DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
In response to a Restriction Requirement mailed on 08/25/2026, the Applicant elected with traverse Group I (claims 1-11 and 18-19) in a reply filed on 09/24/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all claims share a special technical feature, and this special technical feature provides a contribution over the prior art. This is not found persuasive because Group I (claims 1-11 and 18-19) is drawn to a semiconductor element, and Group II (claims 12-17 and 20) is drawn to a method for manufacturing a semiconductor element, and these groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I-II require structural elements of a semiconductor element comprising a gate electrode, a source electrode, a drain electrode, a semiconductor layer that is in contact with the source electrode and the drain electrode, and a gate insulating layer that insulates the semiconductor layer from the gate electrode. However, these features are known in the art as disclosed by a U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0112967 A1 by Guo et al.
Furthermore, Group II requires special technical features of forming, using a carbon nanotube disperse liquid, a semiconductor layer; and forming a sealing layer that seals the semiconductor layer, in which the semiconductor layer and the sealing layer are manufactured in a sequence that the semiconductor layer is formed before the sealing layer is fabricated. These features are not required or detailed in Group I. Therefore, the two groups lack unity of invention because the groups lack theses corresponding special technical features. For the reasons above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Currently, claims 1-11 and 18-19 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 05/28/2024, 02/05/2026, 06/05/2026, 06/30/2026 and 09/30/2026. The IDS have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Semiconductor Element Including Network of Carbon Nanotubes
(Clean Version) Semiconductor Element Including Network of Carbon Nanotubes
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 2, 10 and 18 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 2 is indefinite, the abbreviation “SP” has not been clearly defined in the claim. It is unclear what is necessarily required by the abbreviation “SP.”
Claim 10 is indefinite, because the limitation “the content of semiconducting carbon nanotubes” in line 2 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 is indefinite, because the limitation “the length of the carbon nanotubes” is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
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 1-5, 7-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140/209997 A1 to Qian et al. (“Qian”).
PNG
media_image1.png
884
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Qian in Fig. 1 teaches a semiconductor element 10 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 13, thin film transistor 10) comprising:
a gate electrode 120 (¶ 13, gate electrode 120);
a source electrode 150 (¶ 13, source electrode 150);
a drain electrode 160 (¶ 13, drain electrode 160);
a semiconductor layer 140 (¶ 13, semiconductor layer 140) that is in contact with the source electrode 150 and the drain electrode 160 (Fig. 1, ¶ 13); and
a gate insulating layer 130 (Fig. 1, ¶ 13, first insulating layer 130) that insulates the semiconductor layer 140 from the gate electrode 130 (¶ 13),
wherein the semiconductor layer 140 has a network structure of carbon nanotubes (¶ 21, carbon nanotube wires intersect with each other to form conductive network),
the semiconductor layer 140 is sealed with a sealing layer 170 (Fig. 1, ¶ 13, second insulating layer 170 covering (i.e., sealing) a top portion of the layer 140).
Qian does not explicitly disclose the semiconductor layer has an average thickness of 5 nm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to form the average thickness of the semiconductor layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 2, Qian in Fig. 1 teaches the sealing layer 170 contains a compound (¶ 27, acrylic resin).
Qian does not explicitly the acrylic resin has a SP value calculated using the Fedors method is 15 (cal/cm3)1/2 or less.
However, Qian teaches a general condition in which the sealing layer 170 includes acrylic resin (¶ 27), which would contain a compound having a SP value calculated using the Fedors method, as the acrylic resin is the same material for the sealing layer as the Applicant purported in abstract, paragraphs 41 and 84, and claim 4 in the U.S. patent publication document (US 2025/0024692 A1) of the present application.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Qian teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the sealing layer containing a compound whose SP value calculated using the Fedors method being 15 (cal/cm3)1/2 or less produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Qian renders claim 2 obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Qian in Fig. 1 further teaches the sealing layer 170 has a relative permittivity of 5.0 or less (¶ 27, the sealing layer 170 include acrylic resin, which as a relative permittivity of 5.0 or less1).
Regarding claim 4, Qian in Fig. 1 further teaches the sealing layer 170 contains an acrylic resin (¶ 27).
Regarding claim 5, Qian in Fig. 1 further teaches the sealing layer 170 has an average thickness in a range from 10 nm to 100 micrometers (¶ 27), which overlaps the claimed range of 200 nm or more.
Regarding claim 7, Qian in Fig. 1 further teaches the carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes (¶ 23).
Regarding claim 8, Qian does not explicitly disclose a density of the carbon nanotubes in the network structure is 100 carbon nanotubes/μm2 or more and 8000 carbon nanotubes/μm2 or less.
However, Qian teaches a general condition in which the carbon nanotubes in the network structure has a density (¶ 21-¶ 22).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Qian teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of a density of the carbon nanotubes in the network structure being 100 carbon nanotubes/μm2 or more and 8000 carbon nanotubes/μm2 or less produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Qian renders claim 8 obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Qian does not explicitly disclose an average length of the carbon nanotubes in the network structure is shorter than a channel length of the semiconductor element.
However, Qian teaches a general condition in which the carbon nanotube have a length (¶ 22) and the semiconductor element 10 has a channel length L (Fig. 1, ¶ 15, claim 2, channel 142 has a length L).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Qian teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of an average length of the carbon nanotubes in the network structure being shorter than a channel length of the semiconductor element produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Qian renders claim 9 obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Qian does not explicitly disclose the content of semiconducting carbon nanotubes in the carbon nanotubes contained in the semiconductor layer is 70% by mass or more.
However, Qian teaches a general condition in which the semiconductor layer 140 includes the carbon nanotubes that are semiconducting carbon nanotubes (¶ 23, the semiconductor layer 140 is a carbon nanotube film. That is, such carbon nanotubes are semiconductive), such that there is a content of the semiconducting carbon nanotubes in the carbon nanotubes contained in the semiconductor layer.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Qian teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the content of semiconducting carbon nanotubes in the carbon nanotubes contained in the semiconductor layer being 70% by mass or more produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Qian renders claim 10 obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Qian in Fig. 1 further teaches the semiconductor element 10 is a p-type field-effect transistor (¶ 26).
Regarding claim 18, Qian does not explicitly disclose in the network structure, one carbon nanotube overlaps other carbon nanotubes by less than 10% of the length of the carbon nanotube.
However, Qian teaches a general condition in which in the network structure, the carbon nanotube wires intersects with each other (¶ 21, claim 6). That is, the carbon nanotubes would overlap with each other.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Here, since Qian teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of in the network structure, one carbon nanotube overlapping other carbon nanotubes by less than 10% of the length of the carbon nanotube produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Qian renders claim 18 obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Qian in Fig. 1 further teaches an average diameter of the carbon nanotubes in the network structure is from 0.5 nm to 100 µm (¶ 22), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 nm or more and 3 nm or less.
“In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the diameter of the carbon nanotubes from 0.5 nm to 100 µm taught by Qian overlaps with the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exist. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian in view of US 2017/0168000 A1 to Ichiki.
Regarding claim 6, Qian does not explicitly disclose an adsorption layer that is disposed between the semiconductor layer and the gate insulating layer and is in contact with the semiconductor layer and the gate insulating layer, wherein the adsorption layer contains a compound that does not have an anionic group.
Ichiki recognizes a need for improving the electrical characteristics of the transistor (¶ 36). Ichiki satisfies the need by providing an adsorption layer 26 (Fig. 1, ¶ 36, receptor layer 26 adsorbing gas molecules) that is disposed between a semiconductor layer 28 (¶ 36, semiconductor layer 28) and a gate insulating layer 24 (¶ 36, gate insulating layer 24) and is in contact with the semiconductor layer 28 and the gate insulating layer 24 (Fig. 1),
wherein the adsorption layer 26 contains a compound that does not have an anionic group (¶ 37, there is no mentioning of anionic in Ichiki).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the adsorption layer taught by Ichiki with the semiconductor layer and the gate insulating layer taught by Qian, so as to improve the electrical characteristics of the transistor (Ichiki: ¶ 36).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0035925 A1 to Isogai et al. relates to semiconductor device comprising a substrate; a source electrode, a drain electrode, and a gate electrode; a semiconductor layer in contact with said source electrode and said drain electrode; and a gate insulating layer insulating said semiconductor layer from said gate electrode; wherein said semiconductor layer contains a carbon nanotube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0062451 A1 to Morishita et al. in paragraph 114 discloses the relative permittivity of acrylic resins ranges from 2.7 to 4.5, which anticipates the claimed range of 5.0 or less.
Prosecution Insights