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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " wherein the hydrogen trap region is formed by the impurity implanted using the gate electrode as a mask " in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, while establishing an impurity, does not establish an implantation process, nor that the gate electrode is used as a mask. Claim 11, being dependent upon Claim 10 and is thus rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okazaki et al US 2021/0005738.
Pertaining to claim 1, Okazaki teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
an oxide insulating layer 103 [0075];
an oxide semiconductor layer 108 [0075] on the oxide insulating layer;
a gate insulating layer 110 [0076] on and in contact with the oxide semiconductor layer; and
a gate electrode 112/114 [0076][0085] on the gate insulating layer,
wherein the oxide semiconductor layer comprises:
a channel region overlapping the gate electrode [0064]; and
source and drain regions 108n see Figure 2b (marked up below) that do not overlap the gate electrode 112, at an interface between the source and drain regions and the gate insulating layer, a concentration of an impurity on a surface of at least one of the source and drain regions is greater than or equal to 1 x 1019 cm-3. [0069]
PNG
media_image1.png
227
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 2, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the impurity is one selected from the group consisting of boron, phosphorus, argon, and nitrogen. [0065]
Pertaining to claim 4, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the oxide semiconductor layer 108 has a polycrystalline structure. [0170]
Pertaining to claim 7, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the oxide insulating layer comprises aluminum oxide. [0095]
Pertaining to claim 8, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising source and drain electrodes 120a/120b electrically connected to the source and drain regions 108n, respectively, wherein the source and drain electrodes are in contact with a surface of the gate insulating layer 110 that is contact with the gate electrode 112/114 [0085] see Figure 2B.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki as applied to claim 1 above
Pertaining to claim 3, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, including
wherein the oxide semiconductor layer 108 comprises a plurality of metal elements [0089],
one of the plurality of metal elements is indium [0089].
Okazaki is silent with respect to an atomic ratio of indium to the plurality of metal elements is greater than or equal to 50%. Okazaki does teach that higher indium compositions in the oxide semiconductor layer results in increase field effect mobility [0089]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the indium concentration through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the indium concentration is a result-effective variable (field effect mobility) and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Yuan US 2012/0153288.
Pertaining to claim 5, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 4, wherein a crystal structure of the oxide semiconductor layer is polycrystalline, but is silent wherein at least one of the source and drain regions is a same as a crystal structure of the oxide semiconductor layer. Yuan teaches that the source and drain regions of a transistor can be polycystalline [0049]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select a polycrystalline material for the source and drain regions, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzumura et al US 2022/0246764.
Pertaining to claim 6, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, but is silent wherein a sheet resistance of at least one of the source and drain regions is less than or equal to 1x102 kΩ/sq. Suzumura teaches that the sheet resistance of a source and/or drain region is 1.4 to 20 kΩ/sq
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the sheet resistance through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because sheet resistance is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al US 2021/0066505.
Pertaining to claim 9, Okazaki teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, but is silent wherein the gate insulating layer comprises a hydrogen trap region that traps hydrogen. Lee teaches a gate insulating layer that comprises a hydrogen trap region 114 that traps hydrogen.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the device of Okazaki by adding a hydrogen trap layer to the gate insulating layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Okazaki in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of preventing malfunctions in display devices due to hydrogen diffusion [0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817