DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Election on 11/25/2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9 – 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025.
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 – 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).
Regarding claim 2, Ikeda et al. teaches 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.
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda et al. teaches that the first electrode 15-BL and the insulating film 17-2 are disposed in one layer (Figure 21 shows them flush).
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
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) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okajima et al. (US 2023/0309294, appears to be common assignee) shows in Figure 17 that a first electrode 51 is in the same layer as insulating layer 64. Gawase et al. (US 2022/0302320) also appears to teach the invention of claim 1 (at least Figure 13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN MI KIM KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM MST.
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 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.
/SUN MI KIM KING/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights