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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-17 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 21, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 and 18-19 in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed of parent Application No. JP2021-126325, JP2021-126326, JP2021-126328, JP2022-022382, JP2022-022381, and PCT/JP2022/028851, filed on July 30, 2021 (JP2021s), February 16, 2022 (JP2022s), and July 26, 2022 (PCT/JP2022).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are several typos where "germanium" is referenced as "geranium".
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 18-19 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.
Claim 18 to “a power conversion device using the semiconductor device” is indefinite as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process of use of the semiconductor device. Mention of the power conversion device “using the semiconductor device” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Thus, claim 18 is indefinite.
Claim 19 to a “control system using the semiconductor device” is indefinite as to whether it is directed to a process as the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the process of use of the semiconductor device. Mention of the control system “using the semiconductor device” merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Thus, claim 19 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niedermeier et al (NPL "Shallow Valence Band...").
Regarding claim 1, Niedermeier teaches preparation and characterization of a rutile Germanium Oxide (r-GeO2) crystal, thus an oxide crystal comprising an oxide having a rutile-type structure. Further, since the oxide crystal is entirely GeO2, germanium is the only metal element in the oxide crystal and thus exists at an atomic ratio greater than 0.5. From data acquired of light and electrical properties of the prepared r-GeO2 crystals, Niedermeier suggests an orientation to a crystallographic axis direction that is perpendicular to a c-axis (Figs 2 and 4). From Fig. 4a, the planar crystal surfaces are oriented perpendicular to the (001) axis (understood to be the c-axis). Thus, Niedermeier teaches the claimed “An oxide crystal comprising an oxide having a rutile-type structure, the oxide crystal being oriented to a crystallographic axis direction perpendicular to or parallel to a c-axis, and an atomic ratio of germanium in a metal element in the oxide crystal being greater than 0.5”.
Regarding claim 7, Niedermeier teaches the oxide crystal of claim 1. Niedermeier discloses a measured bandgap of the r-GeO2 crystal as 4.6 eV in section 3.3 and Fig. 5a, thus the oxide crystal has a band gap of 4.0 eV or more. Therefore, Niedermeier teaches the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 1, wherein the oxide crystal has a band gap of 4.0 eV or more.”.
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 1-2, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeier et al in view of Yamazaki (NPL: Invited paper "Future Possibility of C-axis Aligned Crystalline Oxide Semiconductors Comparison with Low-Temperature Polysilicon").
Regarding claim 1, Niedermeier teaches preparation and characterization of a rutile Germanium Oxide (r-GeO2) crystal, thus an oxide crystal comprising an oxide having a rutile-type structure. Further, since the oxide crystal is entirely GeO2, germanium is the only metal element in the oxide crystal and thus exists at an atomic ratio greater than 0.5. From data acquired of light and electrical properties of the prepared r-GeO2 crystals, Niedermeier suggests an orientation to a crystallographic axis direction that is perpendicular to a c-axis (Figs 2 and 4). From Fig. 4a, the planar crystal surfaces are oriented perpendicular to the (001) axis (understood to be the c-axis). Niedermeier does not disclose arrangement such that the oxide crystal is oriented parallel to a c-axis. However, Yamazaki broadly teaches orienting crystalline oxide semiconductors (thus analogous to the invention as claimed and to the oxide crystals of Niedermeier) to be aligned to the c-axis (thus understood to be parallel) and benefits of such crystallographic arrangements for implementation in semiconductor devices which is further analogous to the claimed invention. Although Yamazaki does not teach specific to a germanium oxide based crystal (of rutile structure and germanium existing at an atomic ratio >0.5), Yamazaki’s benchmarks and teachings would be relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art applying such teachings to any crystalline oxide semiconductors such as Niedermeier. Aligning crystalline oxide semiconductors with the c-axis poses benefits according to Yamazaki by not having any clear grain boundaries, therefore having low density of states and contributes to a high reliability. C-axis aligned crystalline oxide semiconductors also have wide band gap and heavy hole mass, thus avalanche breakdown is unlikely to occur. These semiconductors also have higher mobility which is understood to be related to electron movement, an important semiconductor property. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to change the alignment of the r-GeO2 crystals of Niedermeier to be aligned (parallel) with the c-axis, as informed by Yamazaki, to have high reliability, electron mobility, and reduce likelihood of avalanche breakdown and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the claimed “An oxide crystal comprising an oxide having a rutile-type structure, the oxide crystal being oriented to a crystallographic axis direction perpendicular to or parallel to a c-axis, and an atomic ratio of germanium in a metal element in the oxide crystal being greater than 0.5”.
Regarding claim 2, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 1. As described above, Niedermeier teaches a perpendicular alignment but Yamazaki provides motivation and teaching as to why aligning with the c-axis (parallel) is beneficial for crystalline oxide semiconductors. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to change the alignment of the r-GeO2 crystals of Niedermeier to be aligned (parallel) with the c-axis, as informed by Yamazaki, to have high reliability, electron mobility, and reduce likelihood of avalanche breakdown and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 1, wherein the oxide crystal is oriented to a crystallographic axis direction parallel to the c-axis”.
Regarding claim 4, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 1. Niedermeier does not specifically prepare the GeO2 crystal as a film but teaches that it is generally applied to semiconductors devices and provides benchmarks against typical Si-based semiconductor films. Thus, it would be reasonable to apply such an oxide as a film. Yamazaki broadly teaches c-axis aligned crystalline oxide semiconductors and discloses examples whereby they are prepared as a film, thus having a “film shape”. Yamazaki teaches oxide conductor electrodes whereby an IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide) film is used as an oxide conductor film. Additionally, Yamazaki discloses that such oxide conductor films show both conductivity and transparency which can simplify the process of preparing an oxide conductor electrode since such conductive regions and transparent regions generally exist separately and do not occupy a region as one material. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare the GeO2 oxide crystal of Niedermeier as a semiconductor film as a known application for oxide conductor electrodes, as informed by Yamazaki, which can simplify the preparation process by imparting conductivity and transparency in a single film layer and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 1, wherein the oxide crystal has a film shape”.
Regarding claim 7, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 1. Niedermeier discloses a measured bandgap of the r-GeO2 crystal as 4.6 eV in section 3.3 and Fig. 5a, thus the oxide crystal has a band gap of 4.0 eV or more. Therefore, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 1, wherein the oxide crystal has a band gap of 4.0 eV or more.”.
Regarding claim 8, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 8. As described in the rejection of claim 4 above, Niedermeier teaches that it is generally applied to semiconductors devices and provides benchmarks against typical Si-based semiconductor film layers. Thus, it would be reasonable to apply such an oxide as a semiconductor layer. Yamazaki teaches application of c-axis aligned crystalline oxide semiconductors whereby the oxide semiconductor exists as a semiconductor layer and is implemented into a device that also has a gate electrode (thus an electrode, see sections 3-6 and Figs 2-5). Yamazaki teaches that such c-axis aligned oxide semiconductors improve field-effect mobility when implemented around a gate electrode for a semiconductor device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the GeO2 semiconductor oxide of Niedermeier as a semiconductor layer with an electrode into a semiconductor device, as informed by Yamazaki, as a known application of such semiconductor oxides and to improve field-effect mobility and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the claimed “A semiconductor device comprising at least an oxide semiconductor layer and an electrode, the oxide semiconductor layer comprising the oxide crystal described in claim 1 as a major component”.
Claims 3, 5, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeier et al in view of Yamazaki as applied to claims 1, 4, and 8 above, and further in view of Tokuda et al (US PGPub 20180061952).
Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 1. Neither Niedermeier nor Yamazaki disclose a rocking curve full width at half maximum whereby the oxide crystal is oriented of 1000 arcsec or less. Tokuda also teaches crystalline oxide semiconductors analogous to Niedermeier and Yamazaki, but Tokuda teaches for InAlGaO-based semiconductors whereby Germanium can exist as a dopant (paragraphs [0033] and [0041]). However, Tokuda’s teachings in general are analogous to one of ordinary skill in the art utilizing crystalline oxide semiconductor films for semiconductor devices. Tokuda teaches that it is “preferably that the crystalline oxide semiconductor film shows a half value width of an X-ray rocking curve of an X-ray diffraction, the half value width that is preferably 100 arcsec or more. The half value width that might be preferably 300 arcsec or more. The upper limit of the half value width of the X-ray rocking curve of the X-ray diffraction is not limited herein, however, the upper limit would be preferably 1300 arcsec. The upper limit of the half value width of the X-ray rocking curve of the X-ray diffraction might be further preferably 1100 arcsec” in paragraph [0042]. Additionally, Tokuda discloses that the plane orientation of a plane that is measured is not limited (paragraph [0044]) and thus can be measured along any relevant crystallographic axis direction in which the oxide crystal is oriented. Thus, Tokuda effectively teaches an oxide crystal oriented of 100-1300 arcsec which overlaps with the claimed range of 1000 arcsec or less. Overlapping ranges have been held to present a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. Furthermore, in paragraph [0043], Tokuda discloses that if the half value width is in the 100-1300 arcsec range, then electron mobility of a crystalline oxide semiconductor is enhanced. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare a GeO2 oxide crystal of Niedermeier and Yamazaki such that the rocking curve full width at half maximum is within the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by Tokuda to enhance the electron mobility of the crystalline oxide semiconductor and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier, Yamazaki, and Tokuda teach the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 1, wherein the oxide crystal has a rocking curve full width at half maximum determined by X-ray diffraction measurement in the crystallographic axis direction in which the oxide crystal is oriented of 1000 arcsec or less”.
Regarding claim 5, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 4. Niedermeier nor Yamazaki teach a film thickness. As described in the rejection of claim 3 above, Tokuda provides relevant analogous teachings for semiconductor crystalline oxides that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art preparing semiconductor based devices. In paragraph [0037], Tokuda teaches that the thickness of the crystalline oxide semiconductor film is not particularly limited and may be 1 micron or less (1000nm or less) or may be 1 micron or more (1000nm or more). In all disclosed embodiments of Tokuda, the prepared semiconductor film has a thickness of at least 0.3 micron (at least 300nm, thus 100nm or more). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to prepare the oxide semiconductor film of Niedermeier and Yamazaki such that the thickness is at least 300nm or more, as informed by Tokuda, as a known thickness that is suitable for implementation into semiconductor devices and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier, Yamazaki, and Tokuda teach the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 4, wherein the oxide crystal has a film thickness of 100 nm or more”.
Regarding claim 18, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the semiconductor device of claim 8. However, neither disclose specific implementation into a power conversion device. As described in the rejection of claim 3 above, Tokuda provides relevant analogous teachings for semiconductor crystalline oxides that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art preparing semiconductor based devices. In Fig. 11 and paragraph [0093], Tokuda teaches implementation of their oxide semiconductor into a power supply circuit whereby a DC voltage is switched at high frequencies by an inverter to be converted to AC and is thus a power conversion device. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the crystalline oxide semiconductor of Niedermeier and Yamazaki into a known power conversion device, as informed by Tokuda, as a known effective implementation of such semiconductors and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier, Yamazaki, and Tokuda teach the claimed “A power conversion device using the semiconductor device described in claim 8”.
Regarding claim 19, Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the semiconductor device of claim 8. However, neither disclose specific implementation into a control system. As described in the rejection of claim 3 above, Tokuda provides relevant analogous teachings for semiconductor crystalline oxides that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art preparing semiconductor based devices. In paragraphs [0095-98], Tokuda teaches implementation of their oxide crystalline semiconductor into a CVD apparatus which includes a carrier gas supply device whereby a flow-control valves control a flow of a carrier gas and is thus a “control system using the semiconductor device”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to apply the crystalline oxide semiconductor of Niedermeier and Yamazaki into a known control system relying upon a crystalline oxide semiconductor, as informed by Tokuda, as a known effective implementation of such semiconductors and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier, Yamazaki, and Tokuda teach the claimed “A control system using the semiconductor device described in claim 8”.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedermeier et al in view of Yamazaki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Masakazu et al (JP2019073747A).
Niedermeier and Yamazaki teach the oxide crystal of claim 4. Neither disclose a surface roughness of their oxide film. Masakazu teaches application of oxide films, analogous to Niedermeier and Yamazaki, except that Masakazu uses a Sn-Zn-O based oxide as opposed to germanium oxide. However, Masakazu teaches broadly the application and relevant properties of oxide semiconductors implemented as films into semiconductor devices which is further analogous to the oxide of Niedermeier and Yamazaki and to one of ordinary skill in the art. Masakazu also teaches for oxides of rutile crystal structure. Masakazu teaches how elemental ratios of Ge, Sn, Zn, among other elements in oxide semiconductors can affect surface roughness. Masakazu teaches that Ge in particular has the effect of densifying the prepared semiconductor and improves the surface roughness of the film when formed by sputtering. The prepared oxide films of Masakazu have an average surface roughness of 0.6nm or less and teaches that by reducing the surface roughness to low values aids in suppressing leakage of the film. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to ensure a low surface roughness of the oxide films of Niedermeier and Yamazaki such that it is 0.6nm or less, as informed by Masakazu, to suppress leakage of the prepared film and arrive at the invention as claimed. Thus, Niedermeier, Yamazaki, and Masakazu teach the claimed “The oxide crystal according to claim 4, wherein the oxide crystal has a surface roughness (RMS) of 10 nm or less”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kalimuthu et al (NPL) and Medvedev et al (NPL) both teach preparation of GeO oxide films and their properties and application for semiconductor devices. Glushkova et al and Kunitake et al (NPL articles) both teach importance of c-axis alignment for prepared oxide films in semiconductor-based applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noa W. F. Grooms whose telephone number is (571)272-9981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30PM 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/NWFG/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights