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 April 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamazaki, in view of Shimoura.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, and 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamazaki et al. (US 2015/0034947 A1) (“Yamazaki”), in view of Shimomura et al. (US 2016/0240682 A1) (“Shimomura”).
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 film in a channel region (figure 18A-18C element 206),
wherein the composite oxide semiconductor film (206) comprises a single-layer structure (as shown in figure 18B1 element 206 is a single-layer structure),
wherein the composite oxide semiconductor film (206) includes a first region and a second region (different parts of 206. As the claim states the first region and second region are mixed into the composite oxide semiconductor film. Therefore, 206 can first and second regions mixed together; hereinafter first region will be “A” and second region will be “B”),
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),
Yamazaki does not teach:
wherein the first region has a higher atomic ratio of In to the element M than the second region,
wherein the first region and the second region are mixed.
Shimomura teaches:
When the atomic ratio of the In:M:Zn oxide semiconductor is non-stoichiometric (out of area 12 in figure 1) there is a probability that one will create an In:M:Zn oxide semiconductor with plurality grains and these plurality of grains will have different concentrations of In and M. Figure 1; ¶¶ 0114-119. Therefore, based upon Shimomura it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art following the directions of Yamazaki that one would obviously create multiple of regions in the oxide semiconductor film that have an In atomic ratio higher than M, and other regions of the oxide semiconductor film that have In atomic ratio lower than M. Thus, the combination of Yamazaki and Shimomura teach the limitation…
wherein the first region has a higher atomic ratio of In to the element M than the second region,
wherein the first region and the second region are mixed.
As this would be have been obvious based upon the allowed concentration of In, M, and Zn allowed by Yamazaki.
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 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 (Yamazki 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. Shimomura as shown in figure 1 and ¶¶ 0114-119.)
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 15,
wherein In concentration in the first region is 2 or more times and 10 or less times In concentration in the second region (Yamazaki, 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. Shimomura, where as previously stated one can form a plurality of crystal grains with differing concentrations. It would have been obvious that at least some of the plurality of crystal grains would meet the claimed limitation).
Regarding claims 16-18, Yamazaki teaches:
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).
Regarding claims 19-21, the combination of prior art teaches:
wherein the first region (Yamazaki A) is distributed unevenly and irregularly (based upon Shimomura the first region of a first type crystal grain will be sporatically made thus would be unevenly and irregularly distributed), and
wherein the second region (Yamazaki B) is enclosed by the first region (it would have been obvious that at least one B would be enclosed by a plurality of A’s. Further, the claim does not require an complete enclosure. Therefore, there could be at least three or more Bs which are disjointed or unconnected that would enclose at least one B).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights