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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 9/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims 1-21 is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one group of the claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. This is not found persuasive because claims 14-15, 17, 19-22 would require further search and for the reason of the last Office Action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 9/4/25; 8/21/24 have been considered.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration filed on 7/24/24 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 7, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HE CN112420849A (cited by applicant)
Referring to figures 1-2, HE teaches a thin film transistor, comprising:
a substrate (11); and
a semiconductor layer (14) disposed on the substrate, the semiconductor layer including a first surface proximate to the substrate and a second surface away from the substrate, and a material of the semiconductor layer being a metal oxide semiconductor material (see figures 1, 2a-2i); wherein the semiconductor layer has a channel region (between source/drain), and the semiconductor layer is provided with crystals of metal oxide semiconductor at least in the channel region and proximate to the first surface or the second surface (see figures 1-2)meeting claims 1, 12-13).
Regarding to claim 7, the material of the semiconductor layer is selected from any of indium zinc tin oxide and indium gallium zinc oxide; and the indium zinc tin oxide and the indium gallium zinc oxide are doped or not doped with rare earth elements (see paragraph# 59).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE CN112420849A (cited by applicant) as applied to claims 1, 7, 12-13 above, and further in view of Wang et al. CN112420520.
Referring to figures 1-2, HE teaches a thin film transistor, comprising:
a substrate (11); and
a semiconductor layer (14) disposed on the substrate, the semiconductor layer including a first surface proximate to the substrate and a second surface away from the substrate, and a material of the semiconductor layer being a metal oxide semiconductor material (see figures 1, 2a-2i); wherein the semiconductor layer has a channel region (between source/drain), and the semiconductor layer is provided with crystals of metal oxide semiconductor at least in the channel region and proximate to the first surface or the second surface (see figures 1-2)meeting claims 1, 12-13).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the specific thickness of the crystals in the semiconductor layer and the dimension of a distribution range of the crystals (in claims 2-3).
The selection of the specific thickness of the crystals in the semiconductor layer and the dimension of a distribution range of the crystal is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process condition by routine experimentation with a limited number of species. In re Jones, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1955)(the selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process is obvious). In such a situation, applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to prior art range. See M.P.E.P 2144.05 III. In particular, Wang et al. suggest that the specific thickness of the crystals in the semiconductor layer and the dimension of a distribution range of the crystal (example 1, paragraphs# 19-24, see figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form the specific thickness of the crystals in the semiconductor layer and the dimension of a distribution range of the crystal in HE as taught by Wang et al. because it is known in the art to form a desired crystalline active-channel region with improve mobility.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE CN112420849A (cited by applicant) as applied to claims 1, 7, 12-13 above, and further in view of FUKAYA et al. EP2546884.
Referring to figures 1-2, HE teaches a thin film transistor, comprising:
a substrate (11); and
a semiconductor layer (14) disposed on the substrate, the semiconductor layer including a first surface proximate to the substrate and a second surface away from the substrate, and a material of the semiconductor layer being a metal oxide semiconductor material (see figures 1, 2a-2i); wherein the semiconductor layer has a channel region (between source/drain), and the semiconductor layer is provided with crystals of metal oxide semiconductor at least in the channel region and proximate to the first surface or the second surface (see figures 1-2)meeting claims 1, 12-13).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the specific channel region in a direction of a length of a channel (in claims 4) and distribution density of the crystals (in claim 6).
The selection of the specific channel region in a direction of a length of a channel, and distribution density of the crystals is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process condition by routine experimentation with a limited number of species. In re Jones, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1955)(the selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process is obvious). In such a situation, applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to prior art range. See M.P.E.P 2144.05 III. In particular, FUKAYA et al. teaches a metal oxide layer (13), wherein the metal oxide layer covers at least a middle of the channel region in a direction of a length of a channel (see figures 2-15, meeting claims 4, 6) , a gate insulating layer(13), wherein the metal oxide layer(14) is disposed between the gate insulating layer (12) and the semiconductor layer (15, see figure 2, meeting claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form the specific channel region in a direction of a length of a channel and distribution density of the crystals in HE as taught by FUKAYA et al. because it is known in the art to provide a controlled interface over the channel.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE CN112420849A (cited by applicant) as applied to claims 1, 7, 12-13 above, and further in view of Xu et al. CN112289863.
Referring to figures 1-2, HE teaches a thin film transistor, comprising:
a substrate (11); and
a semiconductor layer (14) disposed on the substrate, the semiconductor layer including a first surface proximate to the substrate and a second surface away from the substrate, and a material of the semiconductor layer being a metal oxide semiconductor material (see figures 1, 2a-2i); wherein the semiconductor layer has a channel region (between source/drain), and the semiconductor layer is provided with crystals of metal oxide semiconductor at least in the channel region and proximate to the first surface or the second surface (see figures 1-2, meeting claims 1, 12-13).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the indium zinc tin oxide and the indium gallium zinc oxide are doped with a rare earth element, the rare earth element is praseodymium (Pr) or terbium (Tb) (in claim 8).
Xu et al. teaches the indium zinc tin oxide and the indium gallium zinc oxide are doped with a rare earth element, the rare earth element is praseodymium (Pr) or terbium (Tb)(see figures 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form indium zinc tin oxide and the indium gallium zinc oxide are doped with a rare earth element, the rare earth element is praseodymium (Pr) or terbium (Tb) in HE as taught by Xu et al. because it is known in the art to form an improved device.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE CN112420849A (cited by applicant) in view of Xu et al. CN112289863 as applied to claims 1, 7-8, 12-13 above, and further in view of Wang et al. CN112420520.
Referring to figures 1-2, HE teaches a thin film transistor, comprising:
a substrate (11); and
a semiconductor layer (14) disposed on the substrate, the semiconductor layer including a first surface proximate to the substrate and a second surface away from the substrate, and a material of the semiconductor layer being a metal oxide semiconductor material (see figures 1, 2a-2i); wherein the semiconductor layer has a channel region (between source/drain), and the semiconductor layer is provided with crystals of metal oxide semiconductor at least in the channel region and proximate to the first surface or the second surface (see figures 1-2) meeting claims 1, 12-13).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the specific composition ratio (in claim 9), the dopant concentration of rare earth element (in claim 10) and the oxygen vacancy concentration of the semiconductor layer (in claim 11).
The selection of the specific composition ratio, the dopant concentration of rare earth element and the oxygen vacancy concentration of the semiconductor layer is obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process condition by routine experimentation with a limited number of species. In re Jones, 162 USPQ 224 (CCPA 1955)(the selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious) and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in a known process is obvious). In such a situation, applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to prior art range. See M.P.E.P 2144.05 III. In particular, Wang et al. suggest that the specific composition ratio (example 1, paragraphs# 19-24, see figures 1-2, meeting claim 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the requisite art at the time of the invention was filed would form the specific composition ratio, the dopant concentration of rare earth element and the oxygen vacancy concentration of the semiconductor layer in HE as taught by Wang et al. because it is known in the art to form a desired semiconductor oxide with improve mobility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights