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 Group I and Species A, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/30/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1,
line 10, the letter “s” between “on” and “second” should be deleted;
line 17, the word “are” should be changed to --is--.
The other claims are objected as being dependent on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,181,480. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
claim 1 of the instant application recites: the first source region and the first drain region includes a first impurity ion, and each of the second source region and the second drain region includes a second impurity ion which are different from the first impurity;
claim 1 of the ‘480 patent recites: an impurity concentration at the second drain region and the second source region is lower than an impurity concentration at the first drain region and the first source region.
The terminology different means that the impurity is either lower or higher. Accordingly, these claims are substantially equivalent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0115542 (Yang).
Yang discloses
1. A display device, comprising:
a substrate 110; and
a transistor 100, the transistor 100 including an oxide semiconductor layer 130 as an active layer and a gate electrode 140 disposed on the oxide semiconductor layer 130 to overlap the oxide semiconductor layer 130,
wherein the oxide semiconductor layer 130 includes:
a channel region 131, and
a source region 132a / 133a disposed on a first side of the channel region 131 and a drain region 132b / 133b disposed on [[s]] second side of the channel region 131,
wherein the source region 132a / 133a includes a first source region 132a disposed adjacent to the channel region 131 and a second source region 133a disposed adjacent to the first source region 132a, and the drain region 132b / 133b include a first drain region 132b disposed adjacent to the channel region 131 and a second drain region 133b disposed adjacent to the first drain region 132b, and
wherein each of the first source region 132a and the first drain region 132b includes a first impurity ion ([0204]), and each of the second source region 133a and the second drain region 133b includes a second impurity ion ([0213]) which [[are]] is different from the first impurity ([0213]).
Yang discloses (at least Fig. 5)
2. The display device of claim 1, wherein: the second source region 133a and the second drain region 133b further include the first impurity ion.
Yang discloses (H<B<F<P, [0204], [0213])
3. The display device of claim 1, wherein: atomic mass of the second impurity ion is greater than the atomic mass of the first impurity ion.
Yang discloses (B= p-type, P= n-type)
4. The display device of claim 3, wherein: the first impurity ion is a p-type impurity and the second impurity ion is an n-type impurity.
Yang discloses (at least Fig. 5, [0204], [0213])
9. The display device of claim 1, wherein: each of the first source region 132a and the second source region 133a includes B.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claims 1, 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0320008 (Kim).
Yang fails to disclose
5. The display device of claim 4, wherein: the first impurity ion includes B and the second impurity ion includes at least one of As, Sb, Si, Ge, and an In.
Yang fails to disclose
10. The display device of claim 1, wherein: each of the second source region and the second drain region includes B and at least one of As, Sb, Si, Ge, and In.
Kim teaches ([0035])
A device comprising:
the first impurity ion 107 includes B and the second impurity ion 108 includes at least one of As, Sb, Si, Ge, and an In; and
each of the second source region 22 and the second drain region 22 includes B (107) and at least one of As, Sb, Si, Ge, and In (108).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known impurity ion in Yang. The motivation would be a matter of routine engineering considerations based on their suitability as discussed in Kim. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP Publication No. 4701487 (平林 幸哉).
Yang fails to disclose
6. The display device of claim 1, wherein: doping concentration of the first source region and the first drain region is lower than that of the second source region and the second drain region.
Yang fails to disclose
7. The display device of claim 6, wherein: a doping concentration of the first impurity ions is 1 x 1012 ions/cm2 to 1 x 1013 ions/cm2.
Yang fails to disclose
8. The display device of claim 6, wherein: a doping concentration of the second impurity ions is 1 x 1012 ions/cm2 to 1 x 1014 ions/cm2.
平林 幸哉 teaches ([0099]-[0109])
A display device comprising:
doping concentration of the first source region 1b and the first drain region 1c is lower than that of the second source region 1d and the second drain region 1e;
a doping concentration of the first impurity ions is 1 x 1012 ions/cm2 to 1 x 1013 ions/cm2; and
a doping concentration of the second impurity ions is 1 x 1012 ions/cm2 to 1 x 1014 ions/cm2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a doping concentration in Yang. The motivation would be a matter of engineering considerations based on routine optimization as discussed in 平林 幸哉. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2017/0373094 (Park), 2008/0217693 (Wang), 2008/0182354 (Lee), U.S. Patent Nos. 7,572,690, 8,278,159 (Park) teach a display device having multiple source/drain regions and different impurity ions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M ARROYO whose telephone number is (703)756-1576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 A.M. E.T. - 5:00 P.M. E.T.).
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 at 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.
/TERESA M. ARROYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights