (in cluster form) in the a-b plane direction and the c-axis direction as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B”. Therefore, there does not appear to be a distinction between the alleged columnar clusters of the prior art and the particulate portion/clusters of the claim.) (figures 1A-B; ¶¶ 154-159, where zinc oxide 102 in the film is deposited by clusters) and the second region (B) comprises a plurality of particulate portions (see discussion on portions vs clusters above) (figures 1A-B; ¶¶ 154-159, where zinc oxide in the film is deposited by clusters) (¶¶ 0440-41, where there can be a plurality of grain boundaries in due to the formation of columnar zinc oxide clusters generated at the time of diffusion. Thus, each of the regions of the composite oxide semiconductor can include clusters; Further, these clusters can be measured by x-ray diffraction.),
wherein a portion of the plurality of the first particulate portions (see discussion on portions vs clusters above) is connected to another portion of the plurality of first particulate portions (see discussion on portions vs clusters above) (as can be seen in figures 1A-1B a plurality of first clusters can be connected to each other and to other plurality of first clusters), and
wherein a portion of the plurality of the second particulate portions (see discussion on portions vs clusters above) is connected to another portion of the plurality of second particulate portions (see discussion on portions vs clusters above) (as can be seen in figures 1A-1B a plurality of second clusters can be connected to each other and to other plurality of second clusters; Examiner notes here there is no patentable distinction between the first and second clusters other than a label).
Additionally, or alternatively, as shown in at least figures 1A-2C, the prior art uses the same, or substantially similar, method of forming the IGZO film as Applicant. Thus, because the same process is being used in the prior art it would obviously, or inherently, produce the same effect disclosed in Applicant’s figures 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 1,
Claim 1 is broader than claim 3. Thus, since the prior art teaches claim 3 it also teaches claim 1.
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 2 is broader than claim 3. Thus, since the prior art teaches claim 3 it also teaches claim 2.
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 12, Yamazaki teaches:
wherein one of the plurality of the first particulate portions is connected to another one of the plurality of the first particulate portions via particulate portions of the plurality of the second particulate portions (each of the first particulate portions and second particulate portions are connected to one another as they are all contained in the same oxide semiconductor layer).
Regarding claims 5, 9, and 13, Yamazaki teaches:
wherein the first particulate portions comprise In, the element M, and Zn, and wherein the second particulate portions comprise In, the element M, and Zn (¶ 0154-159, where the film is an IGZO film, the clusters or particulate portions may be arbitrarily grouped together. See figures 12A-13B, where one can group the atoms in an arbitrary fashion to form clusters or particulate portions.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 14, Yamazaki teaches:
wherein each of the first region and the second region comprises a nanocrystal, and wherein the nanocrystal comprises a first layer containing indium and oxygen and a second layer containing the element M, zinc, and oxygen (as shown in figures 12A-13B, IGZO is formed by sub-layers of InO stacked on sub-layers of GaZnO. These individual sub-layers are considered the nanocrystals of the claim.
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 15, Yamazaki teaches:
wherein In concentration in the first region is 2 or more times and 10 or less times In concentration in the second region (as previously stated these regions can be arbitrary regions such that one can choose a region which has more In than another region. As such this limitation is inherent in how one arbitrary chooses the regions, and/or is obvious based upon how one arbitrarily chooses the regions.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898