DETAILED ACTION
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-19, 22, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao (U.S. PGPub 2023/0261074) in view of Yang (U.S. PGPub 2022/0254640).
Regarding claim 18, Bao teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor structure, comprising: forming two patterned structures which include two channel layers, respectively, forming two interfacial layers respectively on the two channel layers, each of the two interfacial layers including an insulating material, forming two gate dielectric layers respectively over the two interfacial layers, forming two gate electrodes respectively on the two gate dielectric layers (Fig. 11, Fig. 14, channel layer 115, interfacial layer 120, gate dielectric 125, [0035], [0045], gate electrode 240, [0048]), and before forming the two gate electrodes, introducing dipole elements into the two interfacial layers so as to permit a first atomic concentration of the dipole elements in one of the two interfacial layers to be different from a second atomic concentration of the dipole elements in another one of the two interfacial layers ([0045]-[0046]).
Bao does not explicitly teach wherein the dipole elements include zinc.
Yang teaches introducing a dipole element into a gate dielectric layer, where the dipole element may be zinc ([0024], [0041], [0049]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Yang with Bao such that the dipole elements include zinc because the prior art teaches an element which differs from the claim by substitution with a different element, the claimed element is known in the art, a person of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Bao and Yang teaches wherein the two gate electrodes are formed simultaneously and have a same thickness (Bao, Fig. 14, [0048], [0034]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bao and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Bao and Yang teaches wherein the two gate electrodes have a same material (Bao, [0048]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bao and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Bao and Yang teaches forming first gate dielectric layers respectively on the first interfacial layers, forming second gate dielectric layers respectively on the second interfacial layers (Bao, Fig. 2, structures D2/D3/D4, channel layers 115, interfacial layers 120, gate dielectrics 125, [0035], [0045]), forming a first gate electrode on the first gate dielectric layers to fill a space between two adjacent ones of the first channel layers, forming a second gate electrode on the second gate dielectric layers to fill a space between two adjacent ones of the second channel layers (Bao, Fig. 14, gate electrodes 240, [0048]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further combine the teachings of Bao and Yang for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9-12, 14-15, 23, 25-28, and 30-31 are allowed.
Reasons for allowance can be found in the Office action dated 11/28/25 and remain valid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2016/0148846 teaches where zinc is used as a dipole element ([0117]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIA SABUR whose telephone number is (571)270-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/ALIA SABUR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812