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 .
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 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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al., US 2010/0335334 (corresponding to US 11,244,824).
In re Claim 1, Cheng discloses a method of manufacturing a display device, comprising: forming amorphous silicon (marked as 240 in Fig. 4B) on a substrate 220; forming a conductive protective layer 280 ([0032]) on the amorphous silicon 240; doping with fluorine (]0035]) (Figs. 1-4; [0016 -0073]).
Cheng does not specify a step of removing the conductive protective layer 280. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to remove the conductive protective layer 280, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kuhle, 526, F.2d553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) MPEP2144.04.II. A). ELIMINATION OF A STEP OR AN ELEMENT AND ITS FUNCTION. A. Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired.
In re Claim 2, Cheng discloses all limitations of Claim 2 except for a step of crystallizing the amorphous silicon 240 after removing the conductive protective layer 280. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform crystallizing the amorphous silicon since it was known in the art that it is well-known and routine practice in semiconductor technology. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 3, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the conductive protective layer 280 includes a metal (molybdenum ([0032]) that inherently does not form a silicide with the amorphous silicon. It is inherently because according to MPEP 2112.01 I. WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. In the instant case Cheng’ conductive protective layer 280 being identical to that in Claim therefore its property “not form a silicide with the amorphous silicon” is inherent.
Where 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).
In re Claim 4, Cheng discloses the method of claim 3, wherein: the metal includes molybdenum ([0032]).
In re Claim 5, Cheng discloses all limitations of Claim 5 except for that the conductive protective layer 280 includes a transparent conductive oxide. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use transparent conductive oxide as the conductive protective layer, since 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 6, Cheng discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that the transparent conductive oxide includes at least one selected from IGZO, ITO, and IZO. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the specified conductive oxide as the conductive protective layer, since 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 7, Cheng discloses all limitations of claim 7 except for that the thickness of the conductive protective layer 140 is between 100 Å and 300 Å.
It is known in the art that the thickness of layer is a result effective variable – because its volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the specified thicknesses, 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 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 8, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming an insulating film 260 (Fig. 4B) on the substrate 220 prior to forming the amorphous silicon 240 on the substrate 220
In re Claim 9, Cheng discloses the method of claim 8, wherein: the doping with fluorine unavoidable dopes fluorine into the insulating layer 260 disposed under the amorphous silicon 240 ([0035 -0042]).
In re Claim 10, Cheng discloses the method of claim 9, wherein: fluorine is positioned on the conductive protective layer 280 when fluorine is doped ([0035 -0042]).
In re Claim 11, Cheng discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the insulating film 260 is an inorganic film ([0045-0047]).
In re Claim 12, Cheng discloses all limitations of Claim 12 except for that the inorganic film 260 includes silicon nitride or silicon oxide. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the inorganic film 260 includes silicon nitride or silicon oxide, since 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 14, Cheng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein after removing the conductive protective layer 280, fluorine is not positioned on the amorphous silicon 240 ([0016 -0073]).
In re Claim 15, Cheng does not specify that the removing of the conductive protective layer is performed by wet etching. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use removing the conductive protective layer by wet etching since it was known in the semiconductor art that the wet etching is well-known and routine procedure in semiconductor technology. (MPEP2144.I.)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watakabe et al., US 2023/0169922 (corresponding to US 12,505,796), in view of Seutter at al., US20015/0101660.
In re Claim 16, Watakabe discloses a display device (Fig. 3), comprising: a substrate 101; an insulating film 202 positioned on the substrate 101; a semiconductor layer 208 located on the insulating film 202; a transistor 210 comprising the semiconductor layer 208; and a light emitting element 230 connected to the transistor 210, wherein: the semiconductor layer 208 includes crystalline (Figs. 3-4; [0053 – 0067])
Watakabe does not indicate that the semiconductor layer 208 includes crystalline silicon, and at least one layer of the insulating layer 202 and the upper portion of the semiconductor layer 208 is doped with fluorine.
Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to substitute the crystalline semiconductor layer 208 with crystalline silicon, since 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
Seutter teaches that at least one layer of the insulating layer and the upper portion of the semiconductor layer is doped with fluorine (Fig. 7; [0021 – 0022], [0072-0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute Watakabe’s semiconductor layer and at least one layer of Watakabe’s insulating layer with Seutte’s at least one layer of the insulating layer and the upper portion of the Seutte’s semiconductor layer is doped with fluorine , to improve performance as taught by Seutte ([0004-0009]).
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 14: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 14 as: “the insulating film includes an organic layer on the substrate, and an inorganic layer on the organic layer and in contact with the amorphous silicon”, in combination with limitations of Claims 1 on which it depends.
Claim 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re Claim 17: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 17 as: “the insulating film includes an organic film in contact with the substrate; and an inorganic film is in contact with the semiconductor layer”, in combination with limitations of Claims 16 on which it depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights