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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 14, 16-17, 19, 21-24, and 41-42 in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Group II, claims 28 and 35-40 are withdrawn.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of provisional application 63/089,489 submitted on 10/08/2020 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/20/2023, IDS filed on 11/25/2024, and IDS filed on 11/19/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 24 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 24 recites the feature “the source and drain electrodes are positioned below the semiconductor material” in lines 1-2. However, claim 24 depends from claim 23, which recites “the source and drain electrodes are positioned above the semiconductor material”. Accordingly, claim 24 requires the source and drain electrodes to be position both above and below the semiconductor material, resulting in a contradictory and unclear scope. It is unclear how the device of claim 23 can also satisfy the limitations of claim 24.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “The device of claim 23” will be interpreted as “The device of claim 22” in the instant Office Action.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 16, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagyu et al. (JP 2007115944; hereinafter ‘Yagyu’) in view of Narayan et al. (US 2007/0280848; hereinafter ‘Narayan’).
Regarding claim 1, Yagyu teaches a device, comprising:
a non-conducting substrate (21, FIG. 8, [0024]);
a gate electrode (23, FIG. 8, [0024]) positioned on the substrate (21) and having top surface with a root mean square roughness less than 3 nm (RMS of 23 is about 0.5 nm);
a gate insulator (24, FIG. 9, [0025]) positioned on the gate electrode (23) and having a corresponding root mean square roughness to the top surface of the gate electrode (RMS of 24 is about 0.8 nm); and
a semiconductor material (30, FIG. 11, [0027]) positioned on the gate insulator (24) and having a thickness (shown in FIG. 11),
wherein the gate electrode (23).
Yagyu teaches the gate electrode made of tantalum [0017], but does not explicitly teach the gate electrode includes either an amorphous material or a crystalline material.
Narayan teaches a device [0001] wherein a tantalum film includes either an amorphous material or a crystalline material (a tantalum film having amorphous material and crystalline material).
As taught by Narayan, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu to obtain and achieve the device wherein a tantalum film of gate electrode includes either an amorphous material or a crystalline material as claimed, because the crystallinity of a sputtered tantalum film is process-dependent and can be amorphous or crystalline, as tantalum films are known to undergo recrystallization depending on deposition and thermal conditions [0021, 0066].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Narayan in combination with Yagyu due to above reason.
Regarding claim 2, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the top surface of the gate electrode has a low roughness, and wherein the low roughness is indicative of a surface roughness being less than 2 nm (Yagyu: RMS of 23 is about 0.5 nm, [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the surface roughness of the top surface of the gate electrode is less than 1 nm (Yagyu: RMS of 23 is about 0.5 nm, [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, Yagyu does not teach the device wherein the gate electrode has a thickness less than 90 nm.
Narayan teaches the device wherein the gate electrode has a thickness less than 90 nm (the thickness of tantalum films is 10~100 nm, [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the gate electrode has a thickness less than 90 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor material (Yagyu: 30, FIG. 11) includes a channel region (the portion of 30 located between 25 and 26 and adjacent to 24, [0027]; hereinafter ‘CH’), wherein the gate insulator (24) is positioned between the channel region (CH) and the gate electrode (23).
Regarding claim 22, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 16, further comprising:
a source electrode (Yagyu: 25, FIG. 11, [0027]) in contact with the semiconductor material (30); and
a drain electrode (26) in contact with the semiconductor material (30).
Regarding claim 24, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 23, wherein the source (Yagyu: 25, FIG. 11) and drain electrodes (26) are positioned below the semiconductor material (30).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagyu (JP 2007115944) in view of Narayan (US 2007/0280848), further in view of Liaw (US 2015/0008533).
Regarding claim 5, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the device wherein the gate electrode includes titanium aluminide (TiAl3).
Liaw teaches a device [0002] wherein the gate electrode includes TiAl3 (a gate electrode includes TiAl3, [0033]).
As taught by Liaw, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the gate electrode includes TiAl3 as claimed, because TiAl3 is a well-known material and widely used as a gate electrode in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Liaw in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagyu (JP 2007115944) in view of Narayan (US 2007/0280848), further in view of Chu et al. (US 2016/0293747; hereinafter ‘Chu’).
Regarding claim 11, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 10, Yagyu does not teach the device wherein the gate electrode has a thickness less than 25 nm.
Narayan teaches the device wherein the gate electrode has a thickness less than 25 nm (the thickness of tantalum films is 10~00 nm, [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the gate electrode has a thickness less than 25 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Yagyu in view of Narayan does not teach the device wherein the gate insulator has a thickness less than 15 nm.
Chu teaches a device [0024] wherein the gate insulator has a thickness less than 15 nm (the thickness of gate insulator is less than 15 nm, [0029]).
As taught by Chu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the gate insulator has a thickness less than 15 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Chu in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Claims 14, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagyu (JP 2007115944) in view of Narayan (US 2007/0280848), further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0013339; hereinafter ‘Li’).
Regarding claim 14, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the device wherein the gate insulator includes aluminum oxide (Al2O3).
Li teaches a device [0001] wherein the gate insulator includes Al2O3 (a gate insulator having Al2O3, [0064]).
As taught by Li, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the gate insulator includes Al2O3 as claimed, because Al2O3 is a well-known material and widely used as a gate insulator in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Li in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Regarding claim 19, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the device wherein the semiconductor material includes indium gallium zinc oxide (IGZO).
Li teaches the device wherein the semiconductor material includes IGZO (a semiconductor material having IGZO, [0061]).
As taught by Li, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the semiconductor material includes IGZO as claimed, because IGZO is a well-known material and widely used as a semiconductor material in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Li in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Regarding claim 21, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 16, but does not teach the device wherein the semiconductor material includes amorphous silicon.
Li teaches the device wherein the semiconductor material includes amorphous silicon (a semiconductor material having amorphous silicon, [0061]).
As taught by Li, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the semiconductor material includes amorphous silicon as claimed, because amorphous silicon is a well-known material and widely used as a semiconductor material in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Li in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagyu (JP 2007115944) in view of Narayan (US 2007/0280848), further in view of Nakamura (US 2007/0034860).
Regarding claim 17, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the device wherein the channel region has a thickness less than 50 nm.
Nakamura teaches a device [0002] wherein the channel region has a thickness less than 50 nm (the thickness of channel region is less than 50 nm, [0017]).
As taught by Nakamura, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the channel region has a thickness less than 50 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Nakamura in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Claims 23 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagyu (JP 2007115944) in view of Narayan (US 2007/0280848), further in view of Imai (US 2009/0127551).
Regarding claim 23, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 22, but does not teach the device wherein the source and drain electrodes are positioned above the semiconductor material.
Imai teaches a device (Fig. 2, [0092]) wherein the source (5-1) and drain electrodes (5-2) are positioned above the semiconductor material (42, [0047]).
As taught by Imai, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the source and drain electrodes are positioned above the semiconductor material as claimed, because it prevents damage to the ultra-thin semiconductor layer during source/drain deposition and patterning, thereby preserving interface quality, carrier transport, and device stability [0095].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Imai in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Regarding claim 41, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the device wherein the thickness of the semiconductor material is less than 50 nm.
Imai teaches the device wherein the thickness of the semiconductor material is less than 50 nm (the thickness of the semiconductor material is 0.5-20 nm, [0061]).
As taught by Imai, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the channel region has a thickness less than 50 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Imai in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Regarding claim 42, Yagyu in view of Narayan teaches the device of claim 1, but does not teach the device wherein the gate insulator has a thickness less than 75 nm.
Imai teaches the device wherein the gate insulator has a thickness less than 75 nm (the thickness of gate insulator is 50-1000 nm, [0074]).
As taught by Imai, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Yagyu in view of Narayan to obtain and achieve the device wherein the gate insulator has a thickness less than 75 nm as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Imai in combination with Yagyu in view of Narayan due to above reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 1/21/26