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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/29/26 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/25/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims depend from canceled claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. These is no support in the specification for the combined dipole layer and initial dipole layer (i.e., GaN and GaO) having the specified thickness.
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 21 is 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 21 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear if the dipole layer is intended to comprise both GaN and GaO or this is a reference to the dipole layer and the initial dipole layer.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2017/0179252) in view of Guha (US 2009/0302370) in view of Lai (US 2021/0375629).
Claims 1, 4, 12, 14, 21:
Tang teaches a method for manufacturing a transistor [0003] comprising a substrate [0019], gate dielectric layer [0020], dipole layer [0021], and gate electrode [0023]. The dipole layer is lanthanum nitride [0021] and is deposited by ALD from a lanthanum precursor and hydrazine [0028].
Tang does not teach gallium nitride as the dipole layer.
However, Guha teaches a method for manufacturing a transistor comprising a substrate, high-k dielectric layer, dipole layer, and gate electrode (abstract). The dipole layer is used to tune the transistor by way of voltage shift [0024] and can be selected from several oxides and nitrides (Table 1; [0030]). Table 1 includes lanthanum and gallium and the nitride versions are expected to behave similar to the listed oxides (Id.).
Guha does not specifically teach using gallium oxide and gallium nitride together.
However, Lai teaches forming a dipole layer including a dipole engineering dopant such as gallium [0034] deposited as oxide and nitrides of the dipole dopant, such as gallium oxide, gallium nitride, and combinations thereof [0035]. The thickness of these films is in the range of 0.3-30 Å (Id.). It is noted that the process for forming the oxide/nitride combination in ALD is sequential (i.e., forming the oxide layer followed by the nitride layer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Tang and substitute the lanthanum nitride dipole layer with a gallium nitride and gallium oxide dipole layer. Guha and Lai teach all materials are known for use as a dipole layer and the material is chosen based on the desired voltage shift.
Claim 6:
Tang teaches the ALD process is at elevated temperature [0028].
Claims 8-9, 15:
Tang teaches the thickness of the dipole layer modulates the threshold voltage of the transistor to a predetermined value such as 1-6 Ang [0021]. Guha teaches of 0.3 to 2 nm [0024]. The voltage shift per thickness of gallium nitride is assumed to be an inherent property (Lai [0035]).
Claim 11:
Tang teaches the gate dielectric is silica or a high-k material [0027].
Claim 20:
For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to comprising. See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355. MPEP 2111.03.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2017/0179252) in view of Guha (US 2009/0302370) in view of Lai (US 2021/0375629) in view of Clark (US 2008/0242077).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the precursors used. It is noted that Tang teaches the gate electrode is any suitable metal, metal alloy, or metal-containing material [0029] and Guha teaches the gate electrode is TiN [0025] (relevant for claim 10). However, Clark teaches a method of ALD [0019] wherein the precursors include gallane (GaH3) or triple ligand group III precursors where the ligands are alkyl group or halides such as iodine [0083], alkyl hydrazine [0085], and halide metal precursors are generally known [0063; 0082]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Tang/Guha using the precursors disclosed by Clark. Clark establishes the precursors are known for use in an ALD processes.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2017/0179252) in view of Guha (US 2009/0302370) in view of Lai (US 2021/0375629) in view of Zhang (US 2020/0373300).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach a gate all around transistor. However, Zhang teaches gate all around transistors [0001] including a dipole layer [0005] and being an alternative transistor structure [0030]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Tang/Guha on a gate all around transistor because Zhang teaches the inclusion of a dipole layer and substitution with other transistor structures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/29/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 103 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 further search.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights