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 .
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.
Claim 1-16 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is not clear as to how “a gate electrode layer including a first electrode which includes a first contact portion electrically contacting the first conductor region by extending along a side surface of the gate insulating layer” is being met. A gate electrode layer is separate from the first electrode. For the purpose of examination, they are considered as “a gate electrode layer; a first electrode which includes a first contact portion electrically contacting the first conductor region by extending along a side surface of the gate insulating layer”. Required modification is requested.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1. Claim(s) 1,3,7,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240213373 A1 (Wang) in view of US 20220077264 A1 (Xue).
Regarding claim 1, Wang shows (Fig. 11) a display device (para 52) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
458
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a buffer layer (110, second insulating layer, para 79) including an inorganic insulating material (para 99);
an active pattern (102, para 79) disposed on the buffer layer and including a channel region (under gate 108) and a first conductor region (104 left of 108) disposed adjacent to the channel region;
a gate insulating layer (107, para 78) disposed on the buffer layer and the active pattern and including an inorganic insulating material (aluminum oxide, para 78);
a gate electrode layer (108, para 70);
a first electrode (112 left) which includes a first contact portion electrically contacting the first conductor region by extending along a side surface of the gate insulating layer.
Wang does not show first contact portion contact the side surface of the gate insulating layer;
an oxygen supply layer including a first pattern disposed between the first electrode and the gate insulating layer,
wherein the first pattern includes a first groove recessed from a side surface of the first pattern to surround at least a part of the first contact portion in a plan view.
PNG
media_image2.png
160
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Xue shows (Fig. 6) first contact portion (portion of 7 through 2 connected to active layer 4) contact the side surface of the gate insulating layer (2);
an oxygen supply layer (12, interlayer dielectric layer 12 between the first electrode 6 and the base substrate 1 may serve as the oxygen containing layer 5, para 60) including a first pattern (left most portion of 12 patterned before forming the left source or drain contact) disposed between the first electrode (top portion of left source/drain electrode 7, para 60) and the gate insulating layer (2, para 59),
wherein the first pattern includes a first groove (left opening in 12 surrounding the left contact 7) recessed from a side surface of the first pattern to surround at least a part of the first contact portion in a plan view.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first pattern of oxygen supply layer according to the teaching of “Xue”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known oxygen supply layer on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Wang shows (Fig. 11) wherein an average taper angle of the side surface of the gate insulating layer (107) with respect to an upper surface of the active pattern (104) is about 65 degrees or less and about 30 degrees or more (right side of the gate insulating film 107 on active layer 104 from figure above).
Regarding claim 7, Wang shows (Fig. 11) wherein the active pattern further includes a second conductor region (102 right portion beside 107) spaced apart from the first conductor region with the channel region (below 107) interposed therebetween,
wherein the gate electrode layer further includes a second electrode (112 right) which includes a second contact portion electrically contacting the second conductor region by extending along a side surface of the gate insulating layer and spaced apart from the first electrode (112 left).
Wang does not show wherein the oxygen supply layer further includes a second pattern disposed between the second electrode and the gate insulating layer and spaced apart from the first pattern, and wherein a second groove recessed from a side surface of the second pattern to surround at least a part of the second contact portion is defined in the second pattern.
Xue shows (Fig. 6) wherein the oxygen supply layer (12, interlayer dielectric layer 12 between the first electrode 6 and the base substrate 1 may serve as the oxygen containing layer 5, para 60) further includes a second pattern (right most portion of 12 patterned before forming the right source or drain contact) disposed between the second electrode and the gate insulating layer and spaced apart from the first pattern (as shown), and wherein a second groove (right opening in 12 surrounding the right contact 7) recessed from a side surface of the second pattern to surround at least a part of the second contact portion is defined in the second pattern.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first pattern of oxygen supply layer according to the teaching of “Xue”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known oxygen supply layer on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Xue shows wherein the oxygen supply layer (12, Xue) directly contacts the gate electrode layer (3 Xue)..
2. Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xue as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20230253410 A1 (Zhang).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Xue shows buffer layer and first electrode.
Wang in view of Xue does not show further comprising:
a lower electrode layer disposed under the buffer layer and including a first lower electrode electrically connected to the first electrode.
Zhang shows (Fig. 1) further comprising:
a lower electrode layer (20, para 36) disposed under the buffer layer (30) and including a first lower electrode electrically connected to the first electrode (72, source electrode, para 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Zhang, with lower electrode layer, to the invention of Wang in view of Xue.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of preventing light escaping from the bottom of the device structure.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Xue shows the gate insulating layer and the buffer layer.
PNG
media_image3.png
328
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang in view of Xue does not show wherein the first electrode includes a first lower electrode contact portion electrically contacting the first lower electrode through a through hole formed through the gate insulating layer and the buffer layer, and
wherein the first pattern includes a first opening formed through the first pattern in a thickness direction and exposing the first lower electrode contact portion in the plan view.
Zhang shows (Fig. 1) wherein the first electrode (72) includes a first lower electrode contact portion (rightmost via from the top of 72 to 20) electrically contacting the first lower electrode (20) through a through hole formed through the gate insulating layer (12) and the buffer layer (part of 30), and
wherein the first pattern includes a first opening formed through the first pattern in a thickness direction and exposing the first lower electrode contact portion in the plan view (as shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to add the invention of Zhang, with lower electrode layer, to the invention of Wang in view of Xue.
The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable result of preventing light escaping from the bottom of the device structure.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang as previously modified with Wang in view of Xue shows wherein the first electrode (72 Zhang) directly contacts an upper surface of the gate insulating layer (12, as it insulates gate 60) in an area between an edge of the first opening and an edge of the first lower electrode contact portion in the plan view (as shown).
3. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xue as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20190148558 A1 (Suzuki).
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Xue shows the active pattern includes an oxide semiconductor material (Wang, para 55) and the oxygen supply layer (Xue).
Wang in view of Xue does not show the oxygen supply layer includes an oxide semiconductor material.
Suzuki shows (Fig. 1A) the oxygen supply layer (107B, para 26) includes an oxide semiconductor material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at or before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to modify the invention of Wang in view of Xue, including the oxygen supply layer, with the invention of Suzuki.
The motivation to do so is that the selection of an art recognized oxygen supply layer of Suzuki is suitable for the intended use of Wang in view of Xue (MPEP §2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As detailed in the attached interview summary, the claim limitation “a gate electrode layer including a first electrode which includes a first contact portion electrically contacting the first conductor region by extending along a side surface of the gate insulating layer to contact the side surface of the gate insulating layer” suggests that the gate electrode layer is electrically contacting the first conductor region. As such, the above rejection is considered as final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,8-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the first electrode directly contacts an upper surface of the gate insulating layer in an area between an edge of the first pattern defining the first groove and an edge of the first contact portion in the plan view”.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the second electrode directly contacts an upper surface of the gate insulating layer in an area between an edge of the second pattern defining the second groove and an edge of the second contact portion in the plan view”.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “a lower electrode layer disposed under the buffer layer and including a second lower electrode electrically connected to the second electrode”.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the second electrode further includes a gate electrode disposed to overlap the channel region, and wherein the oxygen supply layer further includes a third pattern disposed between the gate electrode and the gate insulating layer”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights