DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Applicant
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed on 06 March 2026.
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 1-15, 21 and 22 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 1 recites “patterning the layer of hardmask material to form a hardmask;” and “wherein remaining hardmask material forms a source carrier reservoir of the completed thin-film transistor, and wherein the hardmask material is selected to cause the source carrier reservoir to mitigate carrier starvation during operation of the thin-film transistor.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation “the completed thin-film transistor” refers to the thin-film transistor in the preamble or a different thin-film transistor because the recitation lack antecedent basis.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the patterning of the layer of hardmask material would form the “remaining hardmask material” or if the “remaining hardmask material” is formed in another way.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the remaining hardmask material is the same or different layer as the layer of hardmask material.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation suggests that the material composition of the initially deposited hardmask material rather than any other parameters, such as the shape, configuration and bonding arrangement/structure of the “remaining” hardmask material, is the sole parameter that determines the claimed “source carrier reservoir to mitigate carrier starvation.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to the recitation “carrier starvation” refers to, because it is not clear where “carrier starvation” occurs, because it is not clear whether the “carrier starvation” occurs only in the remaining hardmask material or throughout the thin-film transistor.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether “carrier starvation” refers to a state or phase where not a single charge carrier can be present inside the remaining hardmask material or thin-film transistor, or there can be a few charge carriers inside the remaining hardmask material or thin-film transistor; if it is the latter, it is not clear what the number of charge carriers present in the remaining hardmask material or thin-film transistor can be to be referred to be under “charge starvation,” because the number of charge carriers, if any, would be proportional to the size of the remaining hardmask material or thin-film transistor, but Applicants did not originally disclose the reference level of the amount of the charge carriers below which it is assumed that there is “carrier starvation.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to what the operating condition of the thin-film transistor is under which the “carrier starvation” is mitigated “during operation of the thin-film transistor,” because it is not clear whether the claimed mitigation of carrier starvation occurs under any operating conditions or only under certain operating conditions that Applicants do not specifically claim.
Claims 2-9, which depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, do not remedy the issues of claim 1 and therefore are also rejected.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the source carrier reservoir remains in the completed thin-film transistor and is operable to mitigate carrier starvation during operation of the thin-film transistor.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation “the completed thin-film transistor” refers to the thin-film transistor in the preamble or a different thin-film transistor because the recitation lack antecedent basis.
It is unclear and indefinite as to the recitation “carrier starvation” refers to, because it is not clear where “carrier starvation” occurs, because it is not clear whether the “carrier starvation” occurs only in the source carrier reservoir or throughout the thin-film transistor.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether “carrier starvation” refers to a state or phase where not a single charge carrier can be present inside the source carrier reservoir or thin-film transistor, or there can be a few charge carriers inside source carrier reservoir or thin-film transistor; if it is the latter, it is not clear what the number of charge carriers present in the source carrier reservoir or thin-film transistor can be to be referred to be under “charge starvation,” because the number of charge carriers, if any, would be proportional to the size of the source carrier reservoir or thin-film transistor, but Applicants did not originally disclose the reference level of the amount of the charge carriers below which it is assumed that there is “carrier starvation.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to what the operating condition of the thin-film transistor is under which the “carrier starvation” is mitigated “during operation of the thin-film transistor,” because it is not clear whether the claimed mitigation of carrier starvation occurs under any operating conditions or only under certain operating conditions that Applicants do not specifically claim.
Claim 11, which depends from claim 10, recites “patterning the layer of reservoir material to form a hardmask;” and “wherein remaining hardmask material forms the source carrier reservoir.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the patterning of the layer of reservoir material would form the “remaining hardmask material” or if the “remaining hardmask material” is formed in another way.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the “remaining hardmask material” is the same or different layer as the layer of reservoir material” or the “hardmask.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation suggests that the material composition of the initially deposited reservoir material rather than any other parameters, such as the shape, configuration and bonding arrangement/structure of the “remaining” hardmask material, is the sole parameter that determines the claimed “source carrier reservoir” “operable to mitigate carrier starvation.”
Claims 12-20, which depend either directly or indirectly from independent claim 10, do not remedy the issues of claim 10 and therefore are also rejected.
Claim 21 recites “patterning the layer of metal-oxide semiconductor to form a hardmask;” and “wherein material of the hardmask remains in the completed thin-film transistor and is operable as a carrier reservoir to mitigate carrier starvation during operation of the thin-film transistor.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation “the completed thin-film transistor” refers to the thin-film transistor in the preamble or a different thin-film transistor because the recitation lack antecedent basis.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the patterning of the layer of metal-oxide semiconductor would form the “material of the hardmask remains” or if the “material of the hardmask remains” is formed in another way.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether “material of the hardmask remain” is the material of the “metal-oxide semiconductor” and/or the “hardmask” or a different material.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether the recitation suggests that the material composition of the initially deposited metal-oxide semiconductor rather than any other parameters, such as the shape, configuration and bonding arrangement/structure of the “remains” of the material of the hardmask, is the sole parameter that determines the claimed “source carrier reservoir to mitigate carrier starvation.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to the recitation “carrier starvation” refers to, because it is not clear where “carrier starvation” occurs, because it is not clear whether the “carrier starvation” occurs only in the “material of the hardmask remains” or throughout the thin-film transistor.
It is unclear and indefinite as to whether “carrier starvation” refers to a state or phase where not a single charge carrier can be present inside the “material of the hardmask remains” or thin-film transistor, or there can be a few charge carriers inside the “material of the hardmask remains” or thin-film transistor; if it is the latter, it is not clear what the number of charge carriers present in the “material of the hardmask remains” or thin-film transistor can be to be referred to be under “charge starvation,” because the number of charge carriers, if any, would be proportional to the size of the “material of the hardmask remains” or thin-film transistor, but Applicants did not originally disclose the reference level of the amount of the charge carriers below which it is assumed that there is “carrier starvation.”
It is unclear and indefinite as to what the operating condition of the thin-film transistor is under which the “carrier starvation” is mitigated “during operation of the thin-film transistor,” because it is not clear whether the claimed mitigation of carrier starvation occurs under any operating conditions or only under certain operating conditions that Applicants do not specifically claim.
Claim 22, which depends from independent claim 21, do not remedy the issues of claim 21 and therefore are also rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the hardmask material 62 in Fig. 2I and the source carrier reservoir 28s in Fig. 2M are each “remaining hardmask material,” as recited in claims 1 and 10.
Examiner notes that the claims are incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. The claims fails to interrelate essential elements of the invention as defined in the specification. A step of how the remaining hardmask material forms a source carrier reservoir is missing and therefore the claims in indefinite.
It is also unclear and indefinite as to whether the patterning of the layer of hardmask material would form the “remaining hardmask material” or if the “remaining hardmask material” is formed in another way. Further, it is unclear and indefinite as to whether the remaining hardmask material is the same or different layer as the layer of hardmask material.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1274. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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 Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.L/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815