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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s reply filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered and considered. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the shift in grounds of rejection detailed below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot.
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1-2, 4-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (US 2019/0305133 A1; hereafter Sharma) in view of Furukawa et al (US 6251,755 A1; hereafter Furukawa).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. Sharma discloses an atom probe tomography test sample, comprising:
a first portion having a first material including a doped semiconductor material (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]); and
a second portion (source/drain contact 112b, construed as second portion, Para [ 0060]) that is adjacent to the first portion (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]), the second portion including a second material (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]) different from that of the doped semiconductor material (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]), wherein a side surface of the first portion (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]) continues from a side surface of the second portion (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]).
But Sharma does not disclose explicitly the second portion including a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample.
In a similar field of endeavor, Furukawa discloses “initial semiconductor structure that can be employed in the present invention prior to contact with an atomic force probe (or atomic force microscope (AFM)). Specifically, the initial structure shown in FIG. 1 comprises a semiconductor substrate 10 having a layer of dopant or bandgap source material 12 formed on one of its surfaces”, Col 3, lines 25-40). Furukawa further discloses the second portion including a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample (Col 4, lines 60-70 and Col 5, lines 1-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Sharma in light of Furukawa teaching “initial semiconductor structure that can be employed in the present invention prior to contact with an atomic force probe (or atomic force microscope (AFM)). Specifically, the initial structure shown in FIG. 1 comprises a semiconductor substrate 10 having a layer of dopant or bandgap source material 12 formed on one of its surfaces”, Col 3, lines 25-40). Furukawa further discloses the second portion including a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample (Col 4, lines 60-70 and Col 5, lines 1-35)” for further advantage such as provides better control, i.e. placement, of the impurity atoms into the substrate and provides higher impurity resolution.
In addition, “a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 2. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 1, Sharma further discloses wherein the second material is one or more of Co, Ni, AlO, TiO, ZnO, TaN, or TiN (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]).
Regarding claim 4. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 1, Sharma further discloses wherein the second material has a gap- filling property (source/drain contact 112b, TiN which is same materials used as instant application. Same materials can have same properties Para [ 0060]).
Regarding claim 5. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 1, Sharma further discloses comprising a dielectric material (spacer 116b, Para [0037]) adjacent to the second portion (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]) and adjacent to the first portion (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]), the dielectric material (spacer 116b, Para [0037]) being different from the second material (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]).
Regarding claim 6. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 5, Sharma further discloses wherein the second material is identifiable from the dielectric material in an atom probe tomography operation (source/drain contact 112b made with TiN, which is same materials used as instant application. Same materials can have same properties Para [ 0060]).
Regarding claim 7. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 5, Sharma further discloses wherein the second portion (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]) is adjacent to the first portion in a first direction (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]), and the dielectric material (spacer 116b, Para [0037]) is adjacent to the first portion in the first direction (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]) and is adjacent to the second portion in a second direction (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]) that is transverse to the first direction ( Fig . [1B]).
Regarding claim 8. Sharma discloses an atom probe tomography test sample, comprising:
a first portion having a first material including a doped semiconductor material (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]);
a second portion (Fig [1B], source/drain contact 112b, construed as second portion, Para [ 0060]) that is adjacent to the first portion in a first direction (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]), the second portion including a second material different from the doped semiconductor material (Fig [1B], source/drain contact 112b, construed as second portion, Para [ 0060]); and
a third portion of a dielectric layer (spacer 116b, Para [0037]) adjacent to the second portion in a second direction transverse to the first direction (Fig [1B], source/drain contact 112b, construed as second portion, Para [ 0060]), wherein a side surface of the first portion (Fig [1B], doped region 121b, construed as first portion, Para [ 0025-0026,0044]) continues from a side surface of the second portion (Fig [1B], source/drain contact 112b, construed as second portion, Para [ 0060]).
But Sharma does not disclose explicitly the second portion including a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample.
In a similar field of endeavor, Furukawa discloses “initial semiconductor structure that can be employed in the present invention prior to contact with an atomic force probe (or atomic force microscope (AFM)). Specifically, the initial structure shown in FIG. 1 comprises a semiconductor substrate 10 having a layer of dopant or bandgap source material 12 formed on one of its surfaces”, Col 3, lines 25-40). Furukawa further discloses the second portion including a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample (Col 4, lines 60-70 and Col 5, lines 1-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Sharma in light of Furukawa teaching ““initial semiconductor structure that can be employed in the present invention prior to contact with an atomic force probe (or atomic force microscope (AFM)). Specifically, the initial structure shown in FIG. 1 comprises a semiconductor substrate 10 having a layer of dopant or bandgap source material 12 formed on one of its surfaces”, Col 3, lines 25-40). Furukawa further discloses the second portion including a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample (Col 4, lines 60-70 and Col 5, lines 1-35)” for further advantage such as provides better control, i.e. placement, of the impurity atoms into the substrate and provides higher impurity resolution.
In addition, “a hemispherical tip of the atom probe tomography test sample”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 9. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 8, Sharma further discloses wherein the second material is one or more of Co, Ni, AlO, TiO, ZnO, TaN, or TiN (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]).
Regarding claim 11. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 8, Sharma further discloses wherein the second material has a gap- filling property (source/drain contact 112b, TiN which is same materials used as instant application. Same materials can have same properties Para [ 0060]).
Regarding claim 12. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 8, Sharma further discloses wherein the second material is identifiable from the dielectric material (spacer 116b, Para [0037]) in an atom probe tomography operation (source/drain contact 112b, Para [ 0060]).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al (US 2019/0305133 A1; hereafter Sharma) in view of Furukawa et al (US 6251,755 A1; hereafter Furukawa) as applied claims above and further in view of Sung et al (US 10,388,800 B1; hereafter Sung).
Regarding claim 3. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 1, But, Sharma and Furukawa disclose does not disclose explicitly wherein the second material is one or more of a carbon-based organic compound or an oxygen-based compound material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sung discloses wherein the second material is one or more of a carbon-based organic compound or an oxygen-based compound material (source/drain contact 132, col 8, lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Sharma and Furukawa in light of Sung teaching “wherein the second material is one or more of a carbon-based organic compound or an oxygen-based compound material (source/drain contact 132, col 8, lines 10-25)” for further advantage such as using well -know reliable materials for metal layer. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (See. MPEP.2144.07).
Regarding claim 10. Sharma and Furukawa disclose the test sample of claim 8, But, Sharma and Furukawa disclose does not disclose explicitly wherein the second material is one or more of a carbon-based organic compound or an oxygen-based compound material.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sung discloses wherein the second material is one or more of a carbon-based organic compound or an oxygen-based compound material (source/drain contact 132, col 8, lines 10-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Sharma and Furukawa in light of Sung teaching “wherein the second material is one or more of a carbon-based organic compound or an oxygen-based compound material (source/drain contact 132, col 8, lines 10-25)” for further advantage such as using well -know reliable materials for metal layer. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (See. MPEP.2144.07).
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 MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights