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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “using thin film growing and etching process” contains a typo as it lacks the article ‘a’ and is being interpreted to read “using a thin film growing and etching process.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-10 are 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. Specifically, claim 6 is a method claim where the method of manufacturing the transistor of claim 1 is being claimed. Therefore, the phrase “a metal conductive substrate” recited in line 3 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity in relation to the phrase “a substrate” recited in line 3 of claim 1 and the phrase “a metal conductive substrate” recited in line 2 of claim 2, the phrase “a solid oxygen ionic conductor based gate dielectric layer” recited in line 4 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity in relation to the phrases “a gate dielectric layer” and “a solid oxygen ionic conductor thin film” in lines 4-5 of claim 1, the phrase “the surface of the metal conductive substrate” recited in lines 4-5 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity as it lacks antecedent basis, the phrase “a channel layer” recited in line 7 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity in relation to the phrase “a channel layer” recited in line 6 of claim 1, the phrase “the surface of the gate dielectric layer” recited in line 6 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity as it lacks antecedent basis, the phrase “a part of the gate dielectric layer” recited in line 9 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity in relation to the phrase “a part of the gate dielectric layer” recited in line 6 of claim 1, the phrase “a source electrode and a drain electrode” recited in line 10 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity in relation to the phrase “a source electrode and a drain electrode” recited in line 7 of claim 1, and the phrase “a part of the channel layer” recited in line 11 of claim 6 creates a lack of clarity in relation to the phrase “a part of the channel layer” recited in line 8 of claim 1. Please synchronize these limitations described above so it’s clear that the method of claim 6 is manufacturing the solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor of claim 1 and not a transistor with completely different structure.
Claims 7-10 depend from claim 6 and so are rejected on the same grounds.
Further, claim 10 is also rejected given that the phrase “the argon ion etching process” in line 2 of claim 10 creates a lack of clarity as it lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2017-199825 A to Takeuchi et al. (hereinafter “Takeuchi” – previously cited reference) in further view of Manca et al., Balanced electron–hole transport in spin-orbit semimetal SrIrO3 heterostructures, 2017, Phys. Rev. B97 (hereinafter “Manca” – newly cited NPL reference).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi discloses a solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor, comprising:
a substrate;
a gate dielectric layer located on the substrate, wherein the gate dielectric layer is a solid oxygen ionic conductor thin film (three-terminal element 100B having a conductive substrate 10 with a solid electrolyte layer 40 thereon, where layer 40 may comprise an oxide ion conductive material; Fig. 8; paragraphs [0067], [0083]-[0085]);
a channel layer covered on a part of the gate dielectric layer (first layer 50 forms channel and is disposed over layer 40; Fig; 8; paragraphs [0054], [0071]); and
a source electrode and a drain electrode respectively located on the gate dielectric layer not covered by the channel layer and on a part of the channel layer (source and drain electrodes 20B, 30B on layer 40 and over a portion of layer 50; Fig. 8; paragraph [0083]), wherein the material of the channel layer is an oxide thin film or thin flake (layer 50 may be an oxide having a thickness on the scale of tens of nanometers based upon the thickness of layer 55 being 10 nanometers; Fig. 7; paragraphs [0071]-[0072], [0081]-[0082]); and the thickness of the channel layer is in a range of 5 nm to 30 nm (layer 50 may be shaped to have a thickness that tapers from tens of nanometers to zero; Fig. 9; paragraph [0086]).
Takeuchi fails to disclose wherein the material of the channel layer comprises strontium iridium oxide.
However, Manca discloses wherein the material of the channel layer is an oxide thin film or thin flake, comprising strontium iridium oxide; and the thickness of the channel layer is in a range of 5 nm to 30 nm (5.5 nm SrIrO3 gated conduction layer on SrTiO3 substrate in back-gated field-effect geometry used as active/channel layer of a field-effect device; page 1 through first full paragraph of page 2; Fig. 1).
Takeuchi and Manca are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of field effect devices having active layers made from an oxide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi to incorporate the teaching of Manca in order to potentially provide strong gate response in the 2D limit, greater field control of the associated band structure, and epitaxial oxide integration of high-k oxides at atomically sharp interfaces.
Regarding claim 2, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses the solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is a metal conductive substrate, comprising one of niobium-doped strontium titanate or indium tin oxide conductive glass (substrate 10 may be SrTiO3 doped with Nb; paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 3, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses the solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor according to claim 1, wherein the material of the solid oxygen ion conductor thin film is gadolinium-doped ceric oxide; and the thickness of the gate dielectric layer is in a range of 400 nm to 1 µm (layer 40 may comprise gadolinium-doped ceria film, where the layer 40 may be at least 400 nm as shown in Fig. 8 given the disclosed thickness of the electrodes 20B, 30B as being 100 nm or more; Fig. 8; paragraphs [0056], [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses the solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor according to claim 1, wherein both of the source and the drain electrodes are one of the metal elemental films or indium tin oxide conductive films (electrodes 20B, 30B may be made from Au by thin film fabrication; paragraphs [0073], [0094]).
Regarding claim 6, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses a method of manufacturing a solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor according to claim 1, comprising:
providing a metal conductive substrate as a gate electrode of the solid oxygen ionic conductor based field-effect transistor (see claim 1);
manufacturing a solid oxygen ionic conductor based gate dielectric layer on the surface of the metal conductive substrate (see claim 1);
manufacturing a channel layer on the surface of the gate dielectric layer by using thin film growing and etching process or material mechanical peeling and transferring technology, wherein the channel layer is covered on a part of the gate dielectric layer (layer 50 formed over layer 40 and may be epitaxially grown and etched; Fig. 8; paragraphs [0093]-[0094]); and
manufacturing a source electrode and a drain electrode on the gate dielectric layer not covered by the channel layer and on a part of the channel layer (see claim 1) by using a coating process (source and drain electrodes 20B, 30B may be formed by vapor deposition; paragraph [0094]).
Regarding claim 7, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the process of manufacturing the solid oxygen ionic conductor based gate dielectric layer on the surface of the metal conductive substrate comprises one of magnetron sputtering or pulsed laser deposition (layer 40 may be deposited via RF magnetron sputtering; paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 10, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the thin film growing and etching process comprises one of the argon ion etching process, reactive ion beam etching process or focused ion beam etching process (dry etching process may be performed; paragraphs [0087], [0093]); the material mechanical peeling and transferring technology comprises one of dry transfer or wet transfer (this limitation depends from optional language in claim 6); and the coating process comprises one of electron beam evaporation process or thermal evaporation process (source and drain electrodes 20B, 30B may be formed by vapor deposition; paragraph [0094]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi and Manca in further view of US 2017/0373173 A1 to Ohta et al (hereinafter “Ohta” – previously cited reference).
Regarding claim 8, Takeuchi in view of Manca discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the process of manufacturing the gate dielectric layer comprises: a temperature at which the metal conductive substrate is heated is in a range of 600° C to 750° C (formation of layer 40 may include heating up entire structure including substrate 10 to about 750°; paragraph [0097]).
Takeuchi fails to disclose a power density is in a range of 1.5 W/cm2 to 3.5 W/cm2; a distance between a target and the metal conductive substrate is in a range of 5 cm to 12 cm; and a gas flow ratio of process gas to reaction gas is in a range of 2:1 to 3:1.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi in this manner in order to utilize well-known parameters of RF sputtering for ease and efficiency of manufacture. Specifically, RF sputtering commonly operates in the range of 1 to 50 W/cm2 with a distance to target of 3 to 10 cm and ratio of 4:1 to 1:1 of process to reaction gases. Examples of such parameters are disclosed in patents such as US 6,007,685 A to MacChesney et al. See also MEPE 2144.05 I overlapping, approaching, and similar ranges, amounts, and proportions.
Regarding claim 9, Takeuchi in view of Manca and Ohta discloses the method according to claim 8.
Takeuchi fails to disclose wherein the process gas is argon and the reaction gas is oxygen.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeuchi in this manner in order to utilize well-known process and reaction gases for RF sputtering for ease and efficiency of manufacture. Examples of using such process and reaction gases are disclosed in patents such as US 6,007,685 A to MacChesney et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 24, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant presents amendments to claim 1 and corresponding arguments. Applicant asserts that Takeuchi and Ohta do not disclose amended claim 1 and Examiner agrees. However, after additional search, amended claim 1 has been rejected using Takeuchi in view of newly cited reference Manca.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN DEGRASSE whose telephone number is (571) 272-0261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30a until 5:00p.
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, JEFF NATALINI can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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. 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.
/IAN DEGRASSE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights