DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is broad and 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is 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. As to claim 8, the limitation “in a direction” appears to direct to the extension toward the left direction of the first portion. However, the second length appears to direct to the extension toward the right direction of the second portion and not the same “direction” as claimed. It is not clear whether the directions should be different rather than the recited “the direction”. It is not clear whether the same direction reads on the portion above 123 rather than the portion above 125a. Thus, the limitation renders the claim indefinite and clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0148921 A1 to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”). As to claim 1, Zhao discloses a thin film transistor, comprising: a semiconductor layer (42) having a first heavily doped region (421), a first lightly doped region (4231), a first intrinsic region (4201), a second lightly doped region (4233), a second intrinsic region (4202), a third lightly doped region (4232) and a second heavily doped region (422) arranged in sequence; a gate insulating layer (43) disposed on the semiconductor layer (42); a gate (44, 460) comprising: a first conductive pattern (44) disposed on the gate insulating layer (43), and having a first portion (441), a second portion (442) and an opening portion (between first and second portions), wherein the first portion (441) of the first conductive pattern (44) shields the first intrinsic region (4201), the second portion (442) of the first conductive pattern (44) shields the second intrinsic region (4202), and the opening portion (between first and second portions) of the first conductive pattern (44) overlaps the second lightly doped region (4233); and a second conductive pattern (460) covering the first conductive pattern (44), wherein the second conductive pattern (460) has a first portion (left end) and a second portion (right end) extending to an outside of the first conductive pattern (44) and respectively located on two opposite sides of the first conductive pattern (44), and the first portion (left end) and the second portion (right end) of the second conductive pattern (460) respectively shield the first lightly doped region (4231) and the third lightly doped region (4232); and a first terminal (461) and a second terminal (462) respectively electrically connected to the first heavily doped region (421) and the second heavily doped region (422) of the semiconductor layer (42) (See Fig. 4, ¶ 0039-¶ 0042, ¶ 0044-¶ 0051) (Notes: the limitation “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com).
As to claim 2, Zhao further discloses wherein the first portion (left end) of the second conductive pattern (460) covers a sidewall of the first portion (441) of the first conductive pattern (44) (See Fig. 4).
As to claim 3, Zhao further discloses wherein the second portion (right end) of the second conductive pattern (460) covers a sidewall of the second portion (442) of the first conductive pattern (44) (See Fig. 4).
As to claim 4, Zhao further discloses wherein the first lightly doped region (4231) has a first edge and a second edge opposite to each other, and the first edge of the first lightly doped region (4231) is substantially aligned with an edge of the first portion (left end) of the second conductive pattern (460) (See Fig. 4) (Notes: the limitation of “substantially” is not explicitly defined, where the close proximity of the edges is considered “substantially aligned”. Further, the limitation “align” is defined as to bring (components or parts, such as the wheels of a car) into proper or desirable coordination or relation by Dictionary.com).
As to claim 5, Zhao further discloses wherein the second edge of the first lightly doped region (4231) is substantially aligned with an edge of the first portion (441) of the first conductive pattern (44) (See Fig. 4).
As to claim 6, Zhao further discloses wherein the third lightly doped region (4232) has a first edge and a second edge opposite to each other, and the first edge of the third lightly doped region (4232) is substantially aligned with an edge of the second portion (right end) of the second conductive pattern (460) (See Fig. 4) (Notes: the limitation of “substantially” is not explicitly defined, where the close proximity of the edges is considered “substantially aligned”. Further, the limitation “align” is defined as to bring (components or parts, such as the wheels of a car) into proper or desirable coordination or relation by Dictionary.com).
As to claim 7, Zhao further discloses wherein the second edge of the third lightly doped region (4232) is substantially aligned with an edge of the second portion (442) of the first conductive pattern (44) (See Fig. 4). As to claim 8, Zhao further discloses wherein the first portion (left end) of the second conductive pattern (460) has a first length beyond the first conductive pattern (44) in a direction, the second portion (right end) of the second conductive pattern (460) has a second length beyond the first conductive pattern (44) in the direction, and the second length is greater than the first length (See Fig. 4) (Notes: a selective smaller first portion is shorter than a selective larger second portion in view of the recited “portion”).
As to claim 10, Zhao further discloses wherein the second conductive pattern (460) shields the first lightly doped region (4231), the first intrinsic region (4201), the second lightly doped region (4233), the second intrinsic region (4202) and the third lightly doped region (4232) (See Fig. 4).
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.
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) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0148921 A1 to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0007535 A1 to Tang et al. (“Tang”). The teaching of Zhao has been discussed above. As to claim 9, Zhao in view of Tang further discloses wherein the first terminal (461) and the second terminal (462) are arranged in a direction, the first lightly doped region (4231/246) has a width in the direction, the third lightly doped region (4232/240) has a width (H1) in the direction, and the width (H1) of the third lightly doped region (4232/240) is greater than the width of the first lightly doped region (4231/246) (See Zhao Fig. 4 and Tang Fig. 3, ¶ 0021-¶ 0025) such that the total resistance of the leakage current path is specifically increased to decrease the leakage current.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815