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
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 13-20 are pending in the current application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment of 1/21/26 does not render the application allowable.
Status of the Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
New grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103(a) are necessitated by the amendments.
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 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) 1, 3, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2012066968A) in view of Miki (JP 2012033854A).
As to claim 1, Goto discloses formation of a film from a source comprising oxides of Zn, Sn, and a metal including Al, with a Zn raio of 0.35-0.75 and a metal [Al] ratio of 0.01 to 0.3 (English translation ‘claims’ section paragraphs 1-4, specific example at ‘experimental example 2’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an AlZnSnO film with the claimed composition ratios as these ratios overlap the disclosed ratios of Goto to form a transparent oxide film as part of a semiconductor device (English translation technical field).
Goto, while disclosing maintaining a carrier mobility above 5cm2/V*s ((ZnM .sub.X O .sub.y phase and M .sub.X O .sub.y phase) section paragraph 6 staring “In the present invention, when the content…”), is silent as to the requisite carrier concentration and mobility values.
Miki discloses an oxide film containing Zn, Sn, oxygen and an element selected from a list including Al with examples including Al (table 1, examples 3-7) with carrier mobility of preferably above 7.5 cm2/Vs with an exemplary value of 10.2 (English translation ‘description of embodiments’ paragraph 8; table 5 example 1) and a carrier concentration of 1015-1016 cm-3 (English translation ‘description of embodiments’ paragraph 15) for formation of a transparent oxide film with favorable properties in a semiconductor device (English translation abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain the carrier values of Miki, within the film of Goto, because this allows for a functional semiconductor film with desired values.
As to claim 3 and 17, Miki discloses a carrier concentration of 1015-1016 cm-3 (English translation ‘description of embodiments’ paragraph 15).
As to claim 20, Miki discloses the source and film consisting of Al, Zn, Sn and oxides (English translation ‘claims’ section paragraphs 1-4, specific example at ‘experimental example 2’ with only Al, Zn, Sn and their oxides).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Miki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kishimoto (US 20140353658).
As to claim 2, Miki discloses obtaining a high carrier mobility value for the AZTO layer, including values over 7.5 cm2/Vs, but is silent as to specifically obtaining values over 12.
Kishimoto discloses a semiconductor device in which carrier mobility is increased to obtaining increased device performance (paragraphs 8, 29) and mobility values as high as 15 cm2/Vs are obtained for functional AZTO layers (paragraph 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use higher carrier mobility values as disclosed by Kishimoto, in the functional layer of Goto in view of Miki, because this allows for improved semiconductor device performance.
Claim(s) 4, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Miki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asano (US 20150321455).
As to claims 4, 15 and 18, Goto and Miki disclose an AZTO transparent conductive film in a semiconductor device, but is silent as to its refractive index.
Asano discloses a structure with transparent conductive films including AZTO (paragraph 42, paragraph 46) in which the light transmittance of the overall structure is controlled by using desired refractive index values and gradients between layers (abstract). Asano discloses a refractive index for AZTO of 1.68 (table 2: value n4 for AlZnSnO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use desired refractive index values for AZTO layers, as disclosed by Asano, in the film of Goto in view of Miki, because his allows for control of the overall structure transmittance as desired.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Miki and Asano as applied to claim 4 and 15 above, and further in view of Uehara (JP 2005003806 A).
As to claim 5 and 16, Goto and Miki disclose a transparent conductive layer comprising a Zn and Sn containing oxide, but is silent as to its extinction coefficient.
Uehara discloses a film structure comprising a transparent conductive film of ZnSnO in which the efficient coefficient of the film is under 0.0003 to maintain the transparent characteristics of the structure (English translation paragraphs 50-51 and 147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low extinction coefficient as disclosed by Uehara, with the film of Goto in view of Miki, because this allows for high transmittance transparent structures.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Miki and Kishimoto as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Uehara.
As to claim 14, Goto and Miki disclose a transparent conductive layer comprising a Zn and Sn containing oxide, but is silent as to its extinction coefficient.
Uehara discloses a film structure comprising a transparent conductive film of ZnSnO in which the efficient coefficient of the film is under 0.0003 to maintain the transparent characteristics of the structure (English translation paragraphs 50-51 and 147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low extinction coefficient as disclosed by Uehara, with the film of Goto in view of Miki, because this allows for high transmittance transparent structures.
Claim(s) 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto and Miki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uehara.
As to claim 13 and 19, Goto and Miki disclose a transparent conductive layer comprising a Zn and Sn containing oxide, but is silent as to its extinction coefficient.
Uehara discloses a film structure comprising a transparent conductive film of ZnSnO in which the efficient coefficient of the film is under 0.0003 to maintain the transparent characteristics of the structure (English translation paragraphs 50-51 and 147).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a low extinction coefficient as disclosed by Uehara, with the film of Goto in view of Miki, because this allows for high transmittance transparent structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the instant amendments to the claims and discussed above.
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.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights