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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgment has been made of the amendment received on 06/22/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
Claims 12 -14 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 12 recites the limitation “ a substrate" in line 4, “a first insulating layer” in line 5, “a second insulating layer” in line 6, “a channel layer” in line 6 , “a source electrode” in line 11, “ a drain electrode” in line 11, “ a step part” in line 13 However, these elements have been already been introduced in claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. It is unclear whether the elements of claim 12 are the same as that of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a short channel” in line 3, There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant is suggested to revise and clarify the claims to avoid any further confusions.
Claims 14 is rejected being dependent on claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR 20070040128A) in view of Nomura et al (US 20160133751A1).
Re claims 1 and 2 Park teaches a driving device (1A), comprising
a substrate (1, fig 1A) [page 3, para 5];
an insulating layer (2, fig 1A) [Page 3, para 5] positioned on the substrate (1);
a channel layer (3, fig 1A) [page 3 para 5] which is positioned on at least some aras of the insulating layer (middle of 2),
a source electrode (7, fig 1A) [page 3, para 6] and a drain electrode (8, fig 1A) [page 3, para 6] which are connected to the channel layer (3, fig 1A) [page 3, para 5], and are positioned on the insulating layer (2, fig 1A) to face each other on both sides centered on the channel layer (3),
wherein the insulating layer (2) comprising a first insulating layer (bottom of 2) formed directly on the substrate (1); and
a second insulating layer (2a) formed along the width direction at a certain height in the center of the upper surface (upper surface of bottom 2, fig 1A) of the first insulating layer (bottom 2), and
the length (L₁₂) of the second insulating layer (length of 2a) is smaller than the length (L₁₁) of the first insulating layer (bottom 2, fig 1A), and
a step part (left and right side of 2a) is formed on both sides of the second insulating layer (2a) facing the source electrode (7, fig 1A) and the drain electrode (8, fig 1A), respectively, and
the step part is spaced apart in the longitudinal direction for the source electrode and the drain electrode, and
a step (left and right part of 3s and 3d, figlA) is formed in the channel layer (3, fig 1A) by the step part (left/right part of 2a, fig 1A).
Park does not teach the channel layer comprises metal oxide and the height of the second insulating layer is 30% or more of a combined height of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer (claim 1) and the height of the second insulating layer is 50% or more of the combined height of the first insulating layer and second insulating layer (claim 2).
Nomura teaches the channel layer (middle 440a, fig 4A) [0060] comprises metal oxide [0011] and the height of the second insulating layer (middle of 430a, thickness between about 50 nm and about 500 nm fig 4A) [0064] is 30% (50%, fig 4A) [0064] or more of a combined height of the first insulating layer (left /right 430a, thickness between about 50 nm and about 500 nm fig 4A) fig 4A) [0064] and the second insulating layer (middle of 430a, thickness between about 50 nm and about 500 nm fig 4A fig 4A ) [0065]. (claim 1) the second insulating layer (middle of 430a, thickness between about 50 nm and about 500 nm fig 4A) and the height of the second insulating layer is 50% (50%) or more of the combined height of the first insulating layer (left /right 430a, thickness between about 50 nm and about 500 nm fig 4A) [0064] fig 4A) [0064] and second insulating layer (middle 430, thickness between about 50 nm and about 500 nm fig 4A) [0064] fig 4A) [0064 (claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Nomura into the structure of Park to include the channel layer comprises metal oxide and the height of the second insulating layer is 30% or more of a combined height of the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer (claim -1) and the height of the second insulating layer is 50% or more of the combined height of the first insulating layer and second insulating layer (claim 2). as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park based on the teaching of Nomura in the above manner for the purpose to achieve improved TFT characteristics.[0066].
Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 5 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 1, the
driving device according to wherein the length (Lc) of the channel layer (length of 3, fig) [Park, Page 3 para 4] is longer than the length (L12) of the second insulating layer. (2a, fig 1A)[Park, page 3, para 4].
Re claim 6 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 1further comprising a gate insulating layer (4, fig 1A) [Park, page 3, para 4] positioned on the channel layer (3, fig 1A); and
a gate electrode (5, fig 1A) [Park, page 3, para 4] positioned on the gate insulating layer (4, fig 1A) [Park, page 3].
Re claim 7 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 1,wherein the length (L12) of the second insulating layer (length of 2a, fig 1A) is equal to or less than (smaller than 5, see fig 1A) the length of the gate electrode (5, fig 1A) [Park, page 3, para 4].
Re claim 8 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 8, wherein the metal oxide of the channel layer comprises indium-gallium-zinc oxide (IGZO) (440a, fig 4A) [Nomura, 0068].
Re claim 9 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 1, wherein the insulating layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide (SiO2) [430a, fig 4A] [Nomura, 0064], silicon nitrite (SiNy) and alumina (A1203) [0064].
Re claim 12 Park teaches a manufacturing method of the driving device according to claim 1, comprising: preparing a substrate (1, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4];
forming a first insulating layer (bottom2, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4] on the substrate (1, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4];
forming a second insulating layer (2a, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4] along the width direction at
a certain height (height of 2a) in the center of the upper surface of the first insulating layer (bottom 2, fig 1A);
forming a channel layer (3, fig 1A) cover at least some of the first insulating layer (see fig 1A) and all of the second insulating layer (2a, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4);
forming a gate insulating layer (4, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4] and a gate electrode (5, fig 1A) on the channel layer (3, fig 1A) with a length equal or more than the length of the second insulating layer (2a, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4]; and
forming a source electrode (7, fig 1A) [page 3, para 6] and a drain electrode (8, fig 1A) [page 3, para 6] to face each other on both sides centered on the channel layer (3, fig, 1A) [page 3, para 4].
wherein a step part (left and right side of 2a, fig 1A) is formed on both sides of the second insulating layer (2a, fig 1A) [page 3, para 4] facing the source electrode (7, fig 1A) [page 3 para 6 ] and the drain electrode (8, fig 1A) [page 3, para 6], respectively, and
the step part is spaced apart in the longitudinal direction (x-direction) for the source electrode (7, fig 1A) and the drain electrode (8, fig 1A), and a step is formed in the channel layer by the step part. (see fig 1A).
Park do not teach the channel layer comprises metal oxide.
Nomura teaches the channel layer (middle 440a, fig 4A) [0060] comprises metal oxide [0011] .
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Nomura into the structure of Park to include the channel layer comprises metal oxide as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park based on the teaching of Nomura in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve improved TFT characteristics.[0066].
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 14 Park in view of Nomura teach the manufacturing method of the driving device according to claim 12. The manufacturing method of the driving device according to wherein the metal oxide of the channel layer comprises indium-gallium-zinc oxide (440a, fig 4A) [ Nomura, 0064-0068].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park modified by Nomura as applied by claims 1and 2 and further in view of Akimoto et al (US20190245094A1).
Re claim 3 Park in view of Nomura teaches the driving device according to claim 1,
Park does not teach the height of the second insulating layer is less than 100% of the height of the channel layer.
Akimoto teaches the height (50nm) [0072] of the second insulating layer (102, 50nm fig 1A) [0072] is less than 100% of the height of the channel layer (103, 10nm to 300nm) [0056].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Akimoto into the structure of Park and Nomura to include the height of the second insulating layer is less than 100% of the height of the channel layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park and Nomura based on the teaching of Akimoto in the above manner for the purpose of improving field effect mobility of a thin film transistor [0007].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park modified by Nomura as applied to claim 1 further in view of Hara et al (US 5900641 A).
Re claim 4 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim the
Park teaches driving device according to wherein the diffusion region (3s, 3d, fig 1A) [Park, page 3, para 3] is formed on the channel layer (3, fig 3A) between the step part (left step of 3) and the source electrode (7), and between the step part (right part of 3) and the drain electrode (8).
Park and Yamazaki do not teach n+ diffusion region on the channel layer.
Hara does teach n+ diffusion region (19A and 19B, fig 1) [para 11] on the channel layer (12, fig 1) [para 9].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Hara into the structure of Park and Nomura to include n+ diffusion region on the channel layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Hara based on the teaching of Park and Nomura in the above manner for the purpose of reducing the leakage current [39].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overpark modified by Nomura as applied to claims 1 and 6 and further in view of Yamazaki et al (US 20180323308A1).
Re claim 10 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 6
Park and Nomura do not teach the gate insulating layer comprises silicon oxide or alumina (A1203).
Yamazaki teaches the gate insulating layer (402, fig 1A) [Yamazaki, 0134] comprises silicon oxide (silicon oxide)[0134] or alumina (A1203).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Yamazaki into the structure of Park to include the gate insulating layer comprises silicon oxide or alumina (A1203) as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park and Nomura based on the teaching of Yamazaki in the above manner for the purpose of improving reliability of the device [0080].
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park modified by Nomura as applied to claims 1 and 12, and further in view of Yamazaki S et al (US20130248854A1).
Re claim 11 Park in view of Nomura teach the driving device according to claim 1.
Park and Nomura do not teach the driving device is a short channel driving device in
which the length (Lc) of the channel layer is less than 3 µm.
Yamazaki S does teach the driving device is a short channel driving device in which the length (Lc) of the channel layer is less than 3 µm (channel length (L) of 3 µm) [0164].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Yamazaki S into the structure of Park and Nomura to include the driving device is a short channel driving device in which the length (Lc) of the channel layer is less than 3 µm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park and Nomura based on teaching of Yamazaki S in the above manner for the purpose suppressing the short channel effect [0180].
Re claim 13 Park in view of Nomura teach the manufacturing method of the driving device according to claim 12.
Park and Nomura do not teach the driving device is a short channel driving device in which the length (Lc) of the channel layer is less than 3 µm.
Yamazaki S does teach the driving device is a short channel driving device in which the length (Lc) of the channel layer is less than 3 (channel length (L) of 3 µm) [0164].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Nomura to the structure of Park and Nomura to include the driving device is a short channel driving device in which the length (Lc) of the channel layer is less than 3 µm as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Park and Nomura based on teaching of Yamazaki S in the above manner for the purpose suppressing the short channel effect [0180].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US20100270619A1) teaches a fin field effect transistor and method of manufacturing the same. An et al (US9153696B2) teaches a semiconductor device including an NMOS region, a fin active region protruding from the substrate.
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 PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/10/26
Prosecution Insights