DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the metal conductive layer comprises a main body part and an extension part extending into the first opening, the extension part is electrically connected with the active layer exposed by the first opening, and the conductive structure is overlapped with the extension part, and comprises a connection part extending to the second opening and electrically connecting the active layer on two sides of the second opening” in lines 1-16.
Since “the first opening” is related to the gate insulating layer, “the second opening” is related to the active layer, and “the extension part” is related to the metal conductive layer, the aforementioned limitations of claim 1 should be modified in order to provide clarity and constancy as follows:
-- the metal conductive layer comprises a main body part and an extension part extending into the first opening of the gate insulating pattern, the extension part of the metal conductive layer is electrically connected with the active layer exposed by the first opening, and the conductive structure is overlapped with the extension part of the metal conductive layer, and comprises a connection part extending to the second opening of the active layer and electrically connecting the active layer on two sides of the second opening --.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein an orthographic projection of the second opening on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the first opening on the base substrate, the metal conductive layer comprises a main body part and an extension part extending into the first opening, the extension part is electrically connected with the active layer exposed by the first opening, the conductive structure is overlapped with the extension part, and comprises a connection part extending to the second opening and electrically connecting the active layer on two sides of the second opening” in lines 20-26.
Since “the first opening” related to the second gate insulating pattern and “the second opening” related to the active layer, the aforementioned limitations of claim 19 can be modified as the following:
--wherein an orthographic projection of the second opening of the active layer on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the first opening of the second gate insulating layer on the base substrate, the metal conductive layer comprises a main body part and an extension part extending into the first opening of the second gate insulating layer, the extension part is electrically connected with the active layer exposed by the first opening of the second gate insulating layer, the conductive structure is overlapped with the extension part, and comprises a connection part extending to the second opening of the active layer and electrically connecting the active layer on two sides of the second opening--.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “wherein forming a conductive structure at a side of the metal conductive layer away from the base substrate comprises” in lines 2-3.
However, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “a conductive structure” in the claim. Changing “a conductive structure” to --the conductive structure-- provides proper antecedent basis.
Similar appropriate correction throughout the claims where is applied is required.
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 2-13, 21, 22 and 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first conductive part and the second conductive part are located at two sides of the second opening in the first direction” in lines 2-3.
However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first direction” in the claim. In addition, there lack of clarity for “first direction” because it is not clear that this direction is whether in the lateral direction or vertical direction. The direction needs to be defined in the claim.
Claims 3-13 are also rejected for the same ground as well as being directly or indirectly dependent of the rejected claim 2.
Claim 7 recited the limitation “wherein a value range of a sum of a first dimension of the third overlapping part in the first direction and a second dimension of the fourth overlapping part in the first direction is from 0.5 microns to 1.5 microns” in lines 1-3.
However, there is lack of clarity for “first dimension” and “second dimension” in the claim because it is not clear which dimension is being claimed. Is it lateral dimension? Is it vertical dimension? Is it the thickness? Is it the length? And so forth.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein a first dimension of the third overlapping part in the first direction or a second dimension of the fourth overlapping part in the first direction is smaller than a dimension of the second opening in the first direction”
However, there is lack of clarity for “first dimension” and “second dimension” in the claim because it is not clear which dimension is being claimed. Is it lateral dimension? Is it vertical dimension? Is it the thickness? Is it the length? And so forth.
In addition, there is lack of clarity for “dimension of the second opening” because it is not clearly defined the dimension of the second opening in terms of its pitch width or height.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the first dimension of the third overlapping part in the first direction or the second dimension of the fourth overlapping part in the first direction is smaller than a dimension of the first conductive part in the first direction” in lines 2-3.
However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first dimension” and “the second dimension” in the claim. In addition, there is lack of clarity for “first dimension” and “second dimension” in the claim as described above for claim 8.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein a dimension of the first conductive part in the first direction is smaller than a dimension of the second opening in the first direction” in lines 1-3.
However, is lack of clarity for “a dimension of the first conductive part” and “a dimension of the second opening” because the dimension it is not clearly defined relative to the first conductive part and relative to the second opening.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein a dimension of the conductive structure in the first direction is smaller than a dimension of the second conductive part in the first direction”
However, there is lack of clarity for “a dimension of the first conductive part” and “a dimension of the second conductive part” because the dimension is not clearly defined relative to the first conductive part and relative to the second conductive part.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein a dimension of the conductive structure in the first direction is smaller than a dimension of the channel in the first direction” in lines 1-3.
However, there is lack of clarity for “a dimension of the conductive structure” and “a dimension of the channel” because the dimension is not clearly defined relative to the first conductive structure and relative to the channel.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “forming a third photoresist pattern at a side of the gate insulating layer away from the base substrate by using a first mask; and patterning the gate insulating layer by using the third photoresist pattern to form the first gate insulating pattern” in lines 4-7.
However, there is a lack of clarity in the claim for “using a first mask” because it is not clear where is the first mask comes from. Is it part of the mask opening that resulted by forming a first photoresist pattern as recited in claim 19? Or anther mask. If the first mask different form the mask opening, then how and when is formed prior to forming of a third photoresist pattern at a side of the gate insulating layer away from the base substrate?
Claim 22 is also rejected for the same ground as of claim 21.
Claim 24 recited the limitation “the first conductive part and the second conductive part are located at two sides of the second opening in the first direction” in lines 3-4.
However, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first direction” in the claim. In addition, there is a lack of clarity for “first direction” because it is not clear that this direction is whether in the lateral direction or vertical direction. The direction needs to be defined in the claim.
Although an attempt has been made to identify all instances of claim language non- complacence, such identification is extremely burdensome due to the large number of instances. Examples are provided above. Since such noncompliance confuses the claims to the extent that not all of the problems are ready apparent, then upon amendment, if an alternative interpretation of claim language requires a change in the rejection, the new rejection may properly made final.
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in reviewing the claims’ structure to ensure proper claim construction and to correct any subsequently discovered instances of claim language noncompliance. See Morton International Inc., 28USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (CAFC, 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13, 21, 22 and 24 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.
Claims 1, 18-20 and 23 are allowed over prior art record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “the metal conductive layer comprises a main body part and an extension part extending into the first opening [of the gate insulating pattern], the extension part [of the metal conductive layer] is electrically connected with the active layer exposed by the first opening, and the conductive structure is overlapped with the extension part [of the metal conductive layer], and comprises a connection part extending to the second opening [of the active layer] and electrically connecting the active layer on two sides of the second opening,” as recited in claim 1, and “
wherein an orthographic projection of the second opening [of the active layer] on the base substrate is located within an orthographic projection of the first opening [of the second gate insulating layer] on the base substrate, the metal conductive layer comprises a main body part and an extension part extending into the first opening [of the second gate insulating layer], the extension part is electrically connected with the active layer exposed by the first opening [of the second gate insulating layer], the conductive structure is overlapped with the extension part, and comprises a connection part extending to the second opening[of the active layer] and electrically connecting the active layer on two sides of the second opening,” as recited in claim 19 respectively.
Claims 20 and 23 are also allowed as being directly dependent of the allowed independent claim 19.
Claim 18 is allowed as being linking claim to the allowed independent base claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Zhang et al. (US 2015/0185570), HOU et al. (US 2016/0380005) and LONG et al. (US 2018/0267374) also disclose similar inventive subject matter. However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the aforementioned allowable limitations of claims 1 and 19 as a whole either taken alone or in combination.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 PM.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
December 13, 2025