DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “preparing an indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) channel layer; and inducing a carrier diffusion in the IGZO channel layer using a group 4 element or a group 7 element such that carriers remain in the IGZO channel layer” in lines 3-5.
However, there is lack of proper clarity and claim language for “a group 4 element” or “a group 7 element” in the claim.
Changing “a group 4 element” or “a group 7 element” to --a group 4 element of periodic table-- or --a group 7 element of periodic table—provides proper claim language and clarity.
Similar changes should be applied to claims 2-7 appropriately.
In addition, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for “that carriers remain in the IGZO channel layer” in the claim.
Changing “that carriers remain in the IGZO channel layer” to --that the carrier diffusion remains in the IGZO channel layer-- provides proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the group 4 element provides four carriers for the IGZO channel layer through the carrier diffusion, such that a single carrier remains in the IGZO channel layer” in lines 1-3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the IGZO channel layer provides a single carrier for the group 7 element through the carrier diffusion, such that a single carrier remains in the IGZO channel layer” in lines 1-3.
However, there is lack of clarity in the meaning and scope in the claim for the following reason.
In general, carrier diffusion in the semiconductor is a movement of charge carries electrons and holes form a region of high concentration to low concentration driven by thermal annealing.
However, it is not clear how only four carriers can be provided for IGZO channel layer.
And also, it is not clear that what does it mean that “a single carrier remains in the IGZO channel layer” in the claim.
Does it mean only single atom of group 4 of periodic table element remain in the IGZO channel? How is possible only single atom is remained in the IGZO layer, if the channel doped or diffused to contain group 4 of periodic element atom?
Does it mean only single ion of group 4 of periodic table element remain in the IGZO channel? How is possible only single ion is remained in the IGZO layer, if the channel doped or diffused to contain group 4 of periodic element ion?
Claim 3 also rejected as being dependent of the rejected claim 2.
Claim 5 also rejected as being dependent of the rejected claim 4.
Therefore, the claimed are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claims 2-5, the examiner cannot possibly apply the prior because deciding patentability without disregarding portions of the express wording of the claims and thus resorting to speculation and conjecture as to the particular invention defined therein. Therefore, the examiner cannot make prior art consideration in order to reject claims 2-4. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970) and In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
Claim 10 is directed to a product claim, but does not describe any structural limitations, therefore, it is unclear as to what structural limitations would be present in the product claim. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2113 wherein determination of patentability is based on the product itself, which in this case has no specific limitations.
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) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (US 2018/0315778) in view of YAMAZAKI (JP 2011135063 A).
Re Claims 1 and 10, LI et al. disclose a manufacturing method of an oxide semiconductor, the method comprising: preparing an indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO) channel layer (102). See Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0029].
However, LI et al. do not disclose inducing a carrier diffusion in the IGZO channel layer using a group 4 element or a group 7 element such that carriers remain in the IGZO channel layer.
YAMAZAKI discloses hot carrier injection of silicon (Si) in IGZO (i.e., a carrier diffusion in the IGZO channel layer using a group 4 element of periodic table) in order to improve short channel effect (see YAMAZAKI English translation Page 43 of 111).
Therefore, it 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 to provide LI et al. reference with inducing a carrier diffusion in the IGZO channel layer using a group 4 as taught by YAMAZAKI in order to improve short channel effect.
Re Claim 9, as applied to claim 1 above, LI et al. and YAMAZAKI in combination disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the preparing of the IGZO channel layer comprises providing the IGZO channel layer on a substrate (see LI et al. Fig. 1 and YAMAZAKI Fig. 10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are 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.
Claims 11-20 are allowed over prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “forming at least one groove in a second region of the IGZO channel layer; forming an ohmic junction layer within the groove using an n+ oxide; and bonding a second electrode on the ohmic junction layer,” as recited in claim 11, and “a second region in which at least one groove is formed; a first electrode provided on the first region of the IGZO channel layer; an ohmic junction layer made of an n+ oxide and provided within the groove; and a second electrode bonded on the ohmic junction layer,” as recited in claim 16 respectively.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 are also allowed as being directly dependent of the allowed independent bas claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Shi et al. (US 2015/0171225), Ahmed (US 2015/0179773) and LEE et al. (US 2017/0294456) also disclose similar inventive subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571-272-2266. 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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
February 6, 2026