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 with traverse of Group I, Species A represented by figure 1 and claims 1-17 in the reply filed on March 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Examiner has not provided sufficient reasons to support a conclusion that species are independent or distinct. This is not found persuasive because under MPEP 806.04(f) an election of species is proper if the species are mutually exclusive of each other. Examiner on page 4 of the Election/Restriction dated January 9, 2026, explained how each of the species are mutually exclusive of each other. The basis of the election of species is the presence of the gate insulating film and its location if present Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive. Applicant next argues there would be no serious burden upon Examiner. However, this is a conclusory statement with no evidentiary support. Applicant does not explain why there is no burden, nor does Applicant point to any reference evidencing there is no burden. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 8, 2023; July 23, 2024; November 27, 2024; and January 17, 2024 were considered by the examiner.
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, 7, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu et al. (US 2015/0129864 A1) (“Hsu”), in view of Miki et al. (US 2015/0228674 A1) (“Miki”).
Regarding claims 1-2, Hsu teaches at least in figure 1:
a flexible substrate (110) having a support surface (top surface of 110);
a gate electrode layer (120) formed at a first part of the support surface (where 120 is formed; hereinafter “A”);
a gate insulating layer (130) covering a second part of the support surface (where 120 is not on the surface of 120; hereinafter “B”) and the gate electrode layer (120);
a semiconductor layer (140) formed such that the semiconductor layer (140) and the gate electrode layer (120) is sandwiching the gate insulating layer (130);
a source electrode layer (160) formed in contact with a first end of the semiconductor layer (140); and
a drain electrode layer (170) formed in contact with a second end of the semiconductor layer (140),
wherein the gate insulating layer (130) includes a first gate insulating film (130) comprising an organic polymer compound (¶ 0029, where 130 can be an organic polymer compound) and covering the second part (B) and the gate electrode layer (130), and
a second gate insulating film (150) comprising an inorganic silicon compound (¶ 0032) and sandwiched between the first gate insulating film (130) and the semiconductor layer (140),
the second gate insulating film (150) has a thickness in a range of 2 nm to 30 nm (¶ 0034, where 150 can be 100-1000 Angstroms (10-100nm).
Hsu does not teach:
the second gate insulating film has a hydrogen content in a range of 2 at % to 15 at %.
Miki teaches:
The gate insulating film touching an active layer has a hydrogen content in a range of 2 at % to 15 at %. (¶¶ 0034-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the hydrogen concentration of the gate insulating film touching the active layer to be 4 at % or less. This is because the resistance to bias stress and light+ negative bias stress is significantly improved. Id.
Based upon the teachings of Miki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the hydrogen content in the second gate insulating film (150) of Hsu as this is the gate insulating film which is touching the semiconductor layer of Hsu.
Regarding claims 7, 11, and 15, Hsu teaches at least in figure 1:
wherein the semiconductor layer (140) is an oxide semiconductor layer comprising indium (¶ 0030).
Regarding claim 3, Claim 1 teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 with the exception of:
The gate insulating film touching an active layer has a hydrogen content in a range of 6 at % to 15 at %.
The prior art teaches 4%.
However, under Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985) a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05. Here, there is 1 at% difference between the claim and the prior art. Therefore, “[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.” As a result, claim 3 is obvious.
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 is based upon claim 2 in is obvious for the reasons stated in claim 3. Where claim 4 has a 2 at% difference. The analysis of the claim 4 does not change the result presented in claim 3, and is rejected for those reasons.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu, in view of Miki, in view of Kotake et al. (US 9,166,182 B2) (“Kotake”)
Regarding claims 5, 9, 13, and 17, Hsu teaches at least in figure 1:
the prior art in ¶ 0029 teaches the same or similar material, as Applicant does in the specification at pg. 12 at lines 15-22.
Regarding the second gate insulating film relative permittivity εB,
The prior art in ¶ 0032 teaches the same material, or similar material, as Applicant does in the specification at pg. 13 at lines 16-20.
Regarding the second gate insulating film thickness dB,
As stated in claim 1 the prior art teaches the same or similar range of the gate insulating film thickness.
Hsu Does not teach:
What the first gate insulating film thickness dA is.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to search for a reference which teaches this missing thickness.
Kotake teaches:
That organic gate insulating films, like the one taught by Hsu, can have a thickness of about 1 micrometer. Col. 11 at lines 24-40.
The combination of Hsu and Kotake teach:
the gate insulating layer satisfies formula (1), 0.001≤(εA/dA)/(εB/dB)<0.015.
The combination teaches this because the prior art in combination teaches the same, or similar, materials and thicknesses as Applicant. Therefore, the inequality above is a matter of optimizing the materials and thicknesses of said materials. This is because the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art, and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Thus optimization of the claim would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16, the prior art teaches:
wherein a relative permittivity of the first gate insulating film is lower than a relative permittivity of the second gate insulating film (See claim 5 above where Hsu teaches the same or similar materials), and
the first gate insulating film has a thickness in a range of 300 nm to 2500 nm (see claim 5 above where Kotake teaches a thickness in the middle of the claimed range).
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 at 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