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 .
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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 12/26/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 has the redundant duplication “a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer, and the hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than or equal to 4%”; which appears to be a typographical error.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luis et al. (PG Pub 2018/0120612; hereinafter Luis) and Li et al. (EP 3671824; hereinafter Li).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 6 provided above, Luis teaches a transistor structure (see claim limitations below) comprising:
a substrate 1;
a buffer layer 112,112’ disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 6); and
a transistor (e.g. TFT-2) disposed on a side of the buffer layer away from the substrate (top side);
wherein the buffer layer comprises a first silicon oxide layer 112 and a second silicon oxide layer 112’ stacked on the substrate in sequence (see Fig. 6).
Luis teaches the hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer (5-10%) is higher than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (less than 3%). Luis does not teach “a hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than 4%, and a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (para [0048]).
PNG
media_image2.png
142
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 2 provided above, Li teaches an array substrate comprising: a buffer layer 20; wherein the buffer layer comprises a first silicon oxide layer 21 and a second silicon oxide layer 22 stacked on the substrate in sequence (see Fig. 2); and wherein a hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than 4%, and a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (para [0020]; “The hydrogen content in the first silicon oxide layer 21 is higher than the hydrogen content in the second silicon oxide layer 22. In other embodiments according to the present disclosure, the oxygen content in the first silicon oxide layer 21 is lower than the oxygen content in the second silicon oxide layer 22”).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equally flip the hydrogen contents of the first and second silicon oxide layer, as taught by Li, such that the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer, as taught by Li, to increase the stability of the whole TFT device and increase the final yield of product (para [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
the hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) is less than or equal to 4% (para [0048]-Luis).
Regarding claim 3, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) is greater than or equal to 500 angstroms (para [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches a refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) is greater than a refractive index of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li).
The recitations to “a refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a refractive index of the first silicon oxide layer” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the refractive indexes of the first and second silicon oxide layers with respect to the hydrogen content) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,1255,195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches a thickness of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) (800 Angstroms; para [0024]) is greater than a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) (500 Angstroms; para [0023]).
Regarding claim 6, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) is between 5% and 9% (para [0048]-Luis).
Regarding claim 7, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches the refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer is between 1.50 and 1.58.
The recitations to “the refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer is between 1.50 and 1.58” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the refractive indexes of the first and second silicon oxide layers with respect to the hydrogen content) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 8, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
the buffer layer (112-Luis = 20-Li) further comprises a third silicon oxide layer (not shown; para [0020-0023]) stacked on a side of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) away from the substrate 1, and a hydrogen content of the third silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer para [0020-0023]).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
the hydrogen content of the third silicon oxide layer (not shown; para [0020-0023]) is greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 4% (para [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Li teaches
a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) is between 500 angstroms and 1000 angstroms (para [0043-0046]), a thickness of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) is between 1000 angstroms and 2000 angstroms (para [0043-0046]), a thickness of the third silicon oxide layer (not shown) is between 500 angstroms and 1000 angstroms (para [0043-0046]), and a refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a refractive index of the third silicon oxide layer.
The recitations to “a refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a refractive index of the third silicon oxide layer” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the refractive indexes of the first and second silicon oxide layers with respect to the hydrogen content) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 11, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
a refractive index of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) is between 1.45 and 1.49, and the refractive index of the third silicon oxide layer (not shown) is between 1.45 and 1.49.
The recitations to “the refractive index of the first silicon oxide layer is between 1.45 and 1.49, and the refractive index of the third silicon oxide layer is between 1.45 and 1.49” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the refractive indexes of the first and second silicon oxide layers with respect to the hydrogen content) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Regarding claim 12, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
the hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is greater than or equal to 2% (para [0048])
Regarding claim 13, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
the transistor (e.g. TFT-2) comprises an active layer 114, a gate insulating layer 115, a gate 31, a source 33 and a drain 34, the active layer is disposed on the side of the buffer layer 112 away from the substrate 1 (see Fig. 6), the gate insulating layer covers the active layer (see Fig. 6), the gate is disposed on a side of the gate insulating layer away from the substrate (see Fig. 6), the source is connected to one end of the active layer (see Fig. 6), the drain is connected to another end of the active layer (see Fig. 6), and a material of the active layer is monocrystalline silicon or polycrystalline silicon (para [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 6 provided above, Luis teaches a driving substrate (see claim limitations below) comprising a transistor structure, wherein the transistor structure comprises:
a substrate 1;
a buffer layer 112,112’ disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 6); and
a transistor (e.g. TFT-2) disposed on a side of the buffer layer away from the substrate (top side);
wherein the buffer layer comprises a first silicon oxide layer 112 and a second silicon oxide layer 112’ stacked on the substrate in sequence (see Fig. 6); wherein a refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) is greater than a refractive index of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li).
The recitations to “a refractive index of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a refractive index of the first silicon oxide layer” are properties and/or characteristics or the material compositions. The applied prior art, teaching a substantially identical apparatus, renders the claimed apparatus unpatentable because the claimed properties and characteristics (i.e., the refractive indexes of the first and second silicon oxide layers with respect to the hydrogen content) are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.
According to the MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims --- When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identical to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent):
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252,1255,195 USPQ 430,433 (CCPA1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,15 USPQ2d 1655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant may rebut this finding by proving the prior art apparatus and the claimed apparatus are not substantially identical or by proving the prior art apparatus does not possess the claimed properties and characteristics. See esp. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971) (holding a claim anticipated, even though the claimed panels were limited by properties and functions not within the prior art, because appellants failed to show the prior art did not possess the characteristics claimed); see also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (a claimed compound’s claimed property, albeit the property newly discovered, did not patentably distinguish from the prior art compound that met the claimed compound); see also, MPEP 2112.01(II). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I).
Luis teaches the hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer (5-10%) is higher than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (less than 3%). Luis does not teach “a hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than 4%, and a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (para [0048]).
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 2 provided above, Li teaches an array substrate comprising: a buffer layer 20; wherein the buffer layer comprises a first silicon oxide layer 21 and a second silicon oxide layer 22 stacked on the substrate in sequence (see Fig. 2); and wherein a hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than 4%, and a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (para [0020]; “The hydrogen content in the first silicon oxide layer 21 is higher than the hydrogen content in the second silicon oxide layer 22. In other embodiments according to the present disclosure, the oxygen content in the first silicon oxide layer 21 is lower than the oxygen content in the second silicon oxide layer 22”).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equally flip the hydrogen contents of the first and second silicon oxide layer, as taught by Li, such that the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer, as taught by Li, to increase the stability of the whole TFT device and increase the final yield of product (para [0005]).
Regarding claim 15, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) is greater than or equal to 500 angstroms (para [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches a thickness of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) (800 Angstroms; para [0024]) is greater than a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) (500 Angstroms; para [0023]).
Regarding claim 17, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches
the buffer layer (112-Luis = 20-Li) further comprises a third silicon oxide layer (not shown; para [0020-0023]) stacked on a side of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) away from the substrate 1, and a hydrogen content of the third silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer para [0020-0023]).
Regarding claim 18, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 6 provided above, Luis teaches a display panel comprising a driving substrate (see claim limitations below), wherein the driving substrate comprises a transistor structure, and the transistor structure comprises:
a substrate 1;
a buffer layer 112,112’ disposed on the substrate (see Fig. 6); and
a transistor (e.g. TFT-2) disposed on a side of the buffer layer away from the substrate (top side);
wherein the buffer layer comprises a first silicon oxide layer 112 and a second silicon oxide layer 112’ stacked on the substrate in sequence (see Fig. 6);
wherein the buffer layer further comprises a third silicon oxide layer (not shown; para [0020-0023]) stacked on a side of the second silicon oxide layer away from the substrate , and a hydrogen content of the third silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer para [0020-0023]).
Luis teaches the hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer (5-10%) is higher than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (less than 3%). Luis does not teach “a hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than 4%, and a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (para [0048]).
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 2 provided above, Li teaches an array substrate comprising: a buffer layer 20; wherein the buffer layer comprises a first silicon oxide layer 21 and a second silicon oxide layer 22 stacked on the substrate in sequence (see Fig. 2); and wherein a hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer is greater than 4%, and a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer is less than the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (para [0020]; “The hydrogen content in the first silicon oxide layer 21 is higher than the hydrogen content in the second silicon oxide layer 22. In other embodiments according to the present disclosure, the oxygen content in the first silicon oxide layer 21 is lower than the oxygen content in the second silicon oxide layer 22”).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equally flip the hydrogen contents of the first and second silicon oxide layer, as taught by Li, such that the second silicon oxide layer is greater than a hydrogen content of the first silicon oxide layer, as taught by Li, to increase the stability of the whole TFT device and increase the final yield of product (para [0005]).
Regarding claim 19, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches the hydrogen content of the second silicon oxide layer (112’-Luis = 22-Li) is between 5% and 9% (para [0048]-Luis), and the hydrogen content of the third silicon oxide layer (not shown; para [0020-0023]) is greater than or equal to 2% and less than or equal to 4% (para [0048]).
Regarding claim 20, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Luis and Li, Luis teaches a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer (112-Luis = 21-Li) is greater than or equal to 500 angstroms (para [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 /MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights