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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1,4,5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US 9,698,272, as cited by Applicant on 3/7/2023).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda et al. teaches (Figure 21) a semiconductor device comprising: a channel 15 (Column 10, Line 48, "oxide semiconductor layer") filling a through via hole and including an oxide semiconductor; a first electrode 15-BL (Column 11, Line 17 - 20, "supplemental layer") disposed on the channel 15 and formed of a conductive oxide (also Column 3, Line 11 - 19); and a second electrode BL (Column 11, Line 40, "bit line") disposed on the first electrode 15-BL and formed of a metal (Column 5, Line 12 - 13); an insulating film 17-2 (Column 10, Line 23 -24, "interlayer insulating layer") disposed around the first electrode 15-BL, including the conductive oxide, and having insulating properties. Please note that "including the conductive oxide" appears to be in reference to "the first electrode" where 15-BL was shown to include conductive oxide in claim 1; the first electrode 15-BL and the insulating film 17-2 are disposed in one layer (Figure 21 shows them flush), and the channel 15 (Column 10, Line 48, "oxide semiconductor layer") and the insulating film insulating film 17-2 (Column 10, Line 23 -24, "interlayer insulating layer") are disposed in different layers.
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda et al. teaches that the first electrode has higher oxygen
permeability than the second electrode. The second electrode can be tungsten (Column 5, Line 12 - 13) which is known to have barrier properties.
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda et al. teaches that the first electrode (conductive oxide) and the insulating film (interlayer insulating layer) have higher oxygen permeability than the second electrode (tungsten).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda et al. teaches a semiconductor substrate 11; and a capacitor Cij (Column 10, Line 23) disposed on the semiconductor substrate and electrically connected to the channel.
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda et al. teaches an insulating film 17-1 disposed around the channel; a control electrode WL configured to generate an electric field in the channel; and a semiconductor element SA disposed on the semiconductor substrate and electrically connected to the control electrode WL (see also Figure 4).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. in view of Lee (US 2005/0280123) and Saito et al. (US 2019/0237581).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda et al. does not teach that the insulating film further includes Mg, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, and Bi. Lee teaches that Bi can be included in an interlayer insulating layer (Paragraph 0043). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Bi in the insulating film of Ikeda et al. in the manner as taught by Lee since doing so may help prevent parasitic capacitance.
Ikeda et al. does not teach that the conductive oxide includes O, In, and Sn, however, Saito et al. teaches that a conductive oxide 19 can include O, In, and Sn (at least claim 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the conductive oxide of Ikeda et al. such that it contains O, In, and Sn, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. V. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), also see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, (1960)). Please also see MPEP $2144.07
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach a device wherein the first electrode and the insulating film are disposed in one layer, and the channel and the insulating film are disposed in different layers.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Ikeda et al. teaches (Figure 21) that the first electrode 15-BL and the insulating film 17-2 are disposed in one layer (Figure 21 shows them flush), and the channel 15 (Column 10, Line 48, "oxide semiconductor layer") and the insulating film insulating film 17-2 (Column 10, Line 23 -24, "interlayer insulating layer") are disposed in different layers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
