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 .
Drawings
Applicant states on pg. 2 and pg. 6 of response filed 1/20/2026 that replacement drawings are included. However, no replacement drawings are found in the file wrapper. Therefore, the previously presented objection to the drawings is maintained.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: A5-A6 in Fig. 12A and 221 in Fig. 17A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 4-5, 8, 12, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) teaches a sputtering target having a first region and second region where the first region In-M1-Zn oxide where M1 is Ga (In-Ga-Zn oxide) and where the second region comprises an indium zinc (In-Zn) oxide, where the first and second region are separated from each other, wherein the first and second region have a crystalline structure (crystal grain) and have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (para 0075-0079; Fig. 7) and the regions necessarily have a crystal grain boundary between them.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the diameters are greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within less than 10 micrometers, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach a crystal grain boundary is observed between the first region and the second region. However, Yamazaki teaches a similar target composition and structure as the instant application. Similar compositions with similar structures must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of Yamazaki must necessarily yield a crystal grain boundary that is observable between at least some of the first regions and the second regions, especially considering the observable boundaries between grains/regions in Fig. 7 of Yamazaki. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 4, Yamazaki teaches the crystal structures of each region may be different (para 0222, 0232).
Regarding claim 5, Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) teaches a sputtering target having a first region and second region where the first region In-M1-Zn oxide where M1 is Ga (In-Ga-Zn oxide) and where the second region comprises an In-M2 oxide, where M2 may be Sn (In-Sn oxide), where the first and second region are separated from each other, wherein the first and second region have a crystalline structure (crystal grain) and have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (para 0075-0079; Fig. 7) and the regions necessarily have a crystal grain boundary between them.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the diameters are greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within less than 10 micrometers, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach a crystal grain boundary is observed between the first region and the second region. However, Yamazaki teaches a similar target composition and structure as the instant application. Similar compositions with similar structures must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of Yamazaki must necessarily yield a crystal grain boundary that is observable between at least some of the first regions and the second regions, especially considering the observable boundaries between grains/regions in Fig. 7 of Yamazaki. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 8, Yamazaki teaches the crystal structures of each region may be different (para 0222, 0232).
Regarding claim 12, Yamazaki (US 20180012739 A1) teaches a sputtering target having a first region and second region where the first region In-M1-Zn oxide where M1 is Ga (In-Ga-Zn oxide) and where the second region comprises an indium zinc (In-Zn) oxide, where the first and second region are separated from each other, wherein the first and second region have a crystalline structure (crystal grain) and have a diameter of less than 10 micrometers (para 0075-0079; Fig. 7) and the regions necessarily have a crystal grain boundary between them.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the diameters are greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 10 micrometers. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within less than 10 micrometers, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach a crystal grain boundary is observed between the first region and the second region. However, Yamazaki teaches a similar target composition and structure as the instant application. Similar compositions with similar structures must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the target of Yamazaki must necessarily yield a crystal grain boundary that is observable between at least some of the first regions and the second regions, especially considering the observable boundaries between grains/regions in Fig. 7 of Yamazaki. See MPEP 2112.
Yamazaki also contains a third region defined as a space between a first region 11 and a second region 12 (para 0075; Fig. 7), which necessarily includes a mixture of the first and second oxides (third metal oxide formed by combining a part of the first metal oxide and part of the second metal oxide).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki teaches the crystal structures of the first and second region may be different (para 0222, 0232).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki teaches the sputtering target is used for forming a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor (para 0060, 0086, 0257, 0277).
Alternatively, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). Yamazaki teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of being used to form a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor.
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki teaches the sputtering target may include polycrystalline structures in each of the first and second region, wherein the diameter of each particle/grain in each of the first and second region may be less than 10 micrometers (microcrystal) (para 0076-0077).
Alternatively, Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the crystal structures include a microcrystal. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within less than 10 micrometers as the diameter of the crystal structures, including values resulting in a microcrystal structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 18, Yamazaki teaches the sputtering target is used for forming a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor (para 0060, 0086, 0257, 0277).
Alternatively, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). Yamazaki teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of being used to form a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor.
Regarding claim 19, Yamazaki teaches the sputtering target may include polycrystalline structures in each of the first and second region, wherein the diameter of each particle/grain in each of the first and second region may be less than 10 micrometers (microcrystal) (para 0076-0077).
Alternatively, Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the crystal structures include a microcrystal. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within less than 10 micrometers as the diameter of the crystal structures, including values resulting in a microcrystal structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 20, Yamazaki teaches the sputtering target is used for forming a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor (para 0060, 0086, 0257, 0277).
Alternatively, the limitation merely states the intended use of the apparatus. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II). Yamazaki teaches all of the claimed structural limitations, which is necessarily capable of being used to form a metal oxide film including a channel formation region of a transistor.
Regarding claim 21, Yamazaki teaches the sputtering target may include polycrystalline structures in each of the first and second region, wherein the diameter of each particle/grain in each of the first and second region may be less than 10 micrometers (microcrystal) (para 0076-0077).
Alternatively, Yamazaki fails to explicitly teach the crystal structures include a microcrystal. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Yamazaki range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within less than 10 micrometers as the diameter of the crystal structures, including values resulting in a microcrystal structure, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-9, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 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 (US 20180012739 A1).
Conclusion
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 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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights