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 § 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, 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (hereinafter Jeong, US 2017/0278867) in view of Du et al. (hereinafter Du, US 2024/0224716).
In regards to independent claim 1, Jeong teaches a display apparatus comprising:
a substrate (100) (Fig. 4, Jeong);
a semiconductor layer (123a,b) arranged on the substrate (10);
a first metal layer (171b) arranged on the semiconductor layer (123a), insulated (140, 160), and including a first metal material having a first etch rate under a predetermined condition (171b may be Aluminum which has a specific etch rate, [0087]); and
a second metal layer on the first metal layer (171c), contacting an upper surface of the first metal layer (171b), and arranged within boundaries of the upper surface of the first metal layer when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate (171c is smaller width than 171B, Fig. 4), the second metal layer including a second metal material having a second etch rate under the predetermined condition (171c may be Titanium which has a different etch rate than aluminum, [0087]),
Jeong fails to explicitly teach the second etch rate being less than the first etch rate.
Du teaches the second etch rate being less than the first etch rate (Du, “a rate of eroding the second conductive sub-layer 42 (aluminum) by the developing solution is greater than a rate of eroding the first conductive sub-layer 41 and the third conductive sub-layer 43 (titanium),” [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include the varying etch rate in a stack of Du in order to obtain a metal layer stack which has varying etch rates for each layer of the stack. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables multiple layers to be etched in one step by adjusting for the varying etch rates of the metal films.
In regards to dependent claim 2, Jeong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first metal material includes aluminum (AI) [0087], and the second metal material includes titanium (Ti) [0087]).
In regards to dependent claim 7, Jeong teaches the display apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the first metal layer includes a first side surface extending at a first acute angle relative to an upper surface of the substrate (Jeong, Fig. 7, 180deg-taper angle θ), and
the second metal layer includes a second side surface extending at a second acute angle relative to the upper surface of the substrate, the second acute angle being less than the first acute angle (Jeong, Fig. 7, 180deg-taper angle θ).
In regards to independent claim 8, Jeong teaches a method of manufacturing a display apparatus, the method comprising:
forming a semiconductor layer (121a) on a substrate (100) ([0120]);
forming, on the semiconductor layer (121a), a first metal layer (171b) including a first metal material having a first etch rate under a predetermined condition (171b may be Aluminum which has a specific etch rate, [0087]) ([0122]);
forming, on the first metal layer (171b), a second metal layer (171c) including a second metal material having a second etch rate under the predetermined condition (171c may be Titanium which has a different etch rate than aluminum, [0087]),
etching the second metal layer and a portion of the first metal layer ((0125]);
etching the protrusion portion of the second metal layer (Jeong, Fig. 7-Fig. 8, [0097-0102]).
Jeong fails to explicitly teach forming an undercut structure at a side surface of the first metal layer, the undercut structure including a protrusion portion of the second metal layer that extends beyond the side surface of the first metal layer.
Du teaches forming an undercut structure at a side surface of the first metal layer (The width of 42 is smaller than the width of 43, Fig. 7), the undercut structure including a protrusion portion of the second metal layer that extends beyond the side surface of the first metal layer (Layer 43 extends beyond Layer 42) (Du, “a rate of eroding the second conductive sub-layer 42 (aluminum) by the developing solution is greater than a rate of eroding the first conductive sub-layer 41 and the third conductive sub-layer 43 (titanium),” [0136])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include the varying etch rate in a stack of Du in order to obtain a metal layer stack which has varying etch rates for each layer of the stack. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables multiple layers to be etched in one step by adjusting for the varying etch rates of the metal films.
In regards to dependent claim 10, Jeong teaches wherein the first metal material includes aluminum (Al), and the second metal material includes titanium (Ti) (Jeong, [0087]).
In regards to dependent claim 11, Jeong teaches wherein the etching of the second metal layer and the portion of the first metal layer includes etching the second metal layer and the portion of the first metal layer by using a first etching gas including chlorine (Cl2) gas and boron trichloride (BCl3) gas (Jeong, [0126]).
In regards to dependent claim 15, Jeong teaches wherein the etching of the protrusion portion of the second metal layer includes etching the protrusion portion of the second metal layer by using a third etching gas including tetrafluoromethane (CF4) gas and argon (Ar) gas (Jeong, [0136-138]).
In regards to dependent claim 17, Jeong teaches wherein the protrusion portion includes a lower surface of the second metal layer, the lower surface protruding from an upper surface of the first metal layer in a direction parallel to the substrate (Jeong, Fig. 7).
In regards to dependent claim 18, Jeong teaches wherein
the first metal layer includes a first side surface extending at a first acute angle relative to an upper surface of the substrate (Jeong, Fig. 7, 180deg-taper angle θ), and
the second metal layer includes a second side surface extending at a second acute angle relative to the upper surface of the substrate, the second acute angle being less than the first acute angle (Jeong, Fig. 7, 180deg-taper angle θ).
Claim(s) 3-4, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Du and Allman et al. (hereinafter Allman, US 2004/0135223).
In regards to dependent claim 3, Allman teaches wherein the second metal layer includes:
a first sub-layer contacting the upper surface of the first metal layer and including a nitride of the second metal material (Allman, [0026]); and
a second sub-layer contacting an upper surface of the sub-layer and including the second metal material (Allman, [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Allman before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include nitride layer in a stack of metal layers of Allman in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has the nitride layer of the metal layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a contact with lower contact resistance.
In regards to dependent claim 4, Allman teaches wherein, when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, the second sub-layer is arranged within boundaries of the upper surface of the sub-layer (Allman, Fig. 2, Item 24-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Allman before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by v to include nitride layer in a stack of metal layers of Allman in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has the nitride layer of the metal layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a contact with lower contact resistance.
In regards to dependent claim 9, Allman teaches wherein the forming of the second metal layer includes:
forming, on the first metal layer, a first sub-layer including a nitride of the second metal material (Allman, [0026]); and
forming, on the first sub-layer, a second sub-layer including the second metal material (Allman, [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Allman before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include nitride layer in a stack of metal layers of Allman in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has the nitride layer of the metal layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a contact with lower contact resistance.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Du, Allman and Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim, US 2021/0132424).
In regards to dependent claim 5, Kim teaches wherein, when viewed in the direction perpendicular to the substrate, an edge of a contact surface at which a lower surface of the first sub-layer and the upper surface of the first metal layer contact each other is spaced apart from an edge of the upper surface of the first metal layer (Kim, Fig. 4 134’, 136’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong, Du, and Kim before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include the step etching in a stack of Kim in order to obtain a metal layer stack that etches a stack in a step formation. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables each film to have a more precise etch profile by etch them in two distinct steps.
In regards to dependent claim 6, Kim teaches wherein a side surface of the second metal layer has a stair-shaped step difference with respect to the upper surface of the first metal layer (Kim, Fig. 4 134’, 136’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong, Du, and Kim before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include the step etching in a stack of Kim in order to obtain a metal layer stack that etches a stack in a step formation. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables each film to have a more precise etch profile by etch them in two distinct steps.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Du and Huang et al. (hereinafter Huang, US 766319).
In regards to dependent claim 12, Huang teaches wherein in the first etching gas, a ratio between a flow rate of the Cl2 gas and a flow rate of the BCl3 gas is in a range from 10:1 to 1:2 (Huang, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Huang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include optimized etching flows of Huang in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has optimized etching flows. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a film to be etched more uniformly and faster.
In regards to dependent claim 13, Huang teaches wherein the forming of the undercut structure at the side surface of the first metal layer includes etching the first metal layer by using a second etching gas including Cl2 gas, BCl3 gas, and nitrogen gas (N2 gas) (Huang, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Huang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include optimized etching flows of Huang in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has optimized etching flows. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a film to be etched more uniformly and faster.
In regards to dependent claim 14, Huang teaches wherein in the second etching gas, a flow rate of the Cl2 gas, a flow rate of the BCl3 gas, and a flow rate of the N2 gas have relative proportions in a range of 1:0.33:0.15 to 1:5:0.15 or 1:3:0.05 to 1:3:3 (Huang, Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Huang before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include optimized etching flows of Huang in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has optimized etching flows. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a film to be etched more uniformly and faster.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Du and Kirmse et al. (hereinafter Kirmse, US 2019/0198382).
In regards to dependent claim 16, Kirmse teaches wherein in the third etching gas, a ratio between a flow rate of the CF4 gas and a flow rate of the Ar gas is in a range from 1:5 to 1:1 (Kirmse, [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong and Du and Kirmse before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include optimized etching flows of Kirmse in order to obtain a metal layer stack that has optimized etching flows. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables a film to be etched more uniformly and faster.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Du and Kim.
In regards to dependent claim 19, Kim teaches wherein the etching of the protrusion portion of the second metal layer includes etching the protrusion portion of the second metal layer such that a side surface of the second metal layer has a stair-shaped step difference with respect to an upper surface of the first metal layer (Kim, Fig. 4 134’, 136’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong, Du, and Kim before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include the step etching in a stack of Kim in order to obtain a metal layer stack that etches a stack in a step formation. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables each film to have a more precise etch profile by etch them in two distinct steps.
In regards to dependent claim 20, Kim teaches wherein the etching of the protrusion portion of the second metal layer includes etching the protrusion portion of the second metal layer such that, when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the substrate, an edge of a contact surface at which a lower surface of the second metal layer and an upper surface of the first metal layer contact each other is spaced apart from an edge of the upper surface of the first metal layer (Kim, Fig. 4 134’, 136’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Jeong, Du, and Kim before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the metal layer stack taught by Jeong to include the step etching in a stack of Kim in order to obtain a metal layer stack that etches a stack in a step formation. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables each film to have a more precise etch profile by etch them in two distinct steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
