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 § 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, 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(s) 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 2015/0041803 A1) (“Endo”), in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2021/0226062 A1) (“Yamazaki”), in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2018/0226498 A1) (“Sasaki”).
Examiner note: The combination of references will be made inline to make the rejection clearer. Yamazaki is being added for its second oxide semiconductor layer. The rational to combine will be at the end of the analysis of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Endo teaches at least in figure 4B, and Yamazaki teaches at least in figure 1B:
a substrate (Endo 101) having formed thereon an oxygen passing layer (Endo 102; ¶¶ 0231-232) delimited by an oxygen blocking layer (Endo 151d; ¶ 0169) on two laterally opposite sides (Endo 151d is on both sides of 102),
wherein the oxygen passing layer (Endo 121/102) has a higher oxygen diffusivity relative to the oxygen blocking layer (Endo 151d) (Endo 102 is made of the same material disclosed by Applicant, and 151d is explicitly called an oxygen blocking layer. Therefore, this claimed relative characteristic is inherent/obvious over the prior art);
a first oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103) and a second oxide semiconductor layer (Yamazaki 243a-b) arranged over the substrate (Endo 101),
wherein the first oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103) is arranged on the oxygen passing layer (Endo 102) and the oxygen blocking layer (Endo 151d);
a source structure (Endo 107a and/or Yamazaki 242a) and a drain structure (Endo 107b and/or Yamazaki 242b) arranged on the second oxide semiconductor layer (Yamazaki 243a-b); and
a gate structure (Endo 104/105; Yamazaki 230c/260) arranged on the first oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103) above the oxygen passing layer (Endo 102),
wherein a central region of the first oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103 is the central region) disposed laterally between the source structure (Endo 107a and/or Yamazaki 242a) and the drain structure (Endo 107b and/or Yamazaki 242b) serves as a channel of the FET (Endo 103 so serves as the channel), and
wherein the central region (Endo 103) overlapping with the oxygen passing layer (Endo 121/102) has diffused therein oxygen at a concentration that is at least an order of magnitude higher relative to a concentration of oxygen in adjacent regions of the first oxide semiconductor overlapping with the oxygen blocking layer (while the exact magnitude is not shown in figures 1A-1B the effect of the oxygen blocking layers is disclosed. Where the effect is to block oxygen from entering the layer above it. ¶ 0080. Further, Endo teaches one how to create the oxygen blocking layers in at least ¶ 0087. Further, in ¶ 0009 Endo teaches the function of having more oxygen in the central region of the channel is to enable oxygen vacancies in the oxide semiconductor film to be reduced thereby reducing the variation in characteristics of the transistor. Further, in ¶ 0018, Endo teaches that the oxygen blocking layer can allow less than 1%-20% of the oxygen that attempts to permeate it. Thus, while a specific magnitude is not disclosed it would have been obvious that if the oxygen blocking layer can block more than 99% (1% permeates) that there would be an order of magnitude more oxygen passing through the oxygen passing layer. Thus, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art).
wherein the second oxide semiconductor layer (Yamazaki 242a-b) forms a contact layer to the source structure (Endo 107b and/or Yamazaki 242b) and the drain structure (Endo 107b and/or Yamazaki 242b),
wherein the contact layer (Yamazaki 243a-b) comprises two separate potions (243a and 243b) laterally interposed by the gate structure (Endo 104/105; Yamazaki 230c/260)
such that the source structure (Endo 107a and/or Yamazaki 242a) and one of the two separate portions of the contact layer (Yamazaki 243a-b) are arranged vertically above the oxygen blocking layer (Endo 151d; Sasaki in figure 2 shows the oxygen blocking layer 120 can be extended to be vertically underneath the source structure of a oxide semiconductor transistor. Based upon the prior art this appears to be a change in size or proportion of the oxygen blocking layer as it is the mere scaling of the oxygen blocking layer. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) on one of the two laterally opposite sides (where Endo 107a and/or Yamazaki 242a and Yamazaki 243a-b are arranged above Endo 151d and each on their own laterally opposite side) and such that the drain structure and the other of the two separate portions of the contact layer are arranged vertically above the oxygen blocking layer on the other of the two laterally opposite sides (the drain structure mimics the source structure. The rational for the source structure directly above applies to the drain structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yamazaki with Endo because Yamazaki teaches that this will inhibit the oxidation reaction of the conductor 242a-b. ¶¶ 0129-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sasaki with the above prior art as Sasaki teaches the oxygen blocking layer can be extended to be vertically below the source structure and the drain structure as shown in figure 2. Further, based upon Sasaki the mere scaling of the oxygen blocking layer with the relative dimensions of the oxygen blocking layer does not indicate that the prior art device will perform differently than the claimed device. Therefore, the prior art is not patentably distinct from the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Endo teaches at least in figure 4B, and Yamazaki teaches at least in figure 1B:
wherein the first and/or the second oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103 and Yamazaki 243a-b) comprises one or more of the following materials: indium gallium zinc oxide, indium tin oxide, or indium zinc oxide (Endo ¶¶ 0183-89; Yamazaki ¶ 0131).
Regarding claim 14, Endo does not expressly teach:
wherein the first oxide semiconductor layer comprises dopants.
Yamazaki teaches:
wherein the first oxide semiconductor layer (230) comprises dopants (¶ 0084, where oxygen vacancies are formed by mixing of impurities).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki teaches:
wherein the dopants comprise oxygen vacancies (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki teaches at least in figure 1B:
wherein the two separate portions of the second oxide semiconductor layer (243a-b) comprises a first contact layer to the source structure and a second contact layer to the drain structure the contact layer (the contact layer can be considered the very top portion of 243a-b)
Regarding claim 17, Yamazaki teaches at least in figures 2A-E:
wherein the first oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103) is arranged on the substrate (Endo 103), and
wherein the second oxide semiconductor layer (Yamazaki 243a-b) is arranged on the first oxide semiconductor layer (Endo 103; Yamazaki 230b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's statement filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant has not so much argued against the previous rejection as stated they are making amendments solely to advance prosecution. This statement does not require a response from Examiner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2822