DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/378,425 filed on October 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 .
Acknowledgment
The application filed on 10/10/2023 has been entered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-8.
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 § 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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (WO 2018/182714) in view of Santosh (“Electronic properties of MoS2/MoOx interfaces: Implications in Tunnel Field Effect Transistors and Hole Contact”, Scientific Reports, 09/26/2016, pp. 1-7).
Regarding Claim 1, Sharma (see, e.g., Fig. 2), teaches a DRAM device comprising:
a dielectric material 220 (see, e.g., pg. 11, ll. 29-30);
an oxide interfacial layer 221 on the dielectric material 220 (see, e.g., pg. 11, ll. 34-35); and
a molybdenum sulfide channel 225 on the oxide interfacial layer 221 (see, e.g., pg. 11, ll. 10-14, pg. 12, ll. 13-16).
Sharma does not teach that the oxide interfacial layer is molybdenum oxide.
Santosh, on the other hand, teaches that due to the large work function of MoO3, a unique and useful band alignment between MoS2 and MoO3 is observed, which can open a potential application in field-effect transistors. Moreover, a defect level alignment with the valence band of TMD, creates an Ohmic-type contact perfectly suitable for metal-semiconductor device contact purposes (see, e.g., Summary).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Sharma’s device, a molybdenum oxide layer, as taught by Santosh, to create a useful band alignment between MoS2 and MoO3, which can open a potential application in field-effect transistors and to creates an Ohmic-type contact perfectly suitable for metal-semiconductor device contact purposes.
Regarding Claim 5, Sharma and Santosh teach all aspects of claim 1. Sharma (see, e.g., Fig. 2), teaches that the molybdenum sulfide channel 225 has a molybdenum: sulfur ratio in the range of 1:1.9 to 1:2.5 (i.e., 1:2, see, e.g., pg. 12, ll. 13-16).
Since the ratio of Mo and S can be altered and can produce different results such as reduced sulfur vacancies, which reduces trap states and scattering centers in the channel and improves carrier mobility and produces more uniform transistor performance, thus the ratio of Mo and S is a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to achieve the desired transistor performance via the routine optimization process of altering the molar ratio of Mo and S, thereby obtaining the claimed invention. “A variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation”. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding Claim 6, Sharma and Santosh teach all aspects of claim 1. Sharma (see, e.g., Fig. 2), teaches that the molybdenum sulfide channel 225 has a thickness in the range of 1 nm to 5 nm (see, e.g., pg. 12, ll. 13-16).
Regarding Claim 7, Sharma and Santosh teach all aspects of claim 1. Sharma and Santosh teach that the device is formed in a single processing chamber.
In reference to the claimed process step that “the DRAM device is formed in a single processing chamber”, this is considered an intermediate method step that does not affect the structure of the final device.
Note that a “product-by-process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which make it clear that it is the final product per se which must determine in a “product-by-process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product-by-process” claim or not. As stated in Thorpe, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26, USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir 1935).
NOTE that the applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear.
As to the grounds of rejection under section 103, see MPEP §2113 which discusses the handling of “product-by-process” claims and recommends the alternative (§ 102/§ 103) grounds of rejection.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (WO 2018/182714) in view of Santosh (“Electronic properties of MoS2/MoOx interfaces: Implications in Tunnel Field Effect Transistors and Hole Contact”, Scientific Reports, 09/26/2016, pp. 1-7) and further in view of Sarnet (US 2018/0127873).
Regarding Claim 2, Sharma and Santosh teach all aspects of claim 1. Sharma (see, e.g., Fig. 2), teaches that the dielectric material comprises soda lime glass or borosilicate glass. Sharma does not teach that the dielectric material comprises one or more of silicon dioxide (SiO2) or aluminum oxide (Al203).
Sharma discloses the claimed invention except for the use of soda lime glass or borosilicate glass for the dielectric material instead of silicon dioxide (SiO2) or aluminum oxide (Al2O3). Sarnet, on the other hand teaches that SiO2 or Al2O3 and soda lime are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these insulating materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute soda lime for SiO2 or Al2O3 since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (WO 2018/182714) in view of Santosh (“Electronic properties of MoS2/MoOx interfaces: Implications in Tunnel Field Effect Transistors and Hole Contact”, Scientific Reports, 09/26/2016, pp. 1-7) and further in view of Chen (US 2013/0048952).
Regarding Claim 3, Sharma and Santosh teach all aspects of claim 1. Sharma and Santosh are silent with respect to the claim limitation that the molybdenum oxide interfacial layer has a thickness less than 1 nm.
Chen, on the other hand, teaches a MoO3 film having a thickness between 0.2 nm and 15 nm disposed on the layer of graphene between the source electrode and the drain electrode. Electrons are transferred from the layer of graphene to the metal oxide film, generating an intrinsic electric field near an interface between the layer of graphene and the metal oxide film (see, e.g., pars. 0021, 0040, 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Sharma’s device, an interfacial layer of molybdenum oxide having a thickness less than 1 nm, as taught by Chen, to transfer electrons from the 2D material to the metal oxide film, thus, forming a hole accumulation layer in the 2D layer.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the molybdenum oxide layer in Sharma’s/Santosh’s device. The specific claimed thickness, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the thickness of the molybdenum oxide layer in Sharma’s/Santosh’s device, as the courts have held that changes in thickness without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular thickness is nothing more than one among numerous thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed thickness in Sharma’s/Santosh’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garcés whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814