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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to claim of priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2023-0035846 under 35 U.S.C. § 119, filed on March 20, 2023, in the Korean Intellectual Property Office
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed May 8, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 14, and 16 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claim 23 is newly added. The Examiner notes that claims 1 and 3-23 are examined.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 16 and 23 are identical except that the preamble of claim 16 is for a “display device” and the preamble for claim 23 is for an “electronic device.” The preambles do not add any implicit limitations that are not already recited in the claims, therefore the examiner considers the claims to be substantially identical.
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 16, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Takata teaches in Fig. 3A and 17:
A display device comprising: a substrate (substrate 11);
an active layer on the substrate (oxide semiconductor layer 12);
a transistor including a gate electrode (gate electrode 16) overlapping the active layer (12);
and a pixel electrode (pixel electrode 55) on the transistor, wherein the active layer includes:
a first sub-active layer (A-3) adjacent to the substrate,
a second sub-active layer (A1) disposed on the first sub-active layer,
and a third sub-active layer (A2) disposed on the second sub-active layer,
the second sub-active layer is disposed between the first sub-active layer and the third sub-active layer (see Fig. 3A),
and the second sub-active layer has an amount of oxygen vacancies smaller than those of the first sub-active layer (para. 84 “at least the oxygen concentration of the third area A3 is lower than the oxygen concentration at the first area A1.”).
Takata does not explicitly state the difference in the oxygen vacancies between the second and third sub-active layers (A1 and A2). However, Takata states that the eletron effinity of A1 is larger than the electron affinity of A2 and A3 and that the electron affinity of A3 and A1 are controlled by setting the number of oxygen vacancies. (para. [0084] “By providing the oxygen concentration at the first area A.sub.1 higher than that at the third area A.sub.3, the electron affinity X.sub.1 at the first area A.sub.1 larger than the electron affinity X.sub.3 at the third area A.sub.3 can be provided.”) It would therefore be obvious to control the electron affinity of A2 with the same method, meeting the limitation:
and the second sub-active layer has an amount of oxygen vacancies smaller than those of the third sub-active layer
With respect to claim 20, Takata further teaches:
wherein the at least two of the first, second, and third sub-active layers have different densities. (para. 102-110 teaches that the relative concentrations of In, Ga, and Zn is different between the layers A1, A2, and A3 which leads to different densities as the elements have different atomic weights and sizes. Alternatively, if density is interpreted to mean carrier density the carrier densities of the different areas are different due to their different number of oxygen vacancies)
With respect to claim 22, Takata further teaches:
wherein a first interface is formed between the first sub-active layer and the second sub-active layer, and a second interface is formed between the second sub-active layer and the third sub-active layer (para. 53 “Since the first to third areas of the oxide semiconductor layer are made of the same type of materials, defect density at the interface is smaller than a case where the first area forming the channel layer is in contact with a different material”).
With respect to claim 23, Takata teaches in Fig. 3A and 17:
A electronic device comprising: a substrate (substrate 11);
an active layer on the substrate (oxide semiconductor layer 12);
a transistor including a gate electrode (gate electrode 16) overlapping the active layer (12);
and a pixel electrode (pixel electrode 55) on the transistor, wherein the active layer includes:
a first sub-active layer (A-3) adjacent to the substrate,
a second sub-active layer (A1) disposed on the first sub-active layer,
and a third sub-active layer (A2) disposed on the second sub-active layer,
the second sub-active layer is disposed between the first sub-active layer and the third sub-active layer (see Fig. 3A),
and the second sub-active layer has an amount of oxygen vacancies smaller than those of the first sub-active layer (para. 84 “at least the oxygen concentration of the third area A3 is lower than the oxygen concentration at the first area A1.”).
Takata does not explicitly state the difference in the oxygen vacancies between the second and third sub-active layers (A1 and A2). However, Takata states that the eletron effinity of A1 is larger than the electron affinity of A2 and A3 and that the electron affinity of A3 and A1 are controlled by setting the number of oxygen vacancies. (para. [0084] “By providing the oxygen concentration at the first area A.sub.1 higher than that at the third area A.sub.3, the electron affinity X.sub.1 at the first area A.sub.1 larger than the electron affinity X.sub.3 at the third area A.sub.3 can be provided.”) It would therefore be obvious to control the electron affinity of A2 with the same method, meeting the limitation:
and the second sub-active layer has an amount of oxygen vacancies smaller than those of the third sub-active layer
Claims 1, 3, 5, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) as applied in view of Lee (Compound Semiconductor Week 2016).
With respect to claim 1, Takata teaches in Figs. 3A and 17:
A method for fabricating a display device,
the method comprising:
providing a substrate (substrate 11) into a chamber (para. 37 “the film formation step includes forming the first area under a first value of oxygen partial pressure/argon partial pressure in a film formation chamber”);
forming an active material layer (12, comprising first, second, and third areas A1, A2, and A3) on the substrate (11) by a plurality of deposition processes in the chamber (para. 37);
forming an active layer by patterning the active material layer (para. 124, “the oxide semiconductor layer 12 is patterned”): forming a transistor including a gate electrode overlapping the active layer (gate electrode 16);
and forming a pixel electrode (pixel electrode 55) on the transistor,
wherein the plurality of deposition processes include:
a first deposition process that applies a first power to form a first portion of the active material layer:
and a second deposition process that applies a second power to form a second portion of the active material layer,
wherein at least one of (i) the first power and the second power (para. 136 “The film formation of the first area may be achieved, for example, by once stopping the film formation after the third area has been formed and changing the oxygen partial pressure in the film formation chamber and the electric power applied to the target, and then, restarting the film formation, or by rapidly or slowly changing the oxygen partial pressure in the film formation chamber and the electric power applied to the target without stopping the film formation”).
or (ii) the first flow rate of oxygen gas and the second flow rate of oxygen gas is different.
Takata does not mention a flow rate of oxygen gas and instead controls oxygen content through control of oxygen partial pressure. Takata does not teach:
a first deposition process that applies a first flow rate of oxygen gas to form a first portion of the active material layer:
and a second deposition process that applies a second flow rate of oxygen gas to form a second portion of the active material layer,
Lee teaches that it is known that a method of decreasing vacancies to increase the flow rate of O2 gas: see Fig. 6, OII corresponds to oxygen vacancies which decrease monotonically as flow rate increases from 1 sccm to 5 sccm.
It would be obvious to make the layers of Takata with different numbers of oxygen vacancies by using the method of changing the flow rate of oxygen gas between deposition processes, therefore Takata modified by Lee teaches:
a first deposition process that applies a first flow rate of oxygen gas to form a first portion of the active material layer:
and a second deposition process that applies a second flow rate of oxygen gas to form a second portion of the active material layer,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Takata to deposit the different layers of oxide semiconductor with different oxygen flow rates because the known technique of controlling vacancies by altering flow rate of oxygen was recognized as part of ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 3, Takata further teaches:wherein the active layer (12) includes:
a first sub-active layer (A3) disposed in a first sub-active area adjacent to the substrate;
a second sub-active layer (A1) disposed in a second sub-active area on the first sub-active area;
and a third sub-active layer (A2) disposed in a third sub-active area on the second sub-active area.
With respect to claim 5, Takata further teaches:
wherein a first interface is formed between the first sub-active layer and the second sub-active layer, and a second interface is formed between the second sub-active layer and the third sub-active layer. (para. 53 “Since the first to third areas of the oxide semiconductor layer are made of the same type of materials, defect density at the interface is smaller than a case where the first area forming the channel layer is in contact with a different material”).
With respect to claim 18, Takata teaches all limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 18 depends. Takata fails to teach:
wherein the second sub-active layer includes an amount of oxygen-metal bonding components larger than those of the first sub-active layer and/or the third sub-active layer.
Lee teaches that it is known that a method of decreasing vacancies to increase the flow rate of O2 gas: see Fig. 6, OII corresponds to oxygen vacancies which decrease monotonically as flow rate increases from 1 sccm to 5 sccm. The M-O bonds are represented by O-I which increases monotonically with the same change.
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the layers of Takata that have different numbers of oxygen vacancies using the method of Lee in which the samples with fewer vacancies are grown with a higher flow rate of oxygen gas which leads to more M-O bonds in the layer with less vacancies as taught by Lee, 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.
With respect to claim 19, Takata teaches all limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 19 depends. Takata fails to teach:
wherein the second sub-active layer includes an amount of metal-OH bonding components smaller than those of the first sub-active layer and/or the third sub-active layer.
Lee teaches that it is known that a method of decreasing vacancies to increase the flow rate of O2 gas: see Fig. 6, OII corresponds to oxygen vacancies which decrease monotonically as flow rate increases from 1 sccm to 5 sccm. The M-OH bonds are represented by O-III which decreases monotonically with the same change.
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the layers of Takata that have different numbers of oxygen vacancies using the method of Lee in which the samples with fewer vacancies are grown with a higher flow rate of oxygen gas which leads to fewer M-OH bonds in the layer with less vacancies as taught by Lee, 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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) and Lee (Compound Semiconductor Week 2016) as applied to claims 3 and further in view of Kurata (US 2014/0291674 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Takata/Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 4 depends. Takata/Lee fails to teach:
wherein the first sub-active layer, the second sub-active layer, and the third sub-active layer are integral with each other without an interface therebetween.
Kurata teaches:
wherein the first sub-active layer, the second sub-active layer, and the third sub-active layer are integral with each other without an interface therebetween. (para. 75 “there is a mixed region of the oxide semiconductor layer 106a and the oxide semiconductor layer 106b between the oxide semiconductor layer 106a and the oxide semiconductor layer 106b. Furthermore, in some cases, there is a mixed region of the oxide semiconductor layer 106b and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c between the oxide semiconductor layer 106b and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c. The mixed region has a low interface state density. For that reason, the stack of the oxide semiconductor layer 106a, the oxide semiconductor layer 106b, and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c has a band structure where energy at each interface and in the vicinity of the interface is changed continuously (continuous junction).”)
Takata/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the sub-layers being integral. Kurata discloses that it is known in the art to make metal oxide sublayers with different compositions that include mixed regions between the sublayers such that the layers are integral to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the layers of Takata with mixed regions between them as taught by Kurata for the purpose of minimizing defects formed at the interface of the layers. See MPEP 2144.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) and Lee (Compound Semiconductor Week 2016) as applied to claim 3 above in view of Sohn (US 2021/0408292 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Takata teaches all limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 6 depends. Takata further teaches:
and forming a gate insulating film (gate insulating film 15) between the gate electrode (16) and the active layer (12),
the third sub-active area (A2) is disposed adjacent to the gate insulating film (15),
and the second sub-active area (A1) is disposed between the first sub-active area (A-3) and the third sub-active area (A2).
Takata/Lee fails to teach:
forming a buffer film between the substrate and the active layer;
wherein the first sub-active area is disposed adjacent to the buffer film
Sohn teaches:
forming a buffer film (buffer film 111) between the substrate (substrate 100) and the active layer (active layer A);
wherein the first sub-active area (first semiconductor material layer SCL1) is disposed adjacent to the buffer film (111)
Takata/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a buffer layer between the substrate and the active layer. Sohn teaches that it is known to include a substrate between a substrate and the active layer in a transistor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Takata/Lee to include a buffer layer as taught by Sohn since Sohn states in para. 68 that such a modification would “reduce or block the penetration of foreign matter, moisture, and/or external air from a lower portion of the substrate”. See MPEP 2144.
With respect to claim 7, Takata/Lee modified by Sohn to include a buffer layer between the active layer and substrate teaches:
wherein the first sub-active layer (A3 of Takata, in a similar location to SCL1 of Sohn) in the first sub-active area is in contact with the buffer film (111 of Sohn), and the third sub-active layer (A2 of Takata) in the third sub-active area is in contact with the gate insulating film (115 of Takata).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takata in view of Lee and Sohn as explained above.
Claim 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) and Lee (Compound Semiconductor Week 2016) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Hardy (Semicore, Features of In-Line Sputtering Systems, 2013).
With respect to claim 8, Takata/Lee teaches all limitations of claim 3 upon which claim 8 depends. Takata/Lee does not specify if the sub-active material layers are deposited in different areas and therefore fails to teach:
wherein the chamber includes:
a first deposition area for depositing a first sub-active material layer in the first sub-active area on the substrate;
a second deposition area for depositing a second sub-active material layer in the second sub-active area on the substrate;
and a third deposition area for depositing a third sub-active material layer in the third sub-active area on the substrate.
Hardy teaches that is it known to deposit different layers in different areas of a deposition chamber:
“An “In-Line” PVD Sputtering System is one in which substrates pass linearly beneath one or more Sputter cathodes to acquire their Thin-Film deposition coating.”
Modifying the method of Takata/Lee in which three thin film layers are deposited with the method of Hardy in which different film layers are deposited in different areas of the chamber by linearly passing the substrate renders obvious:
wherein the chamber includes:
a first deposition area for depositing a first sub-active material layer in the first sub-active area on the substrate;
a second deposition area for depositing a second sub-active material layer in the second sub-active area on the substrate;
and a third deposition area for depositing a third sub-active material layer in the third sub-active area on the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Takata/Lee with the in-line sputtering system taught by Hardy. The claim would have been obvious because the technique of sputtering different thin film layers by linearly moving the substrate was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement as taught by Hardy. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 9, Takata/Lee/Hardy further teaches:
providing the substrate to the first deposition area;
providing the substrate to the second deposition area;
and providing the substrate to the third deposition area (“substrates pass linearly beneath one or more Sputter cathodes to acquire their Thin-Film deposition coating”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takata in view of Lee and Hardy as explained above.
With respect to claim 10, Takata further teaches:
wherein the plurality of deposition processes include:
forming the first sub-active material layer (third area A3) in the first sub-active area on the substrate by applying the first power to the first deposition area;
forming a second sub-active material layer (first area A1) in the second sub-active area on the substrate by applying the second power to the second deposition area;
and forming the third sub-active material layer (second area A2--) in the third sub-active area on the substrate by applying a third power to the third deposition area,
and at least two of the first, second, and third powers have different magnitudes. (para. 136 “The film formation of the first area may be achieved, for example, by once stopping the film formation after the third area has been formed and changing the oxygen partial pressure in the film formation chamber and the electric power applied to the target, and then, restarting the film formation, or by rapidly or slowly changing the oxygen partial pressure in the film formation chamber and the electric power applied to the target without stopping the film formation”).
With respect to claim 11, Takata further teaches:
wherein the first power has a magnitude different from a magnitude of the second power (para. 136),
and the third power has a magnitude different from the magnitude of the second power. (para. 140).
With respect to claim 13 Takata further teaches:
wherein a first interface is formed between the first sub-active material layer and the second sub-active material layer,
and a second interface is formed between the second sub-active material layer and the third sub-active material layer. (para. 53 “Since the first to third areas of the oxide semiconductor layer are made of the same type of materials, defect density at the interface is smaller than a case where the first area forming the channel layer is in contact with a different material. Thus, a thin-film transistor which also has good uniformity, stability and reliability is provided.” Takata also teaches that the sublayers A1 to A3) are made by similar processes and therefore it would be obvious for an interface to be formed between each of the layers in contact with each other)
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches that it is known that a method of decreasing vacancies to increase the flow rate of O2 gas: see Fig. 6, OII corresponds to oxygen vacancies which decrease monotonically as flow rate increases from 1 sccm to 5 sccm.
