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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/ Restrictions
Applicant's election of group II: claims 1-19, cancellation of claims 20-25 and submission of new claims 26-31 in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 12/18/2025”, is/are acknowledged. This office action considers claims 1-19, 26-31, in “Claims - 12/18/2025”, pending for prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10, 26-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 recites:
“a gate material on the on the first dielectric material”. Applicant may recite “a gate material on the first dielectric material” to overcome this objection.
Claim 9 recites:
“a second gate material on the on the third dielectric material”. Applicant may recite “a second gate material on the third dielectric material” to overcome this objection.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Claim 26 recites:
“a first gate material on the on the first dielectric material” and “a second gate material on the on the third dielectric material”. Applicant may recite “a first gate material on the first dielectric material” and “a second gate material on the third dielectric material” to overcome this objection.
Claims 27-31 depend from claim 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doyle et al. (US 20200235244 A1 – hereinafter Doyle).
Regarding Claim 1, Doyle teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig. 3G along with Figs. 3A-3F; specifically, ([0038] - [0044]), and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (202 – Fig. 3G – [0038]);
a first source or drain material (206 – [0043]) on the substrate (202);
a semiconductor material (222 – [0044] – also see Fig. 3F) on the first source or drain material (206);
a second source or drain (208 – [0048]) material on the semiconductor material (222);
a first dielectric material (right bottom 210 – [0042]) on the substrate (202) and adjacent the first source or drain material (206);
a ferroelectric (FE) material (right 218 – [0042]) on the first dielectric material (right bottom 210) and adjacent the semiconductor material (222);
a gate material (top right 212 – [0042]) on the on the first dielectric material (right bottom 210) and adjacent the FE material (right 218); and
a second dielectric material (top right 210) on the FE material (right 218) and gate material (top right 212), the second dielectric material (top right 210) adjacent the second source or drain material (208).
Regarding Claim 3, Doyle teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the FE material (218) is a perovskite material ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 4, Doyle teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the FE material includes one or more of Barium, Titanium, Zirconium, Calcium, Strontium, Lanthanum, Bismuth, Iron, Cobalt, Lithium, Niobium, Potassium, and Oxygen ([0047]).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Lin et al. (US 20240107772 A1 - hereinafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 5, Doyle teaches Claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. But Doyle does not expressly disclose wherein the semiconductor material includes one or more of Barium, Tin, Lanthanum, Neodymium, Strontium, Titanium, Indium, Gallium, Zinc, Nickel, and Oxygen.
However, it is well known in the art to form a semiconductor material that include Indian, Zinc among others as is also taught by Lin (Lin – [0024] – “a material of the semiconductor layer 41 includes indium zinc oxide (IZO), indium tin oxide (ITO), indium oxide (In.sub.2O.sub.3), gallium oxide (Ga.sub.2O.sub.3), indium gallium zinc oxide (InGaZnO), zinc oxide (ZnO), aluminum zinc oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.5Zn.sub.2), aluminum doped zinc oxide (AZO), indium tungsten oxide (IWO), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.x), semiconductor materials including III-V materials, alloys including a combination of above materials, or a combination thereof”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the semiconductor material includes one or more of Barium, Tin, Lanthanum, Neodymium, Strontium, Titanium, Indium, Gallium, Zinc, Nickel, and Oxygen as taught by Lin into Doyle.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Liu structure into Jang structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of choosing a well functional semiconductor.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Lin et al. (US 20220384656 A1 - hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 6, Doyle teaches Claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. But Doyle does not expressly disclose wherein the substrate comprises one or more of Strontium, Titanium, Gadolinium, Scandium, Dysprosium, Lanthanum, Aluminum, Barium, Hafnium, Zirconium, Indium, Lutetium, Magnesium, and Oxygen.
However, it is well known in the art to form a substrate comprising one or more of Strontium, Titanium, Gadolinium, Scandium, Dysprosium, Lanthanum, Aluminum, Barium, Hafnium, Zirconium, Indium, Lutetium, Magnesium, and Oxygen as is also taught by Lee (Lee – [0027] – “the first substrate 100 may include a silicon oxide substrate, an aluminum oxide substrate, or a nitride substrate”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein one or more of Strontium, Titanium, Gadolinium, Scandium, Dysprosium, Lanthanum, Aluminum, Barium, Hafnium, Zirconium, Indium, Lutetium, Magnesium, and Oxygen as taught by Lee into Doyle.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Lee structure into Jang structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of choosing a well functional substrate.
Claims 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle in view of Yoneda et al. (US 20240250145 A1 - hereinafter Yoneda).
Regarding Claim 7, Doyle teaches Claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. But Doyle does not expressly disclose wherein the first source or drain material and the second source or drain material each comprise one or more of Strontium, Ruthenium, Barium, Lanthanum, Tin, Manganese, Cobalt, Nickel, Yttrium, Copper, Vanadium, Molybdenum, Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Tungsten, and Oxygen.
However, it is well known in the art to form a source or drain material comprising one or more of Strontium, Ruthenium, Barium, Lanthanum, Tin, Manganese, Cobalt, Nickel, Yttrium, Copper, Vanadium, Molybdenum, Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Tungsten, and Oxygen as is also taught by Yoneda (Yoneda – [0068] – “Next, source electrode 50 of platinum (Pt) and drain electrode 60 of platinum (Pt) each having a film thickness of 80 nm are formed on channel forming film 40”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein a source or drain material comprising one or more of Strontium, Ruthenium, Barium, Lanthanum, Tin, Manganese, Cobalt, Nickel, Yttrium, Copper, Vanadium, Molybdenum, Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Tungsten, and Oxygen as taught by Yoneda into Doyle.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Yoneda structure into Jang structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefit of choosing a source or drain material to form a functional transistor.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Doyle and Yoneda teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the gate material comprises one or more of Strontium, Ruthenium, Barium, Lanthanum, Tin, Manganese, Cobalt, Nickel, Yttrium, Copper, Vanadium, Molybdenum, Platinum, Iridium, Palladium, Tungsten, and Oxygen (Yoneda – [0065] – “Next, gate electrode 20 of platinum (Pt) having a film thickness of 80 nm”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 2: The device of claim 1, wherein a lattice parameter of the semiconductor material is higher than a lattice parameter of the FE material.
Regarding claim 9: The device of claim 1, wherein the FE material is a first FE material and the gate material is a first gate material, and the device further comprises: a third dielectric material on the substrate and adjacent the first source or drain material; a second FE material on the third dielectric material and adjacent the semiconductor material; a second gate material on the on the third dielectric material and adjacent the second FE material; a fourth dielectric material on the second FE material and the second gate material, the fourth dielectric material adjacent the second source or drain material.
Regarding claim 10: The device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material is a first semiconductor material, and the device further comprises: a third dielectric material on the second source or drain material; a third source or drain material on the third dielectric material; a second semiconductor material on the third source or drain material; a fourth source or drain material on the second semiconductor material; a second FE material on the second dielectric material and adjacent the second semiconductor material, wherein the gate material is further adjacent the second FE material; and a fourth dielectric material on the second FE material and the gate material.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 11-19, 26-31 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 11, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20200235244 A1 to Doyle) substantially teach(es) some of limitations in claim 11 as indicated in the rejection of claim1 above, but not the limitations of “wherein the FE material has a lattice parameter that is less than a lattice parameter of the semiconductor material” as recited in claim 11. Therefore, the claim 11 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 12-19, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 11.
Regarding claim 26, similar to claim 11, Doyle teaches some the limitations of claim 26, but not the limitations of “a second dielectric material on the first FE material and first gate material, the second dielectric material adjacent the second source or drain material; a third dielectric material on the substrate and adjacent the first source or drain material; a second FE material on the third dielectric material and adjacent the semiconductor material; a second gate material on the on the third dielectric material and adjacent the second FE material; a fourth dielectric material on the second FE material and the second gate material, the fourth dielectric material adjacent the second source or drain material” as recited in claim 11. Therefore, the claim 11 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 27-31, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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 J. Maldonado can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898