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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As of October 28, 2025, no information disclosure statement has been made of record.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
In ¶ 0028, Applicant references depth D2. There is no depth D2 in figures 2A-3D.
Applicant asserts that figure 4B contains the depth D2. This issue is ¶ 0028 does not reference figure 4B. Rather, ¶ 0028 references figures 2A-3D.Therefore, the depth D2 must be shown in these figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 13-14, 17-19, and 22-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2014/0084340 A1) (“Wang”), in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0278120 A1) (“Lee”), in view of Kaneko et al. (US 2011/0309353 A1) (“Kaneko”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
forming a gate electrode (214);
forming a gate insulating layer (212) on the gate electrode (214);
forming an active layer (202/208) on the gate insulating layer (212);
forming a dielectric layer (218) on the active layer (202/208),
wherein the dielectric layer (218) is partially etched to form two vias (220; ¶ 0031),
wherein the two vias (220) expose a portion of the active layer (202/208) and the portion serves as two contact surfaces for connecting a source electrode and a drain electrode subsequently (fig. 12 elements 228); and
the two contact surfaces are subjected to a plasma treatment to form a protective interface layer (226; ¶¶ 0032-35, where plasma treatment is used in part to form 226).
Wang does not teach:
Wherein the active layer is formed between the gate insulating layer and the dielectric layer.
This is because Wang teaches a top gate style of transistor.
Lee teaches at least in figures 1-2:
That a bottom gate transistor (figure 2) is an obvious variant, or well-known alternative, to a top gate transistor (figure 1).
As evidenced by Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to put the gate and gate insulator of Wang below the active layer as it would have created said obvious variant bottom gate transistor.
Regarding the limitation,
An interface between the protective interface layer and the active layer is lower than an interface between the active layer and dielectric layer.
According to Applicant’s specification at ¶ 0011, the difference between figure 1A and figure 1B is in figure 1A the protective interface layer 140 is formed by deposition, and in figure 1B it is formed by plasma treatment. This difference is what allows the protective interface layer 140 in figure 1A to be on the surface of the active layer 130, and below the surface of the active layer 130 in figure 1B.
Wang teaches that plasma treatment is used to form the protective interface by removing portions of the ILD layer and exposing a portion of the active layer underneath. ¶ 0032. The limitation above is directed to the creation of the protective interface layer element itself. In this regard Wang teaches using a deposition process relying upon an oxygen containing environment. ¶ 0033. Based upon Applicant’s ¶ 0011 this will create a deposition process as shown in figure 1A.
Kaneko teaches at least in figure 1:
An alternative means for forming the protective interface layer (barrier layer 185).
Kaneko teaches that one can use a plasma reduction treatment, ¶ 0078, to form an titanium oxide. ¶ 0080.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Wang’s oxygen environment with Kaneko’s plasma reduction treatment as both create a suitable mechanism for creating a conductive dielectric layer/barrier layer. And, are viewed are alternatives of each other that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to be functionally equivalent substitutions.
Thus, the substitution of Kaneko’s process for Wang’s process would have created “an interface between the protective interface layer and the active layer is lower than an interface between the active layer and dielectric layer” as Kaneko’s process is the same, or substantially similar, process to that described by Applicant to make the protective interface layer have a lower interface in regards to the claimed relationships.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the two vias (220) do not pass through the active layer (202/208), and
a bottom of the protective interface layer (226) is at least disposed under interface between the active layer (202/208) and the dielectric layer (218) (this is the result of incorporating the teachings of Kaneko).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the protective interface layer (226) comprises a material selected from zinc oxide (ZnO),gallium oxide (GaO), indium oxide (InO), nickel oxide (NiO), titanium oxide (TiO) or a combination thereof (¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the protective interface layer (226) comprises a material selected from cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum nitride (TaN), titanium (Ti), Carbon (C), Fluorine (F) or a combination thereof (¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the plasma treatment comprises one of plasma treatments of O3, CO2, NF3, N2O (¶ 0033) (K, and
the protective interface layer (226) is included in the two contact surfaces through the plasma treatment (shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the two vias (222) are formed in the dielectric layer by dry etching (¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the protective interface layer (226) is included in the two contact surfaces (this is shown in figure 10).
Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein a thickness of the protective interface layer (226) is between 0.1 to 2 nm (¶ 0038, where 226 ranges from 1nm to 10nm).
Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the protective interface layer (226) forms an U-shape in the two vias (220) and surrounds the source electrode and the drain electrode (228) (this is shown in figure 12).
Regarding claim 26,
Claim 26 reads on the limitations of claim 13, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 27,
Claim 27 reads on the limitations of claim 19, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 28,
Claim 28 reads on the limitations of claim 22, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 29,
Claim 29 reads on the limitations of claim 25, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 25 above.
Regarding claim 30, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
wherein the protective interface layer (226) comprises a material selected from zinc oxide (ZnO), gallium oxide (GaO), indium oxide (InO), nickel oxide (NiO), titanium oxide (TiO) or a combination thereof (¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 31,
Claim 31 reads on the limitations of claims 13 and 24-25, and is rejected for the same reasons as claims 13 and 24-25 above.
Regarding claim 32,
Claim 32 reads on the limitations of claim 23, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 33,
Claim 33 reads on the limitations of claim 19, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 34,
Claim 34 reads on the limitations of claim 22, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 35,
Claim 35 reads on the limitations of claim 30, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 30 above.
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of Lee, in view of Kaneko, in view of Kodama et al. (US 2009/0134390 A1) (“Kodama”).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches at least in figures 1-12:
The active layer (202/208) is made of silicon, germanium, or a compound semiconductor. ¶ 0014.
Wang does not teach:
wherein the active layer is an oxide semiconductor layer formed by direct current (DC) sputtering or radio frequency (RF) sputtering method.
Kodama does not teach:
wherein the active layer (48) is an oxide semiconductor layer (¶¶ 0038-39, where one can form a transistor of silicon or an oxide semiconductor such as IGZO) formed by direct current (DC) sputtering or radio frequency (RF) sputtering method (¶¶ 0054-61, where RF sputtering can be used).
Response to Arguments
The amendment, filed February 9, 2016, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new references Lee and Kaneko as shown above.
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 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 at 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 2898