It would be obvious to make the layers of Takata with different numbers of oxygen vacancies by using the method of changing the flow rate of oxygen gas between deposition processes, therefore Takata modified by Lee teaches:
wherein the forming of the first sub-active material layer is performed by applying oxygen gas of a first flow rate to the first deposition area,
the forming of the second sub-active material layer is performed by applying oxygen gas of a second flow rate to the second deposition area,
the forming of the third sub-active material layer is performed by applying oxygen gas of a third flow rate to the third deposition area,
and at least two of the first, second, and third flow rates have different magnitudes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the method of Takata/Lee/Hardy to deposit the different layers of oxide semiconductor with different oxygen flow rates because the known technique of controlling vacancies by altering flow rate of oxygen was recognized as part of ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) in view of Lee (Compound Semiconductor Week 2016) and Hardy (Semicore, Features of In-Line Sputtering Systems, 2013) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Kurata (US 2014/0291674 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Takata/Lee/Hardy teaches all limitations of claim 10 upon which claim 12 depends. Takata/Lee/Hardy fails to teach:
the second sub-active material layer,
and the third sub-active material layer are integral with each other without an interface.
Kurata teaches:
the second sub-active material layer,
and the third sub-active material layer are integral with each other without an interface. (para. 75 “there is a mixed region of the oxide semiconductor layer 106a and the oxide semiconductor layer 106b between the oxide semiconductor layer 106a and the oxide semiconductor layer 106b. Furthermore, in some cases, there is a mixed region of the oxide semiconductor layer 106b and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c between the oxide semiconductor layer 106b and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c. The mixed region has a low interface state density. For that reason, the stack of the oxide semiconductor layer 106a, the oxide semiconductor layer 106b, and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c has a band structure where energy at each interface and in the vicinity of the interface is changed continuously (continuous junction).”)
Takata/Lee/Hardy discloses the claimed invention except for the sub-layers being integral. Kurata discloses that it is known in the art to make metal oxide sublayers with different compositions that include mixed regions between the sublayers such that the layers are integral to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the layers of Takata/Lee/Hardy with mixed regions between them as taught by Kurata for the purpose of minimizing defects formed at the interface of the layers. See MPEP 2144.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) in view of Lee (Compound Semiconductor Week 2016) and Hardy (Semicore, Features of In-Line Sputtering Systems, 2013) and further in view of Shi (Journal of Semiconductors, 2013).
With respect to claim 15, Lee teaches that increasing flow rate decreases the concentration of oxygen vacancies. Therefore, in order to make a device in which the second-sub active material has fewer vacancies such as the device of Takata requires using a greater flow rate for the second sub-active area which teaches:
wherein the second flow rate is greater than the first flow rate and/or the third flow rate
Takata teaches that power is adjusted to change the composition of the films but does not specify which powers are used. Takata/Lee/Hardy therefore fails to teach:
and the second power is smaller than the first power and/or the third power.
Shi teaches that it is known that a method of decreasing vacancies is to slow the deposition rate which can be done by reducing RF power:
“Therefore, we can directly draw the conclusion that the decrease in resistivity with increasing RF power mainly results from the increase in carrier concentration. With higher RF power, sputtered-target-atoms with higher kinetic energy arrive at the substrate, leading to increased local bonding order and less dangling bonds in the de posited filmsŒ14. Consequently, it could be inferred that sputtered a-IGZO films with higher RF power might also have a more ordered microstructure and less defects, thus resulting in a higher carrier concentration and lower resistivity of a-IGZO thin films” (page 084003-2)
Therefore, in order to create the film of Takata in which the second sub-active layer has fewer vacancies, Shi teaches that it would be obvious to have a lower power in the sub-active layer, rendering obvious:
and the second power is smaller than the first power and/or the third power.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Takata/Lee/Hardy to deposit the different layers of oxide semiconductor with less power in the middle layer because the known technique of controlling vacancies by altering power was recognized as part of ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Shi (Journal of Semiconductors, 2013) as evidenced by Miyase (ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology, 2014).
With respect to claim 17, Takata teaches all limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 17 depends. Takata fails to teach:
wherein the second sub-active layer includes an amount of hydrogen larger than those of the first sub-active layer and/or the third sub-active layer.
