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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made that applicant's Amendment, filed on May 27th, 2026, has been entered.
Upon entrance of the Amendment, claims 1 and 11 were amended, claims 2 and 20 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-19 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 27th, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,937,897).
Regarding to claim 1, Yamazaki teaches a display device comprising:
an active layer (Fig. 11, element 103) disposed on a substrate (Fig. 11, element 100); and
a conductive pattern disposed on or under the active layer and including:
an upper conductive layer having a first line width in a direction (Fig. 11, element 105b3); and
a lower conductive layer including:
a first metal layer disposed under the upper conductive layer (Fig. 11, element 105b1); and
a capping layer disposed between the upper conductive layer and the first metal layer and having a second line width in the direction greater than the first line width (Fig. 11, element 105b2),
wherein a side surface of the conductive pattern has a step (Fig. 11).
Regarding to claim 8, Yamazaki teaches the lower conductive layer further includes a second metal layer disposed under the first metal layer (Fig. 11, element 101).
Regarding to claim 11, Yamazaki teaches a method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
forming an active layer (Fig. 11, element 103) on a substrate (Fig. 11, element 100); and
forming a conductive pattern on or under the active layer (Fig. 11, element 105), wherein the forming of the conductive pattern includes:
forming a preliminary lower conductive layer including a first preliminary metal layer (Fig. 11, layer 105b1 before being patterned) and a preliminary capping layer disposed on the first preliminary metal layer (Fig. 11, layer 105b2 before being patterned);
forming a preliminary upper conductive layer on the preliminary lower conductive layer (Fig. 11, layer 105b3 before being patterned);
forming an upper conductive layer having a first line width in a direction by patterning the preliminary upper conductive layer (Fig. 11, element 105b3 after being patterned); and
forming a lower conductive layer including a first metal layer (Fig. 11, element 105b1) disposed under the upper conductive layer and a capping layer (Fig. 11, element 105b2) disposed between the upper conductive layer and the first metal layer and having a second line width in the direction greater than the first line width by patterning the preliminary lower conductive layer (Fig. 11),
wherein after the forming of the conductive pattern, a side surface of the conductive pattern has a step (Fig. 11).
Regarding to claim 18, Yamazaki teaches the preliminary lower conductive layer further includes a second preliminary metal layer disposed under the first preliminary metal layer (Fig. 11, element layer 101 under layer 105b1 before it was patterned), and the lower conductive layer further includes a second metal layer disposed under the first metal layer after the forming of the lower conductive layer (Fig. 11, element 101).
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 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,937,897), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding to claim 3, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive layer includes cooper or aluminum (column 11, lines 49-51). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the upper conductive layer includes copper and the first metal layer includes aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include copper in the upper conductive layer and aluminum in the first metal layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 4, Yamazaki discloses a difference between the second line width and the first line width (Fig. 11). Yamazaki is silent as to a range, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a difference between the second line width and the first line width to be in a range of about 0.3 micrometers to about 0.9 micrometers in order to increase stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 5, Yamazaki discloses a thickness of the upper conductive layer and a thickness of the lower conductive layer (Fig. 11). Yamazaki is silent as to a range, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a thickness of the upper conductive layer to be in a range of about 1500 A to about 3000A and a thickness of the lower conductive layer to be in a range of about 1500 A to about 3000 A in order to obtain desired conductivity, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 6, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive capping layer includes titanium (column 7, lines 64-65). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the capping layer includes a titanium alloy. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include titanium alloy in the capping layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 7, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive capping layer includes titanium (column 7, lines 64-65). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the capping layer includes a titanium nitride. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include titanium nitride in the capping layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 10, Yamazaki discloses an insulating layer disposed between the active layer and a conductive pattern, wherein the active layer and the conductive pattern are spaced apart from each other by the insulating layer (Fig. 11, insulating layer 102 disposed between the active layer 103 and conductive pattern 101, wherein the active layer 103 and the conductive pattern 101 are spaced apart from each other by the insulating layer 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamazaki to include in the gate structure same structure layers as source/drain structure in order to obtain desired conductivity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,937,897), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
Regarding to claim 9, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive layer includes titanium (column 11, lines 49-51). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the second metal layer includes titanium. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include titanium in the second metal layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,937,897), as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding to claim 15, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive layer includes cooper or aluminum (column 11, lines 49-51). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the preliminary upper conductive layer includes copper and the first preliminary metal layer includes aluminum. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include copper in the preliminary upper conductive layer and aluminum in the first preliminary metal layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 16, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive capping layer includes titanium (column 7, lines 64-65). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the preliminary capping layer includes a titanium alloy. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include titanium alloy in the preliminary capping layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding to claim 17, Yamazaki discloses a difference between the second line width and the first line width (Fig. 11). Yaegashi is silent as to a range, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure a difference between the second line width and the first line width to be in a range of about 0.3 micrometers to about 0.9 micrometers in order to increase stability, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,937,897), as applied to claims 11 and 18 above.
Regarding to claim 9, Yamazaki generally discloses conductive layer includes titanium (column 11, lines 49-51). Yamazaki does not specifically disclose the second preliminary metal layer includes titanium. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include titanium in the second preliminary metal layer in order to obtain desired contact conductivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding to claim 12, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “the forming of the upper conductive layer includes etching a portion of the preliminary upper conductive layer through a wet etching process and the forming of the lower conductive layer includes etching a portion of the preliminary lower conductive layer through a dry etching process” in combination with the limitation recited in claim 11.
Claim 1 would be allowable if all limitations of claim 3 and the limitations of claim 6 are incorporated into claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights