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 .
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.
The term “element content” could have two different meanings.
Claims 1-9, 13-18, 24-25 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.
The term “element content” is defined in paragraph [0066] of the specification “the element content in the present disclosure refers to the mass percentage or atomic percentage of the element” (bolding and underline added).
The claim could have at least four different interpretations for “element content” for indium. The first interpretation would be the both the first film and second film contents refer to atomic percent. The second interpretation would be the both the first film and second film contents refer to atomic mass. The third interpretation would be the first film contents refer to atomic mass and the second film contents refer to atomic percent. The fourth interpretation would be the first film contents refer to atomic percent and the second film contents refer to atomic mass.
Claims 5-9 disclose “element content” for gallium, zinc, tin. Again the term “element content” is defined in paragraph [0066] of the specification “the element content in the present disclosure refers to the mass percentage or atomic percentage of the element” (bolding and underline added). This would introduce too many permutations and claims 5-9 will not be addressed with respect to the prior art. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
Broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range
Claims 1-9, 13-20, 22 24-25 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation element content in the first film layer is In1, an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, 0 is equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2), and the claim also recites a mobility of a material of the first film layer is greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The examiner notes that if |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) is equal to zero then both the first film indium concentration and second indium film concentrations are the same and if the rest of the compound is the same chemical compostion, then the first film could not have a “greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer”, because they are the same material. MPEP 2112.01 II discloses “’[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
The limitation “a mobility of a material of the first film layer is greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer” will not be addressed with respect to the prior art. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation element content in the first film layer is In1, an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, 0 is equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2), and the claim also recites a mobility of a material of the first film layer is greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The examiner notes that if |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) is equal to zero then both the first film indium concentration and second indium film concentrations are the same and if the rest of the compound is the same chemical compostion, then the first film could not have a “greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer”, because they are the same material. MPEP 2112.01 II discloses “’[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. The limitation “a mobility of a material of the first film layer is greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer” will not be addressed with respect to the prior art. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation element content in the first film layer is In1, an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, 0 is equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2), and the claim also recites a mobility of a material of the first film layer is greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The examiner notes that if |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) is equal to zero then both the first film indium concentration and second indium film concentrations are the same and if the rest of the compound is the same chemical compostion, then the first film could not have a “greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer”, because they are the same material. MPEP 2112.01 II discloses “’[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. The limitation “a mobility of a material of the first film layer is greater than a mobility of a material of the second film layer” will not be addressed with respect to the prior art. MPEP 2173.06 II discloses “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.”
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al.(US 2011/0140100).
Regarding claim 1, Takata et al. disclose a base substrate (16) and an active layer (12)disposed on the base substrate, the active layer comprising a first film layer (A1) and a second film layer (A3 in fig. 3D, or A2 in fig. 3B) sequentially laminated in a direction away from the base substrate (fig. 3B and 3D); wherein a material of the active layer is a metal oxide [0094] comprising an indium element [0101, 0102] and a gallium element[0101, 0102, the first film layer and the second film layer are in an amorphous state[0111].
Takata et al. fails to disclose wherein an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to 0.5.
Takata et al. disclose maximum and minimum gallium and indium contents for layers A1 A2 and A3 [0103], changing the concentration to change the conductivity[0104]. Table 2 and [00148-0155] disclose changing the concentration indium and gallium will change the band gap.
Takata et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to .5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to .5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (change the concentrations of the indium), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (changing the concentrations will alter the bandgap).
Regarding claim 2, Takata et al. disclose a ratio of a thickness of the second film layer (A3)(100nm) to a thickness of the first film layer (A1) (10nm) ranges from 1 to 10 [0218] .
Regarding claim 13, Takata et al. disclose the same structure and the concentrations would be obvious as noted above the examiner submits that the transistor would have a threshold voltage ranges from 1 V to 2 V. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here 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 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 14, Takata et al. disclose the same structure and the concentrations would be obvious as noted above the examiner submits that the transistor would have an electron mobility ranges from 17 cm2/V*s to 24 cm2/V*s. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here 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 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 15, Takata et al. disclose the same structure and the concentrations would be obvious as noted above the examiner submits that the transistor would have a positive shift of the threshold voltage is less than 3 V under an action of a positive bias temperature stress. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here 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 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 16, Takata et al. disclose the same structure and the concentrations would be obvious as noted above the examiner submits that the transistor would have a negative shift of the threshold voltage is less than 4 V under an action of a negative bias temperature illumination stress. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here 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 (CCPA 1977).”
Regarding claim 17, Takata et al. disclose the same structure and the concentrations would be obvious as noted above the examiner submits that the transistor would have a withstand voltage between a source and a drain is not less than 63 V. MPEP 2112.01 I disclose “[w]here 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 (CCPA 1977).”
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al.(US 2011/0140100) as applied to claim 1 above.
Takata et al. disclose the invention above.
Takata et al. disclose a gate layer (16), and a gate insulating layer (15) disposed between the gate layer and the active layer (fig. 3D); wherein the first film layer (A1) is closer to the gate layer than the second film layer (A3) is, the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 5 nm to 25 nm(10nm) [0218],
Takata et al. fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the second film layer ranges from 40 nm to 120 nm for figure 3D. (The examiner notes that [0217 and 0218] are describing figure 3A).
The examiner submits it would be obvious to use the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 5 nm to 25 nm(10nm) [0218] for A1 in figure 3D the thickness of the second film layer for A3 described in [0218] (100nm) for A3 in figure 3D .
Takata et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 5 nm to 25 nm and the thickness of the second film layer ranges from 40 nm to 120 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 5 nm to 25 nm and the thickness of the second film layer ranges from 40 nm to 120 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art embodiment in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (control of the film thickness of each area was achieved by controlling the film formation time [0218]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (change the thickness of the layer).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al.(US 2011/0140100) as applied to claim 1 above.
Takata et al. disclose the invention above.
Takata et al. disclose a gate layer (16), and a gate insulating layer (15) disposed between the gate layer and the active layer (12)(fig. 3B); wherein the second film layer (A2) is closer to the gate layer than the first film layer (A1) is, the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 10 nm to 20 nm
Takata et al. fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 10 nm to 20 nm and the thickness of the thickness of the second film layer ranges from 10 nm to 50 nm for figure 3b. (The examiner notes that [0217 and 0218] are describing figure 3A).
The examiner submits it would be obvious to use the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 10 nm to 20 nm for A1 described in [0218] (10nm) for A1 in figure 3B the thickness of the second film layer for A2 described in [0218] (100nm) for A2 in figure 3B.
Takata et al. disclose the claimed invention except the thickness of the first film layer ranges from 10 nm to 20 nm and the thickness of the second film layer ranges from 10 nm to 50 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form thickness of the first film layer ranges from 10 nm to 20 nm and the thickness of the second film layer ranges from 10 nm to 50 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art embodiment in the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (control of the film thickness of each area was achieved by controlling the film formation time [0218]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (change the thickness of the layer).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al.(US 2011/0140100).
Regarding claim 18, Takata et al. disclose a base substrate (16) and an active layer (12)disposed on the base substrate, the active layer comprising a first film layer (A1) and a second film layer (A3 in fig. 3D) sequentially laminated in a direction away from the base substrate (fig. 3A and 3D); wherein a material of the active layer is a metal oxide [0094] comprising an indium element [0101, 0102] and a gallium element[0101, 0102, the first film layer and the second film layer are in an amorphous state[0111].
Takata et al. fails to disclose wherein an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to 0.5.
Takata et al. disclose maximum and minimum gallium and indium contents for layers A1 A2 and A3 [0103], changing the concentration to change the conductivity[0104]. Table 2 and [00148-0155] disclose changing the concentration indium and gallium will change the band gap.
Takata et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to .5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to .5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art embodiment.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (change the concentrations of the indium), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (changing the concentrations will alter the bandgap).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al.(US 2011/0140100) as applied to claim 1 above.
Takata et al. disclose the invention above.
Tanaka et al. fails to explicitly disclose he material of the second film layer is indium gallium zinc oxide, and an atomic ratio in indium gallium zinc oxide is In:Ga:Zn=1:1:1.
Tanaka et al. table 2 sample I and [0153] disclose using an atomic ratio in indium gallium zinc oxide is In:Ga:Zn=1:1:1.
The prior art included each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art embodiment.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using an atomic ratio in indium gallium zinc oxide is In:Ga:Zn=1:1:1 ), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (perform as an active layer).
Regarding claim 20, Takata et al. disclose forming a gate layer (16) and a gate insulating layer (15) sequentially on the base substrate prior to forming the active layer; and forming a source layer (13) and a drain(14) layer upon forming the active layer, wherein the source layer and the drain layer are electrically connected to a source contact region and a drain contact region of the active layer, respectively (fig. 3c and 3d).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al.(US 2011/0140100).
Regarding claim 24, Takata et al. disclose a base substrate (16) and an active layer (12)disposed on the base substrate, the active layer comprising a first film layer (A1) and a second film layer (A3 in fig. 3D) sequentially laminated in a direction away from the base substrate (fig. 3A and 3D); wherein a material of the active layer is a metal oxide [0094] comprising an indium element [0101, 0102] and a gallium element[0101, 0102, the first film layer and the second film layer are in an amorphous state[0111].
Takata et al. fails to disclose wherein an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to 0.5.
Takata et al. disclose maximum and minimum gallium and indium contents for layers A1 A2 and A3 [0103], changing the concentration to change the conductivity[0104]. Table 2 and [00148-0155] disclose changing the concentration indium and gallium will change the band gap.
Takata et al. disclose the claimed invention except for an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to .5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form an indium element content in the first film layer is In1, and an indium element content in the second film layer is In2, where 0 is greater than or equal to |In1-In2|/max(In1,In2) or less than or equal to .5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The prior art included each element claimed with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art embodiment.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (change the concentrations of the indium), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (changing the concentrations will alter the bandgap).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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 at 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 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights