DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the patent application no. 18/232,549 filed on August 10, 2023.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the contrast between different symbols is not enough to tell them apart for FIG. 1. Examiner can only see two shades of black dots and cannot tell apart which circles are for Geometrical scaling and which circles are for Equivalent scaling. Since no original source was provided, Examiner cannot consult with the original source. 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.
Figure 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 § 112
Claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush groupings of “Cd, As, Cr, Pd, Sc, V, Sn, Mo, Mn, Ti, Ge, Ag, Ni, In, or Ga” and “Cr, V, Sn, Mo, Mn, Ti, Ge, Ag, Ni, In, or Ga” and “V, Sn, Mo, Mn, Ti, Ge, Ag, Ni, In, or Ga” or are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: Not all of them belong to the transition metal group. Few of them belong to the basic metal group and few of them belong to semimetal group. Not all of them are commonly known to be used as a dopant into the oxide high-k gate dielectric material.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (Zhong hereinafter) (US 2021/0408296) in view of Chen et al. (Chen hereinafter) (CN 105762179).
Regarding Claims 1-8 and 11-18:
Zhong (see FIG. 5) teaches {1} a structure comprising a p-doped thin layer 307 and an oxide high-k gate dielectric layer 305, wherein the thin layer has a thickness of 10 nm or less; {2} a structure comprising a p-doped transition metal dichalcogenide layer and a binary oxide high-k gate dielectric layer; {3, 13} he thin layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide layer; {4, 14} the transition metal dichalcogenide layer comprises a transition metal dichalcogenide selected from MoS2, MoSe2, WS2, and WSe2; {5, 15} the transition metal dichalcogenide is selected from MoS2 and WSe2; {6, 16} the oxide high-k gate dielectric layer comprises HfO2, ZrO2, BaTiO3, or doped-SrTiO3; and {7, 17} the oxide high-k gate dielectric layer comprises HfO2.
Zhong (see ¶ [0053], [0056], [0057], [0069]) teaches “a gate dielectric layer 305 … the material of the gate dielectric layer can be at least one of … a high-k dielectric material, a metal oxide”; “a first transition metal dichalcogenide 306 with metallic properties … can be at least one of MoTe2, MoS2 and WTe2 … and the thickness is 8 nm”; “the first transition metal dichalcogenide 306 … on both sides of the gate dielectric layer 305 is doped … for the source/drain region of PMOS, the doping element is B and/or Ge, thereby a source/drain region 307 is formed”; “the material of the gate dielectric layer is HfO2, and the thickness is 1.5 nm”.
However, Zhong does not explicitly teach {1} an oxide high-k gate dielectric layer 305 doped with Cd, As, Cr, Pd, Sc, V, Sn, Mo, Mn, Ti, Ge, Ag, Ni, In, or Ga within a fractional (x) limit 0<x<0.25; {2} a binary oxide high-k gate dielectric layer doped with Cr, V, Sn, Mo, Mn, Ti, Ge, Ag, Ni, In, or Ga within a fractional (x) limit 0<x<0.2; and {8, 18} the oxide high-k gate dielectric layer is doped with Sn, Mo, Ti, Ge, or Ni.
Chen (see ¶ [0008], [0009], [0010]) teaches “a hafnium-based high-k gate dielectric stack structure includes an interface transition layer, a hafnium-based high-k gate dielectric layer and a gate electrode … wherein the hafnium-based high-k gate dielectric layer is a stack structure formed by doping hafnium oxide with a transition metal oxide”; “transition metal oxide is either TiO2 or ZrO2 … belong to the same group as hafnium oxide … incorporation of a small amount of transition metal oxide TiO2 or ZrO2 can significantly improve the dielectric constant of the film, reduce the EOT of the hafnium-based stack structure under the same gate dielectric thickness, improve reliability, and provide high dielectric constant and stable hafnium-based high-k gate dielectric films”; and “hafnium-based high-k gate dielectric layer is deposited using ALD … by adjusting the number of cycles and the order of deposition of transition metal titanium or zirconium sources and hafnium sources … the doping amount of the transition metal oxide is 5%-20%, and the physical thickness of the hafnium-based high-K gate dielectric layer is 1-4 nm”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teaching of Zhong to further include the teaching of Chen to substitute the gate dielectric layer with other known materials, such as hafnium oxide doped with Ti and to limit the doping amount of Ti to certain level to reach desirable dielectric constant and EOT (equivalent oxide thickness) per design requirements.
Regarding Claims 11-18:
The limitations “the method … according to claim 1” of Claim 11 and “the method ,,, according to claim 2” of Claim 12 are merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (Zhong hereinafter) (US 2021/0408296) in view of Chen et al. (Chen hereinafter) (CN 105762179) as applied to claim 8, 2, 18, or 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Kim hereinafter) (US 8,232,182).
Regarding Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20:
Zhong in the device of Chen does not explicitly teach the oxide high-k gate dielectric layer is doped with Ni.
Kim (see col.3/ll.53-55) teaches “gate dielectric layer 48 can be Mg, Ni, Mn doped (Ba, Sr)TiO3, Bi1.5Zn1.0Nb1.5O7, HfO2, or the like”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined teaching of Zhong in the device of Chen to further include the teaching of Kim to substitute the gate dielectric layer with other known materials, such as hafnium oxide doped with Ni to reach desirable dielectric constant and EOT (equivalent oxide thickness) per design requirements.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20:
The limitations “the method … according to claim 1” and “the method … according to claim 2” are merely a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICE W TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:30 am to 5 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571)272-1705. 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.
/ALICE W TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814