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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 05/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are now canceled; Claims 21-26 are newly-added.
Claims 1-14 and 21-26 have been fully considered in Examination.
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Consequently, it is unclear whether or not “each of the first, second, and third metal atoms” are or are not to be “selected from indium, gallium, zinc, and tin”. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, Examiner has interpreted “wherein each of the first, second and third metal atoms may be selected from indium, gallium, zinc, and tin” as --- wherein each of the first, second and third metal atoms are selected from indium, gallium, zinc, and tin --- however, this edit may be altered if Applicant intends otherwise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 21-26 are allowed. Further, claim 10, as interpreted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, is considered to be allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowed because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation(s) “and a second metal oxide layer disposed between the two first metal oxide layers and extending along a lengthwise line such that the two first metal oxide layers are opposite to each other relative to the lengthwise line” in the context of claim 1. Claims 2-9 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. Claim 10 (as interpreted) is also considered to be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 11 is allowed because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation(s) “and a second metal oxide layer disposed between the two first metal oxide layers and extending along a lengthwise line such that the two first metal oxide layers are opposite to each other relative to the lengthwise line” in the context of claim 1. Claims 12-14 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 21 is allowed because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation(s) “and a second metal oxide layer which is disposed between the two first metal oxide layers and which extends along a lengthwise line such that the two first metal oxide layers are opposite to each other relative to the lengthwise line” in the context of claim 21. Claims 22-26 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Remaining references made available on the PTO-892 form are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature examples of transistor structures with source/drain contacts comprising barrier layers, particularly metal oxide barrier layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 08/13/2026
Prosecution Insights