DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, filed 6 August 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-2 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection have been made in view of newly found references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka (US 20170186843) in view of Ando (US 20170278973), further in view of Koyama (US 20150243332), further in view of Liao, Y. (2006). Strain/Stress Measurement using Electron Diffraction. Practical Electron Microscopy and Database - An Online Book, Second Edition. https://www.globalsino.com/EM/page1302.html (hereinafter referred to as Liao).
7. Regarding claim 1:
Hosaka discloses an evaluation method of a metal oxide film ([0187] teaches evaluation of the variation in orientation of the metal oxide film), comprising:
irradiating a plurality of regions of the metal oxide film with an electron beam to acquire a plurality of electron diffraction patterns ([0187]-[0188] teaches that electron diffraction pattern images of a cross section of a metal oxide film are obtained from a plurality of different regions by scanning an electron beam).
In one embodiment (variation in orientation) Hosaka does not specifically disclose irradiating with a beam diameter of greater than or equal to 0.3 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm. However, Hosaka in further embodiments and descriptions teaches irradiating with a beam diameter of greater than or equal to 0.3 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm ([0201] teaches that observing a spot in an electron diffraction pattern with a small beam diameter greater than or equal to 0.3nm and less than or equal to 10nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka to include irradiating with a beam diameter of greater than or equal to 0.3 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm. Such modification would allow for observing crystal part that is not observed as a spot in an electron diffraction pattern with a large beam diameter (as taught in Hosaka [0201]).
Hosaka fails to disclose irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film; calculating interplanar spacings d for a plurality of spots observed in the plurality of electron diffraction patterns.
However, Ando teaches irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film ([0692] teaches a diffraction pattern obtained in such a manner that an electron beam is incident on the same sample in the direction perpendicular to the sample surface. [0692] teaches an electron beam is incident on a CAAC-OS (c-axis aligned crystalline oxide semiconductor) including an InGaZnO4 crystal, which is a type of metal oxide film); calculating interplanar spacings d for a plurality of spots observed in the plurality of electron diffraction patterns ([0704] teaches that a plurality of spots are observed in a ring-like region. [0715] teaches that the distance between the adjacent layers is equivalent to the lattice spacing (also referred to as d value). The value is then calculated from crystal structural analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka in view of Ando to include irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film; calculating interplanar spacings d for a plurality of spots observed in the plurality of electron diffraction patterns. Such modification would allow for observing different axes of the sample, obtaining a complete structural data (as taught in Ando [0692]), and determining the spacing between stacked layers (as taught in Ando [0715]).
Hosaka in view of Ando does not specify irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film while scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface.
Koyama teaches irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film while scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface ([0196] teaches that the nanobeam diffraction is performed on the top surface of the CAAC-OS film. [0167] teaches that the CAAC0OS film is observed in a direction perpendicular to the sample surface (plan-view image). [0190]-[0191] fig. 12D teaches the beam 84 incident normal to planar substance 88. [0194] teaches changes in the structure of a substance can be observed by changing the irradiation position of the electrons 84 that are a nanobeam on the substance (or by scanning) as illustrated in FIG. 12D. Changing the position corresponds to scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka in view of Ando, further in view of Koyama to include irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film while scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the structure of a substance can be observed by changing the irradiation position of the beam (Koyama [0194]) and that the structure of an oxide semiconductor film having a plurality of structures can be analyzed (Koyama [0200]).
Hosaka in view of Ando, further in view of Koyama fails to disclose evaluating crystallinity of the metal oxide film from a shape of frequency distribution of the interplanar spacings d.
Liao does not specifically teach the metal oxide film. However, Liao teaches evaluating crystallinity of different elements of microstructures from a shape of frequency distribution of the interplanar spacings d (pg. 1-2 fig. 1302(d) teaches that the crystallographic plane has a distribution of d-spacings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka in view of Ando, further in view of Liao to include evaluating crystallinity of the metal oxide film from a shape of frequency distribution of the interplanar spacings d. Even though Liao does not specifically teach the metal oxide film, one of ordinary skill in the art can apply the evaluation method based on d-spacings in Liao in the system of Hosaka to evaluate crystallinity of the metal oxide. Such modification would allow for evaluating the crystallographic plane and typical correlations between diffraction peak aberrations (as taught in Liao pg. 1-2).
8. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka in view of Ando, further in view of Koyama.
9. Regarding claim 2:
Hosaka discloses an evaluation method of a metal oxide film ([0187] teaches evaluation of the variation in orientation of the metal oxide film), comprising:
irradiating a plurality of regions of the metal oxide film with an electron beam to acquire a plurality of electron diffraction patterns ([0187]-[0188] teaches that electron diffraction pattern images of a cross section of a metal oxide film are obtained from a plurality of different regions by scanning an electron beam);
calculating angles
θ
from reference lines for a plurality of spots observed in the plurality of electron diffraction patterns ([0187] teaches the slope of a straight line passing through the center of the electron diffraction pattern and the first spots with respect to the thickness direction of the metal oxide film is measured in each of the obtained images. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the thickness direction corresponds to the reference lines and the slope corresponds to calculating the angle); and
evaluating crystallinity of the metal oxide film from a shape of distribution of the angles
θ
(fig. 10 ([0191] fig. 10 teaches distribution of orientation estimated from the electron diffraction patterns. The evaluation is done based on the distribution. [0191] fig. 10 shows that there is little difference in orientation angle between the samples, and the variation falls within a range of less than 10 degrees in each sample. [0187] teaches that in this manner, variation in orientation of crystal parts can be estimated).
In one embodiment (variation in orientation) Hosaka does not specifically disclose irradiating with a beam diameter of greater than or equal to 0.3 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm. However, Hosaka in further embodiments and descriptions teaches irradiating with a beam diameter of greater than or equal to 0.3 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm ([0201] teaches that observing a spot in an electron diffraction pattern with a small beam diameter greater than or equal to 0.3nm and less than or equal to 10nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka to include irradiating with a beam diameter of greater than or equal to 0.3 nm and less than or equal to 10 nm. Such modification would allow for observing crystal part that is not observed as a spot in an electron diffraction pattern with a large beam diameter (as taught in Hosaka [0201]).
Hosaka fails to disclose irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film; calculating interplanar spacings d for a plurality of spots observed in the plurality of electron diffraction patterns.
However, Ando teaches irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film ([0692] teaches a diffraction pattern obtained in such a manner that an electron beam is incident on the same sample in the direction perpendicular to the sample surface. [0692] teaches an electron beam is incident on a CAAC-OS (c-axis aligned crystalline oxide semiconductor) including an InGaZnO4 crystal, which is a type of metal oxide film); calculating interplanar spacings d for a plurality of spots observed in the plurality of electron diffraction patterns ([0704] teaches that a plurality of spots are observed in a ring-like region. [0715] teaches that the distance between the adjacent layers is equivalent to the lattice spacing (also referred to as d value). The value is then calculated from crystal structural analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka in view of Ando to include irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film. Such modification would allow for observing different axes of the sample, obtaining a complete structural data (as taught in Ando [0692]), and determining the spacing between stacked layers (as taught in Ando [0715]).
Hosaka in view of Ando does not specify irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film while scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface.
Koyama teaches irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film while scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface ([0196] teaches that the nanobeam diffraction is performed on the top surface of the CAAC-OS film. [0167] teaches that the CAAC0OS film is observed in a direction perpendicular to the sample surface (plan-view image). [0190]-[0191] fig. 12D teaches the beam 84 incident normal to planar substance 88. [0194] teaches changes in the structure of a substance can be observed by changing the irradiation position of the electrons 84 that are a nanobeam on the substance (or by scanning) as illustrated in FIG. 12D. Changing the position corresponds to scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hosaka in view of Ando, further in view of Koyama to include irradiating a beam from a direction perpendicular to a film surface of the metal oxide film while scanning the electron beam parallel to a direction of the film surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that the structure of a substance can be observed by changing the irradiation position of the beam (Koyama [0194]) and that the structure of an oxide semiconductor film having a plurality of structures can be analyzed (Koyama [0200]).
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 LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
