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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1, Fig. 3, Claims 1-24 in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3, 5-10, 12, 15, 17 and 19-24 recites “about”, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such the claims are unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 13-14, 20-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. 20230157132.
PNG
media_image1.png
294
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 13-14, fig. 23 of He discloses a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate 101;
a buffer layer 1021 disposed on the substrate;
an active layer 1022 disposed on the buffer layer;
a gate insulating layer 1023 disposed on the active layer;
a gate electrode 1024 disposed on the gate insulating layer;
an interlayer insulating layer 1027 disposed on the gate electrode;
an electrode 1028 disposed on the interlayer insulating layer and electrically connected to the active layer; and
a passivation layer 1029 disposed on the electrode, and par [0183] of He discloses that the passivation layer 1029 may be made of SiN, SiON, SiNx, or SiO2, or a stacked structure of any two or more of the foregoing.
He does not disclose the arrangement wherein the passivation layer includes a first passivation layer, a second passivation layer, and a third passivation layer, the first passivation layer includes a material consisting of essentially a silicon element and two or more different elements, and each of the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer includes a material consisting of essentially a silicon element and one or more different elements, and the first passivation layer has less compressive stress than the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer; wherein the first passivation layer includes SiON, and each of the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer includes SiNx.
Note that the claimed limitation of “first passivation layer includes a material consisting of essentially a silicon element and two or more different elements” can be SiON as taught by He, and note that the claimed limitation of “each of the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer includes a material consisting of essentially a silicon element and one or more different elements” can be SiN as taught by He.
As such the applicant can rearrange the elements taught by He in order to meet the applicant specification, and selecting known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of He comprising wherein the passivation layer includes a first passivation layer, a second passivation layer, and a third passivation layer, the first passivation layer includes a material consisting of essentially a silicon element and two or more different elements, and each of the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer includes a material consisting of essentially a silicon element and one or more different elements, and the first passivation layer has less compressive stress than the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer; wherein the first passivation layer includes SiON, and each of the second passivation layer and the third passivation layer includes SiNx as the court held that rearrangement of parts and rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in thee art and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claims 20-21, He discloses claim 13. He does not disclose wherein a thickness of the first passivation layer is about 0.10 to about 0.25 times a sum of a thickness of the second passivation layer and a thickness of the third passivation layer; wherein a thickness of the first passivation layer is about 300 Å to about 1000 Å, and a thickness of the second passivation layer is about 1000 Å to about 1700 Å.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., 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.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of He comprising wherein a thickness of the first passivation layer is about 0.10 to about 0.25 times a sum of a thickness of the second passivation layer and a thickness of the third passivation layer; wherein a thickness of the first passivation layer is about 300 Å to about 1000 Å, and a thickness of the second passivation layer is about 1000 Å to about 1700 Å in order to meet the applicant desired material composition specification.
Regarding claim 24, He discloses claim 13. He does not disclose of wherein the passivation layer has a hydrogen (H.sub.2) emission amount of about 3.0×10.sup.19 ea/cm.sup.2 to about 7.5×10.sup.19 ea/cm.sup.2, and an ammonia (NH.sub.3) emission amount of about 3.5×10.sup.20 ea/cm.sup.2 to about 10.0×10.sup.20 ea/cm.sup.2, as measured by thermal desorption spectroscopy (TDS).
However, Applicant’s claim 24 does not distinguish over the He reference regardless of the process used to form the passivation layer because only the final product is relevant, not the process of making such as “wherein the passivation layer has a hydrogen (H.sub.2) emission amount of about 3.0×10.sup.19 ea/cm.sup.2 to about 7.5×10.sup.19 ea/cm.sup.2, and an ammonia (NH.sub.3) emission amount of about 3.5×10.sup.20 ea/cm.sup.2 to about 10.0×10.sup.20 ea/cm.sup.2, as measured by thermal desorption spectroscopy (TDS)”.
Note that a “product by process claim " is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1].
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. 20230157132 in view of Zhang et al. 20180197819.
Regarding claim 15, He discloses claim 13. He does not disclose wherein compressive stress of the first passivation layer is about −40 Mpa to about −52 Mpa, compressive stress of the second passivation layer is about −270 Mpa to about −340 Mpa, and compressive stress of the third passivation layer is about −130 Mpa to about −170 Mpa.
However, par [0012] of Zhang discloses that in the interconnect structure, a stress of the first passivation layer is −50 Mpa to −200 Mpa, for example, which is a range as claimed by the applicant from about -52 MPa to about -340 Mpa.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of He further comprising wherein compressive stress of the first passivation layer is about −40 Mpa to about −52 Mpa, compressive stress of the second passivation layer is about −270 Mpa to about −340 Mpa, and compressive stress of the third passivation layer is about −130 Mpa to about −170 Mpa in order in order to arrange an appropriate stress for the interconnection structure.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of JIA et al. 20190067627.
Regarding claim 22, He discloses claim 13. He does not disclose wherein a ratio of oxygen (O) to silicon (Si) included in the first passivation layer is about 1.6:1 to about 1.8:1.
PNG
media_image2.png
157
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Table 1 of Jia discloses that ration of oxygen (O) to silicon (Si) changes refractive index of the passivation film.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of He comprising wherein a ratio of oxygen (O) to silicon (Si) included in the first passivation layer is about 1.6:1 to about 1.8:1 in order to obtain a desire refractive index such as taught by Jia.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Honda et al. 20110206590.
Regarding claim 23, Honda discloses claim 13. Honda does not disclose wherein an amount of hydrogen included in the passivation layer, as detected by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), is about 1.0×10.sup.21 atoms/cm.sup.3 to about 2.5×10.sup.21 atoms/cm.sup.3.
However, par [0169] of Honda disclose that the concentration of hydrogen atoms of the obtained SiON film measured by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) was below or equal to 9.9.times.10.sup.20 atoms/cm.sup.3 which is about 1.0×10.sup.21 atoms/cm.sup.3 to about 2.5×10.sup.21 atoms/cm.sup.3.
As such it would have been obvious to form an apparatus of He further comprising wherein an amount of hydrogen included in the passivation layer, as detected by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), is about 1.0×10.sup.21 atoms/cm.sup.3 to about 2.5×10.sup.21 atoms/cm.sup.3 in order to form SiON as passivation film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4 and 11 are allowed.
Claim 1 recites “the first passivation layer includes SiON, and a first angle formed between a side surface of the first passivation layer facing the first contact hole and a lower surface of the passivation layer is less than each of a second angle formed between a side surface of the second passivation layer facing the first contact hole and the lower surface of the passivation layer and a third angle formed between a side surface of the third passivation layer facing the first contact hole and the lower surface of the passivation layer”, this feature in combination with the other features of the claim, is not taught by the references of record.
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, 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 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893