Shi teaches that it is known that a method of decreasing vacancies is to slow the deposition rate which can be done by reducing RF power:
“Therefore, we can directly draw the conclusion that the decrease in resistivity with increasing RF power mainly results from the increase in carrier concentration. With higher RF power, sputtered-target-atoms with higher kinetic energy arrive at the substrate, leading to increased local bonding order and less dangling bonds in the de posited filmsŒ14. Consequently, it could be inferred that sputtered a-IGZO films with higher RF power might also have a more ordered microstructure and less defects, thus resulting in a higher carrier concentration and lower resistivity of a-IGZO thin films” (page 084003-2)
Miyase teaches that is known that reducing the RF frequency leads to more hydrogen in a layer:
“We, therefore, increased the film deposition rate by increasing the RF power, which varied the deposition rate from ∼3(70W) to∼16 (150 W), and to ∼19nm/min(200W). As seen in the violet (150W) and green squares (200 W) in Fig. 1b, the hydrogen content decreased to almost the background level of the SIMS measurement chamber (∼1019 cm−3 in this case).”
It would have been obvious to one to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the layers of Takata that have different numbers of oxygen vacancies using the method of Shi in which the samples with more vacancies are grown with more RF power which leads to more hydrogen in the layer with less vacancies as taught by Miyase, 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.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata (US 2011/0140100 A1) as applied to 16 above and further in view of Kurata (US 2014/0291674 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Takata teaches all limitations of claim 16 upon which claim 21 depends. Takata fails to teach:
wherein the first sub-active layer, the second sub-active layer, and the third sub-active layer are integral with each other without an interface.
Kurata teaches:
wherein the first sub-active layer, the second sub-active layer, and the third sub-active layer are integral with each other without an interface. (para. 75 “there is a mixed region of the oxide semiconductor layer 106a and the oxide semiconductor layer 106b between the oxide semiconductor layer 106a and the oxide semiconductor layer 106b. Furthermore, in some cases, there is a mixed region of the oxide semiconductor layer 106b and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c between the oxide semiconductor layer 106b and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c. The mixed region has a low interface state density. For that reason, the stack of the oxide semiconductor layer 106a, the oxide semiconductor layer 106b, and the oxide semiconductor layer 106c has a band structure where energy at each interface and in the vicinity of the interface is changed continuously (continuous junction).”)
Takata discloses the claimed invention except for the sub-layers being integral. Kurata discloses that it is known in the art to make metal oxide sublayers with different compositions that include mixed regions between the sublayers such that the layers are integral to each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the layers of Takata with mixed regions between them as taught by Kurata for the purpose of minimizing defects formed at the interface of the layers. See MPEP 2144.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections due to informalities are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The amendment to claim 16 overcomes the nonstatuatory double patenting rejection, which is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Takata and Lee do not teach the claimed subject matter because the deposition processes of Takata are allegedly do not suggest defining and applying “distinct combinations of power and oxygen flow rate in separate deposition processes to form respective portions of a single layer.” However, Takata teaches that the conditions for deposition may be changed either gradually as noted by the applicant, or by starting and stopping the deposition with different parameters (see para. [0136] “The film formation of the first area may be achieved, for example, by once stopping the film formation after the third area has been formed and changing the oxygen partial pressure in the film formation chamber and the electric power applied to the target”.) Although Takata does not include oxygen flow rate as one of various the parameters for film deposition that is adjusted to optimize oxygen concentrations and instead uses oxygen partial pressure, Lee is relied upon to teach that oxygen flow rate is another parameter that may be adjusted to tune the number of oxygen vacancies as described above. The argument is therefore found not persuasive as adjusting multiple parameters for deposition between deposition processes to control oxygen vacancy concentration is known in the art and it is also known in the art that oxygen flow rate is a parameter that may be adjusted to control oxygen vacancies.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16 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. Applicant argues that Takata does not teach the oxygen vacancy concentrations required by the amended claim. New grounds of rejection based on obviousness analysis of the relationship between electron affinity of the layers and the relationship between electron affinity and oxygen vacancy concentration was introduced above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AARON MICHAEL WEGNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7647. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/A.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights