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 § 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 10 and 13 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 10 recites the limitation "the process of forming the first reactant material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the process of forming the first reactant material" will be considered to mean "the process of spraying the first reactant material".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the process of spraying the first source material and the second source material" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the process of spraying the first source material and the second source material" will be considered to mean "the process of spraying the first source material and the process of spraying the second source material".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki et al. (JP 2022039096A, hereafter Yamazaki ‘096, with machine translation).
Note: citations to Yamazaki ‘096 refer to the location in the machine translation.
Claim 1: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches a method of forming a gallium oxide layer on a substrate (Fig. 8, [0087]) comprising:
forming a first gallium oxide layer (212) (Fig. 8, [0087], [0223]); and
forming a second gallium oxide layer (214) (Fig. 8, [0087], [0226]),
wherein the first gallium oxide layer or second gallium oxide layer can be formed by atomic layer deposition ([0223], [0226]), and
the other of the first gallium oxide layer or second gallium oxide layer can be formed by chemical vapor deposition ([0223], [0226]).
Claim 2: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches that the first gallium oxide layer (212) can be formed by atomic layer deposition ([0223]) and the second gallium oxide layer (214) can be formed by chemical vapor deposition ([0226]).
Claim 3: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches that the method can further comprise forming a third gallium oxide layer (271) on the second gallium oxide layer (214) (Fig. 9, [0087], [0257]), where the third gallium oxide layer can be formed by atomic layer deposition ([0257]).
Claim 4: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches that the first gallium oxide layer (212) can be formed by chemical vapor deposition ([0223]) and the second gallium oxide layer (214) can be formed by atomic layer deposition ([0226]).
Claim 5: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches that the method can further comprise forming a third gallium oxide layer (271) on the second gallium oxide layer (214) (Fig. 9, [0087], [0257]), where the third gallium oxide layer can be formed by chemical vapor deposition ([0257]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. ‘096 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0278298, hereafter Park ‘298).
Claim 6: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Yamazaki ‘096 further teaches that the method can be for manufacturing a display device ([0002]).
With respect to claim 6, Yamazaki ‘096 does not explicitly teach that the atomic layer deposition includes a process of spraying a first source material containing gallium, a process of spraying a first purge gas, a process of spraying a first reactant material containing oxygen, and a process of spraying a second purge gas.
Park ‘298 teaches a method of manufacturing a display device ([0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (abstract, [0126]). Park ‘298 teaches that the atomic layer deposition for gallium oxide can comprise spraying a first source material comprising gallium ([0177], [0179]), spraying a first purge gas ([0177], [0179]), spraying a first reactant material containing oxygen ([0177], [0179]), and spraying a second purge gas ([0177], [0179]). Both Park ‘298 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of manufacturing a display device (‘096, [0002]; ‘298, [0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘298, abstract, [0126]).
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 the steps of spraying a first source material comprising gallium, spraying a first purge gas, spraying a first reactant material containing oxygen, and spraying a second purge gas taught by Park ‘298 as the steps of the atomic layer deposition in the method taught by Yamazaki ‘096 because this is a suitable method for deposition of gallium oxide by atomic layer deposition, as taught by Park ‘298.
Further, it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 7: With respect to claim 7, the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 do not explicitly teach that the first source material includes trimethyl gallium, or the first reactant material includes one of oxygen and nitrous oxide.
Park ‘298 teaches a method of manufacturing a display device ([0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (abstract, [0126]). Park ‘298 teaches that the first source material for the atomic layer deposition can be trimethyl gallium and the first reactant material can be oxygen ([0177], [0179]). Both Park ‘298 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of manufacturing a display device (‘096, [0002]; ‘298, [0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘298, abstract, [0126]).
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 the trimethyl gallium and oxygen taught by Park ‘298 as the first source material and the first reactant material, respectively, in the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 because trimethyl gallium is a suitable material for the first source material and oxygen is a suitable material for the first reactant material, as taught by Park ‘298. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 8: With respect to claim 8, the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 do not explicitly teach that the method can further comprise a process of forming a plasma containing hydrogen or argon gas between the process of spraying the first source material and the process of spraying the first reactant material.
Park ‘298 teaches a method of manufacturing a display device ([0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (abstract, [0126]). Park ‘298 teaches that the method can include an additional processing step comprising forming a plasma in an argon atmosphere ([0017], [0070], [0095]). Both Park ‘298 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of manufacturing a display device (‘096, [0002]; ‘298, [0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘298, abstract, [0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the additional processing step comprising forming a plasma in an argon atmosphere taught by Park ‘298 to the atomic layer deposition in the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 because it would have been a combination of prior art elements that would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 8, the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 do not explicitly teach that the step of forming a plasma containing hydrogen or argon gas is between the process of spraying the first source material and the process of spraying the first reactant material.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 only in the order of processing steps, and it has been held that the selection of any order of processing steps is obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C.
Claim 9: With respect to claim 9, the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 do not explicitly teach that the method can further comprise a process of forming a plasma containing hydrogen or argon gas after the process of spraying the first reactant material.
Park ‘298 teaches a method of manufacturing a display device ([0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (abstract, [0126]). Park ‘298 teaches that the method can include a post-processing comprising forming a plasma in an argon atmosphere ([0017], [0070], [0095]). Both Park ‘298 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of manufacturing a display device (‘096, [0002]; ‘298, [0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘298, abstract, [0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of post-processing comprising forming a plasma in an argon atmosphere taught by Park ‘298 to the atomic layer deposition in the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 because it would have been a combination of prior art elements that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 10: With respect to claim 10, the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 do not explicitly teach that the process of spraying the first reactant material includes a process of forming plasma containing oxygen.
Park ‘298 teaches a method of manufacturing a display device ([0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (abstract, [0126]). Park ‘298 teaches that spraying the first reactant material containing oxygen can include forming a plasma containing the oxygen containing gas ([0012], [0030], [0142], [0172]). Park ‘298 teaches that using the plasma allows easier formation of the layer ([0030]). Both Park ‘298 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of manufacturing a display device (‘096, [0002]; ‘298, [0002]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by atomic layer deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘298, abstract, [0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include forming a plasma containing the oxygen containing gas taught by Park ‘298 in the step of spraying the first reactant material in the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 because the plasma allows easier formation of the layer, as taught by Park ‘298.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. ‘096 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kigoshi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0095372, hereafter Kigoshi ‘372).
Claims 11 and 14: Yamazaki ‘096 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Yamazaki ‘096 further teaches that the method can be for manufacturing an electronic device ([0002]).
With respect to claim 11, Yamazaki ‘096 does not explicitly teach that the chemical vapor deposition includes a process of spraying a first source material containing gallium and a process of spraying a first reactant material containing oxygen.
With respect to claim 14, Yamazaki ‘096 does not explicitly teach that spraying the first source material and spraying the first reactant material includes forming a plasma containing oxygen.
Kigoshi ‘372 teaches a method of making an electronic device ([0003]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by chemical vapor deposition ([0021]). Kigoshi ‘372 teaches that the chemical vapor deposition can include spraying a first source material containing gallium ([0259]), spraying a first reactant material containing oxygen ([0258]), and forming a plasma from the gas containing oxygen ([0258]). Both Kigoshi ‘372 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of method of making an electronic device (‘096, [0002]; ‘372, [0003]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by chemical vapor deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘372, [0021]).
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 the steps of spraying a first source material comprising gallium, spraying a first reactant material containing oxygen, and forming a plasma from the gas containing oxygen taught by Kigoshi ‘372 as the steps of the chemical vapor deposition in the method taught by Yamazaki ‘096 because this is a suitable method for deposition of gallium oxide by chemical vapor deposition, as taught by Kigoshi ‘372.
Further, it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 12: With respect to claim 12, the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 do not explicitly teach that the first source material includes trimethyl gallium, or the first reactant material includes one of oxygen and nitrous oxide.
Kigoshi ‘372 teaches a method of making an electronic device ([0003]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by chemical vapor deposition ([0021]). Kigoshi ‘372 teaches that the first source material for the atomic layer deposition can be trimethyl gallium and the first reactant material can be oxygen ([0258], [0259]). Both Kigoshi ‘372 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of method of making an electronic device (‘096, [0002]; ‘372, [0003]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer by chemical vapor deposition (‘096, [0087], [0223], [0226]; ‘372, [0021]).
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 the trimethyl gallium and oxygen taught by Kigoshi ‘372 as the first source material and the first reactant material, respectively, in the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 because trimethyl gallium is a suitable material for the first source material and oxygen is a suitable material for the first reactant material, as taught by Kigoshi ‘372. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. ‘096 in view of Kigoshi et al. ‘372 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Steiger et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0033971, hereafter Steiger ‘971).
The modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 teach the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. With respect to claim 13, they do not explicitly teach that the method further comprises a process of forming a plasma containing hydrogen or argon gas after spraying the first source material and spraying the first reactant material.
Steiger ‘971 teaches a method of making a display device ([0026]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer ([0004]). Steiger ‘971 teaches that the method can include treating the layer with a plasma comprising argon or hydrogen gas after forming the layer ([0065]). Steiger ‘971 teaches that this improves the quality of the layer ([0065]). Both Steiger ‘971 and Yamazaki ‘096 teach methods of making a display device (‘096, [0002]; ‘971, [0026]) comprising forming a gallium oxide layer (‘096, [0087]; ‘971, [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of treating the gallium oxide layer with a plasma comprising argon or hydrogen gas after forming the layer taught by Steiger ‘971 to the method taught by the modified teachings of Yamazaki ‘096 because it improves the quality of the layer, as taught by Steiger ‘971.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights