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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Sep. 29th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-22 and 24-26 remain pending in the application.
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, 4-7, 9-22 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (US 20190067492) in view of Sabino et al. (“Bismuth-doped Ga203 as candidate for p-type transparent conducting material”, arXiv.org, 03 June 2019, arXiv: 1906.00840) and Katsuaki et al. (JP 2004349670).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto teaches a method for forming an oxide film (fig. 1, i-type semiconductor layer 3; para. 0064) that is semi-conductive or conductive (fig. 1, 3 is a semiconductor layer) on a substrate (fig. 12, substrate 20; para. 0081), the oxide film being doped with a generic metal (i-type semiconductor layer may include an n-type dopants or a p-type dopants; para. 0032) and made of an indium oxide, a gallium oxide, an oxide including the gallium oxide, or an oxide of a combination thereof (i-type semiconductor layer contains the second semiconductor, which may include at least one oxide selected from among aluminum oxide, gallium oxide, indium oxide; para. 0031-0032), the method comprising
supplying a mist (fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24; para. 0081) of a solution (fig. 12, raw-material solution 24a; para. 0081) to a surface of the substrate (fig. 12, surface of 20) while heating the substrate (fig. 12, 20, heater 28 was activated to raise the temperature; para. 0083), an oxide film material (metal compound and oxidant, raw material solution contains a compound of the metal contained in the semiconductors; para. 0045, 0047) and a generic metal compound (raw-material solution may contain a dopant; para. 0048) being dissolved in the solution (raw-material solution containing at least one metal dissolved in an organic solvent or water; para. 0046), the oxide film material containing a constituent element of the oxide film (material in the raw material solution contains a compound of the metal contained in the semiconductors; para. 0045).
Sugimoto fails to explicitly teach the oxide film being doped with a bismuth.
However, Sabino teaches the oxide film (Sabino: Gallium oxide; Abstract, similar to 3 of Sugimoto) being doped with a bismuth (Sabino: Bismuth-doped; Title).
Sabino and Sugimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add bismuth as a dopant as taught by Sabino into Sugimoto.
Doing so would realize oxide film doped with Bi, which introduces an intermediate valence band, which is significantly higher than the original O 2p band, as a strong candidate for p-type transparent conducting material (Sabino: p. 1, para. 5).
In addition, Sugimoto in view of Sabino fails to explicitly teach a bismuth compound being dissolved in the solution, wherein the bismuth compound is selected from the group consisting of bismuth naphthenate, bismuth oxyacetate and bismuth oxysalicylate.
However, Katsuaki teaches a bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds; para. 0010) being dissolved in the solution (Katsuaki: solution; para. 0009), wherein the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) is selected from the group consisting of bismuth naphthenate, bismuth oxyacetate and bismuth oxysalicylate (Katsuaki: bismuth naphthenate; para. 0010).
Katsuaki, Sabino and Sugimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bismuth compounds being dissolved in the solution as taught by Katsuaki.
Doing so would realize a well known bismuth compound for a solution of the composite metal oxide containing Bi doping. Furthermore, 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.
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Katsuaki further teach supplying the mist (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24) to the surface of the substrate (Sugimoto: fig. 12, surface of 20) includes:
generating the mist from the solution (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist generator 24, ultrasonic transducer 26 vibration propagated to the raw material solution 24a to form a mist; para. 0084) in which both the oxide film material (Sugimoto: metal compound and oxidant) and the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) are dissolved; and
supplying, to the surface of the substrate (Sugimoto: fig. 12, surface of 20, mist was introduced in the film formation chamber 27 with the carrier gas; para. 0084), the mist of the solution (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24 with raw-material solution 24a) in which both the oxide film material (Sugimoto: metal compound and oxidant) and the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) are dissolved.
Regarding claim 5, Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Katsuaki further teach supplying the mist (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24) to the surface of the substrate (Sugimoto: fig. 12, surface of 20) includes:
generating a mist from a solution (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist generator 24, ultrasonic transducer 26 vibration propagated to the raw material solution 24a to form a mist; para. 0083) in which the oxide film material (Sugimoto: metal compound and oxidant) is dissolved;
generating a mist from a solution (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist generator 24, ultrasonic transducer 26 vibration propagated to the raw material solution 24a to form a mist; para. 0084) in which the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) is dissolved; and
supplying, to the surface of the substrate (Sugimoto: fig. 12, surface of 20, mist was introduced in the film formation chamber 27 with the carrier gas; para. 0084), the mist of the solution (Sugimoto: fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24 with raw-material solution 24a) in which the oxide film material (Sugimoto: metal compound and oxidant) is dissolved and the mist of the solution (fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24 with raw-material solution 24a) in which the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) is dissolved.
Regarding claim 6, Sugimoto teaches a method for forming an oxide film (fig. 1, i-type semiconductor layer 3; para. 0064) on a substrate (fig. 12, substrate 20; para. 0081), the oxide film (3) being a single crystal film (semiconductor may be a single crystal; para. 0033) and semi-conductive or conductive (semiconductor), the oxide film (3) being doped with a generic metal (i-type semiconductor layer may include an n-type dopants or a p-type dopants; para. 0032) and made of an indium oxide. a gallium oxide. an oxide including the gallium oxide. or an oxide of a combination thereof (i-type semiconductor layer contains the second semiconductor, which may include at least one oxide selected from among aluminum oxide, gallium oxide, indium oxide; para. 0031-0032), the method comprising
forming a solution (fig. 12, raw-material solution 24a; para. 0081) of an oxide film material (metal compound and oxidant, raw material solution contains a compound of the metal contained in the semiconductors; para. 0045, 0047) and a generic metal compound (raw-material solution may contain a dopant; para. 0048) by dissolving a constituent element of the oxide film (metal compound and oxidant) and the generic metal compound (dopant) in the solution (raw-material solution containing at least one metal dissolved in an organic solvent or water; para. 0046), and
supplying a mist (fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24; para. 0081) of the solution (24a) to a surface of the substrate (fig. 12, surface of 20) while heating the substrate (fig. 12, 20, heater 28 was activated to raise the temperature; para. 0083) and forming the single crystal film (3 may be a single crystal) on the substrate (20).
Sugimoto fails to explicitly teach the oxide film being doped with a bismuth.
However, Sabino teaches the oxide film (Sabino: Gallium oxide; Abstract, similar to 3 of Sugimoto) being doped with a bismuth (Sabino: Bismuth-doped; Title).
Sabino and Sugimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add bismuth as a dopant as taught by Sabino into Sugimoto.
Doing so would realize oxide film doped with Bi, which introduces an intermediate valence band, which is significantly higher than the original O 2p band, as a strong candidate for p-type transparent conducting material (Sabino: p. 1, para. 5).
In addition, Sugimoto in view of Sabino fails to explicitly teach a bismuth compound being dissolved in the solution, wherein the bismuth compound is selected from the group consisting of bismuth naphthenate, bismuth oxyacetate and bismuth oxysalicylate.
However, Katsuaki teaches a bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds; para. 0010) being dissolved in the solution (Katsuaki: solution; para. 0009), wherein the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) is selected from the group consisting of bismuth naphthenate, bismuth oxyacetate and bismuth oxysalicylate (Katsuaki: bismuth naphthenate; para. 0010).
Katsuaki, Sabino and Sugimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bismuth compounds being dissolved in the solution as taught by Katsuaki.
Doing so would realize a well known bismuth compound for a solution of the composite metal oxide containing Bi doping. Furthermore, 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.
Regarding claim 7, Sugimoto further teaches the oxide film is made of the indium oxide, the gallium oxide, or the oxide of the combination thereof (i-type semiconductor layer contains the second semiconductor, which may include at least one oxide selected from among aluminum oxide, gallium oxide, indium oxide; para. 0031-0032), and
the oxide film material includes at least one of an indium compound, or a gallium compound (i-type semiconductor layer may preferably contain at least one metal selected from among indium and gallium; para. 0032).
Regarding claim 9, Sugimoto further teaches the oxide film is made of the gallium oxide or the oxide including the gallium oxide (i-type semiconductor layer contains the second semiconductor, which may include at least one oxide selected from among aluminum oxide, gallium oxide, indium oxide; para. 0031-0032), and
the oxide film material is a gallium compound (metal compound, i-type semiconductor layer contains at least one metal selected from gallium; para. 0032).
Regarding claim 10, Sugimoto further teaches the gallium compound is an organic compound (raw-material solution containing at least one metal, may include organic metal salts; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 11, Sugimoto further teaches the gallium compound is a metal complex (raw-material solution containing at least one metal, in the form of complex; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 12, Sugimoto further teaches the gallium compound is gallium acetylacetonate (raw-material solution containing at least one metal, may include acetylacetonate complexes; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 13, Sugimoto further teaches the gallium compound is a halide (raw-material solution containing at least one metal, may include metal halide salt; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 14, Sugimoto further teaches the gallium compound is gallium chloride (raw-material solution containing at least one metal, may include metal chloride salt; para. 0046).
Regarding claim 15, Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Yamamoto further teach a number of bismuth atoms (Katsuaki: bismuth atoms of organic bismuth compounds, similar to dopant of Sugimoto: concentration of the dopant that is contained in the i-type semiconductor layer; para. 0032) in the mist of the solution (Sugimoto: mist from mist from mist generator 24 with raw-material solution 24a) in which the oxide film material (Sugimoto: metal compound and oxidant) and the bismuth compound (Katsuaki: organic bismuth compounds) are dissolved and a total number of indium atoms, aluminum atoms, and gallium atoms in the mist (Sugimoto: mist of raw-material solution, ratio of gallium in a metal element may be 0.5 or more; para. 0032).
Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Katsuaki as applied to claim 1 fails to explicitly teach a number of bismuth atoms less than or equal to 1000 times of a total number of indium atoms, aluminum atoms, and gallium atoms.
However, Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Katsuaki teaches a number of bismuth atoms (Katsuaki: bismuth atoms of organic bismuth compounds, similar to dopant of Sugimoto: concentration of the dopant that is contained in the i-type semiconductor layer; para. 0032) less than a total number of gallium atoms (Sugimoto: ratio of gallium in a metal element may be 0.5 or more, total number of the dopant is less than total number of gallium atoms; para. 0032), which overlaps the ratio of less than or equal to 1000 times.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio from less than to less than or equal to 1000 times.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 16, Sugimoto further teaches the substrate is made of gallium oxide (substrate include α-Ga2O3; para. 0039).
Regarding claim 17, Sugimoto further teaches the substrate is made of β-Ga2O3 (substrate contain β-Ga2O3; para. 0039).
Regarding claim 18, Sugimoto further teaches the substrate is made of α-Ga2O3 (substrate include α-Ga2O3; para. 0039).
Regarding claim 19, Sugimoto further teaches the substrate is made of α-Al2O3 (substrate include α-Al2O3; para. 0039).
Regarding claim 20, Sugimoto further teaches the oxide film is made of β-Ga2O3 (i-type semiconductor layer contains β-gallia structure, include β-Ga2O3; para. 0032, 0039).
Regarding claim 21, Sugimoto further teaches the oxide film is a semi-conductor film (i-type semiconductor layer is semi-conductor film), the method further comprising doping the oxide film with an acceptor (i-type semiconductor may contain a dopant include p-type dopants as acceptor; para. 0048).
Regarding claim 22, Sugimoto further teaches supplying the mist of the solution (fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24 with raw-material solution 24a) to the surface of the substrate (fig. 12, surface of 20) includes supplying the mist while heating the substrate (fig. 12, 20, heater 28 was activated to raise the temperature up to 630° C; para. 0083) at a temperature.
Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Katsuaki fails to explicitly teach the temperature in a range between 400° C and 1000° C.
However, Sugimoto teaches the temperature in a range up to 630° C (fig. 12, heater 28 was activated to raise the temperature up to 630° C; para. 0082), which overlaps the temperature range between 400° C and 1000° C.
Sugimoto is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to have modified the range of temperature from up to 630° C to between 400° C and 1000° C.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 24, Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Katsuaki further teaches a method for producing a semiconductor device (Sugimoto: semiconductor device; abstract) including an oxide film (Sugimoto: fig. 1, i-type semiconductor layer 3; para. 0064), the method comprising forming the oxide film by the method according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 25, Sugimoto further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the solution (raw-material solution 24a) is an aqueous solution (aqueous solution; para. 0082).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto in view of Sabino and Masaki et al. (WO 2009116181).
Regarding claim 26, Sugimoto teaches a method for forming an oxide film (fig. 1, i-type semiconductor layer 3; para. 0064) that is semi-conductive or conductive (fig. 1, 3 is a semiconductor layer) on a substrate (fig. 12, substrate 20; para. 0081), the oxide film being doped with a generic metal (i-type semiconductor layer may include an n-type dopants or a p-type dopants; para. 0032) and made of an indium oxide, a gallium oxide, an oxide including the gallium oxide, or an oxide of a combination thereof (i-type semiconductor layer contains the second semiconductor, which may include at least one oxide selected from among aluminum oxide, gallium oxide, indium oxide; para. 0031-0032), the method comprising
supplying a mist (fig. 12, mist from mist generator 24; para. 0081) of a solution (fig. 12, raw-material solution 24a; para. 0081) to a surface of the substrate (fig. 12, surface of 20) while heating the substrate (fig. 12, 20, heater 28 was activated to raise the temperature; para. 0083), an oxide film material (metal compound and oxidant, raw material solution contains a compound of the metal contained in the semiconductors; para. 0045, 0047) and a generic metal compound (raw-material solution may contain a dopant; para. 0048) being dissolved in the solution (raw-material solution containing at least one metal dissolved in an organic solvent or water; para. 0046), the oxide film material containing a constituent element of the oxide film (material in the raw material solution contains a compound of the metal contained in the semiconductors; para. 0045).
Sugimoto fails to explicitly teach the oxide film being doped with a bismuth.
However, Sabino teaches the oxide film (Sabino: Gallium oxide; Abstract, similar to 3 of Sugimoto) being doped with a bismuth (Sabino: Bismuth-doped; Title).
Sabino and Sugimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add bismuth as a dopant as taught by Sabino into Sugimoto.
Doing so would realize oxide film doped with Bi, which introduces an intermediate valence band, which is significantly higher than the original O 2p band, as a strong candidate for p-type transparent conducting material (Sabino: p. 1, para. 5).
In addition, Sugimoto in view of Sabino fails to explicitly teach a bismuth compound being dissolved in the solution, wherein the bismuth compound is selected from the group consisting of bismuth oxyacetate, and bismuth oxysalicylate.
However, Masaki teaches a bismuth compound (Masaki: bismuth compound; para. 0076) being dissolved in the solution (Masaki: liquid phase; para. 0076), wherein the bismuth compound (Masaki: bismuth compound) is selected from the group consisting of bismuth oxyacetate, and bismuth oxysalicylate (Masaki: bismuth oxyacetate; para. 0076).
Masaki, Sabino and Sugimoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of method for forming film in semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bismuth compounds being dissolved in the solution as taught by Masaki.
Doing so would realize a well known bismuth compound for a solution of the composite metal oxide containing Bi doping. Furthermore, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-22 and 24-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 11/19/25