Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/490,504

DIELECTRIC LINING LAYERS FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 30, 2019
Examiner
ISAAC, STANETTA D
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
9 (Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
10-11
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
48%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
811 granted / 948 resolved
+17.5% vs TC avg
Minimal -38% lift
Without
With
+-37.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
1005
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
§102
44.6%
+4.6% vs TC avg
§112
5.4%
-34.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 948 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/07/25. Claims 27, 29, 32, 33, 48, and 51-55 are pending. 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. Claim(s) 48, 32, 33, 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US PGPub 2013/0062704, hereinafter referred to as “Cheng”) in view of Chuang et al. (US PGPub 2013/0256805, hereinafter referred to as “Chuang”). Cheng discloses the semiconductor the device substantially as claimed. See figures 1-13 and corresponding text, where Cheng teaches, in claim 48, a device, comprising: a PMOS transistor, comprising: a first gate electrode (132) (left side) on a gate dielectric (IL, 115) which is in direct contact with a first portion (above channel region) of semiconductor; (figure 13; [0035], [0049]) a first dielectric material (115) in direct contact with the gate dielectric (IL, 115) (including interfacial layer [0034]) and in direct contact with a second portion (above LDD regions on the left side) of semiconductor (102), adjacent to the first portion, wherein the first dielectric material (115) has a different composition than the gate dielectric (IL, 115) and comprises lanthanum and oxygen; and (figure 13; [0035], [0049]) an NMOS transistor, comprising: a second gate electrode (132) (right side) on the gate dielectric (IL, 115) which is in direct contact with a third portion (above channel region on the right side) of semiconductor (102); (figure 13; [0035], [0049]) a second dielectric material (115) in direct contact with the gate dielectric (IL, 115) and in direct contact with a fourth portion (above the LDD regions on the right side) of semiconductor, adjacent to the third portion, wherein the second dielectric material (115) has a different composition than the gate dielectric, a different composition than the first dielectric material, and comprises aluminum and oxygen. (figure 13; [0035], [0049]) Cheng fails to explicitly show, in claim 48, wherein the first dielectric material has a different composition than the gate dielectric and comprises lanthanum and oxygen and wherein the second dielectric material has a different composition than the gate dielectric, a different composition than the first dielectric material, and comprises aluminum and oxygen, for the PMOS and NMOS transistors, respectively. Cheng teaches, having a list of different high-k dielectric materials that include lanthanum, aluminum and oxygen, that formed different material compositions La.sub.2O.sub.3 and Al.sub.2O.sub.3 ([0035]). In addition, these high-k gate dielectric materials are suitable materials to satisfy the work function requirements ([0026]). Chuang teaches, a similar CMOS semiconductor device having a PMOS (202) and NMOS (204) regions, that includes a gate dielectric layer that includes interfacial layer and a multiple layer of high-k dielectric layers (figure 11a’; [0013]). In addition, Chuang includes a capping layer made of a lanthanum oxide composition [0017]. Lastly, Chuang provides the advantages of tuning the work function of the metal gate layer ([0016-0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, to incorporate wherein the first dielectric material has a different composition than the gate dielectric and comprises lanthanum and oxygen and wherein the second dielectric material has a different composition than the gate dielectric, a different composition than the first dielectric material, and comprises aluminum and oxygen, for the PMOS and NMOS transistors, respectively, in the device of Cheng, according to the teachings of Cheng and Chuang, with the motivation of tuning the work function of the metal gate layer to satisfy the PMOS and NMOS transistor requirements within the semiconductor devices (ex. adjusting threshold voltages and increasing drive current). Cheng in view of Chuang shows, in claim 27, wherein the semiconductor comprises a III-V semiconductor compound. ([0030]) Cheng in view of Chuang shows, in claim 29, wherein the gate dielectric comprises a metal and oxygen. ([0030-0035]) Cheng in view of Chuang shows, in claim 32, wherein the III-V semiconductor compound comprises any of In and As, Ga and As, In and P, Ga and P, In and Sb, Al and As, Ga and Sb, a first alloy of In, Ga and As, a second alloy of In, Al and As, a third alloy of Ga, As and Al, a fourth alloy of Ga, As and Sb, and a fifth alloy of In, As and Sb, and wherein the second dielectric layer comprises Al-rich aluminum oxide. ([0030]) Cheng in view of Chuang shows, in claim 33, wherein the III-V semiconductor compound comprises any of In and As, Ga and As, In and P, Ga and P, In and Sb, Al and As, Ga and Sb, a first alloy of In, Ga and As, a second alloy of In, Al and As, a third alloy of Ga, As and Al, a fourth alloy of Ga, As and Sb, and a fifth alloy of In, As and Sb, and wherein the first dielectric layer comprises La-rich lanthanum oxide. ([0035]) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 51 and 52 are allowed over the prior art of record. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 7/07/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the Remarks on pages 5-7: The applicant raises the clear issue as to whether Cheng alone or in combination with Chuang suggests or render obvious any dielectric material that includes lanthanum/oxygen within a PMOS transistor while another dielectric material includes aluminum/oxygen within an NMOS transistor. The Examiner views that Cheng in view of Chuang suggests the above limitation and/or statements. Specifically, Cheng teaches forming a first gate electrode (132) (left side) on a gate dielectric (IL, 115) which is in direct contact with a first portion (above channel region) of semiconductor; (figure 13; [0035], [0049]). In addition, Cheng teaches a second gate electrode (132) (right side) on the gate dielectric (IL, 115) which is in direct contact with a third portion (above channel region on the right side) of semiconductor (102); (figure 13; [0035], [0049]). Also, Cheng teaches the high dielectric to include a metal and oxygen that includes both lanthanum/oxygen aluminum/oxygen materials. Lastly, Cheng teaches adjusting the threshold voltages for the PFET and NFET devices by filling the oxygen vacancies in the high-K dielectric layers ([0029]). 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 STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8. 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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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. /STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 October 10, 2025 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 30, 2019
Application Filed
Feb 27, 2021
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 04, 2021
Response Filed
Oct 09, 2021
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 18, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2022
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 13, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 18, 2022
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 20, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 27, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 02, 2022
Response Filed
Dec 29, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
May 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 17, 2023
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
May 17, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 26, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jul 05, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 20, 2023
Response Filed
Feb 12, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
May 22, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Jul 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 11, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 18, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 10, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604706
APPARATUS INCLUDING TRANSPARENT MATERIAL FOR TRANSPARENT PROCESS PERFORMANCE AND METHOD USING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604715
ISOLATION STRUCTURE AND MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593714
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING BONDING ENHANCEMENT LAYER AND METHOD OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593496
Multiple Threshold Voltage Implementation Through Lanthanum Incorporation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581981
Method of Forming an Interconnection between an Electric Component and an Electronic Component
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

10-11
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
48%
With Interview (-37.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 948 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month