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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign benefit based on KR10-2023-0025890 filed on 02/27/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naylor et al. (US 20240222483 A1 – hereinafter Naylor).
Regarding Claim 11, Naylor teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig. 2G; specifically, [0023]-[0044], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (201 – Fig. 2G – [0044]);
a bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222} – part of channel region 225) spaced apart from the substrate (201) and extending in a first direction (x-direction, the bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222}) including a two-dimensional chalcogenide ([0023] – “the 2D materials are transition metal dichalcogenides (TMD). TMD are compounds containing a transition metal and a chalcogen, and some TMD can be deposited as stable and semiconducting monolayers” – also see [0044]);
a gate structure ({235, 245} – [0044]) extending in a second direction (y-direction) intersecting the first direction (x-direction) on the substrate (201), the bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222}) penetrating through the gate structure ({235, 245} – [0044]); and
a source/drain ({211, 212} – [0044]) pattern connected to the bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222}) on a side surface of the gate structure ({235, 245}), wherein, the two-dimensional chalcogenide is a semiconductor material layer including a chalcogen element ([0023], [0044]).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Debashis et al. (US 20230413684 A1 – hereinafter Debashis).
Regarding claim 12, Naylor teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. But Naylor does not expressly disclose wherein the semiconductor material layer includes at least one of silicon (Si) and germanium (Ge), and the chalcogen element is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of sulfur (S), selenium (Se), and tellurium (Te).
However, in a related art Debashis teaches in [0052] “the channel layer 304 comprises a ferroelectric monochalcogenide, a material having the chemical composition MX where M can be tin (Sn) or germanium (Ge) and X can be sulfur (S), selenium (Se), and tellurium (Te)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate wherein the two-dimensional chalcogenide is a compound represented by a chemical formula A2B3, where A is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si) and germanium (Ge), and B is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of sulfur (S), selenium (Se), and tellurium (Te) as taught by Debashis into Naylor.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Debashis structure into Naylor in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having reliable materials to form channels as is well known.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Sharma et al. (US 20200251160 A1 – hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim 13, Naylor teaches claim 11 from which claim 13 depends. But Naylor does not expressly disclose the two-dimensional chalcogenide includes silicon telluride (Si2Te3).
However, in a related art Sharma teaches in [0027] “a chalcogenide (e.g., a chalcogenide including silicon, telluride, arsenic, antimony, and/or germanium). The channel layer may also include a composite of one or more of the oxides listed above or a composite of one or more of the chalcogenides listed above”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate wherein the two-dimensional chalcogenide includes silicon telluride (Si2Te3) as taught by Sharma into Naylor.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Sharma structure into Naylor in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having reliable materials to form channels as is well known.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Khaderbad et al. (US 20220293736 A1 - hereinafter Khaderbad).
Regarding claim 14, Naylor teaches claim 11 from which claim 14 depends. Naylor further teach wherein the bridge pattern ({213, 214}) includes a first chalcogenization portion (223) overlapping the gate structure (that is, 223 overlaps ({235, 245}) and a second chalcogenization portion ({221, 222}) interposed between the first chalcogenization portion (223) and the source/drain pattern ({211, 212} – [0044]).
But Naylor does not expressly disclose a concentration of the chalcogen element in the second chalcogenization portion is lower than a concentration of the chalcogen element in the first chalcogenization portion.
However, in a related art, Khaderbad teaches in [0025] that the profiles of chalcogen atoms in 2D channels can be such that the concentration of the chalcogen atoms can vary from the center of 2D channels to the edges of 2D channels, at the edges of 2D channels, the atomic concentration can drop from about 1.9 to about 0, e.g., linearly as shown in FIG. 1D or exponentially as shown in FIG. 1E and the atomic concentration drop can be a linear decreasing, an exponential decreasing, or other functional decreasing of the atomic concentration. Furthermore, there can be variations of atomic concentration in the center high mobility channel regions of 2D channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate teachings of Khaderbad of having different concentrations of chalcogen in different parts of the channel to arrive at the claimed limitation as taught by Khaderbad into Naylor.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Khaderbad structure into Naylor structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having different functional channels as needed for specific design considerations as is well known.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the concentration of the chalcogen element in the second chalcogenization portion decreases as a distance from the first chalcogenization portion increases (Khaderbad – [0025]).
Claims 1, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Khaderbad.
Regarding Claim 1, Naylor teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig. 2G; specifically, [0023]-[0044], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (201 – Fig. 2G – [0044]);
a first bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222} – part of channel region 225) spaced apart from the substrate (201) and extending in a first direction (x-direction), the first bridge pattern including a two-dimensional chalcogenide in which a semiconductor element and a chalcogen element are combined ([0023] – “the 2D materials are transition metal dichalcogenides (TMD). TMD are compounds containing a transition metal and a chalcogen, and some TMD can be deposited as stable and semiconducting monolayers” – also see [0044]);
a gate structure ({235, 245} – [0044]) extending in a second direction (y-direction) intersecting the first direction (x-direction) on the substrate (201), the first bridge pattern penetrating through the gate structure (as shown in Fig. 2G);
a gate spacer ({213, 214}) extending along a side surface of the gate structure ({235, 245}), the first bridge pattern penetrating the gate spacer ({213, 214}); and
a source/drain pattern ({211, 212} – [0044]) connected to the first bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222}) on a side surface of the gate spacer ({213, 214}),
wherein the first bridge pattern ({213, 214}) includes a first chalcogenization portion (223) overlapping the gate structure (that is, 223 overlaps ({235, 245}) and a second chalcogenization portion ({221, 222}) overlapping the gate spacer (({213, 214} – on either side).
But Naylor does not expressly disclose a concentration of the chalcogen element in the second chalcogenization portion is lower than a concentration of the chalcogen element in the first chalcogenization portion.
However, in a related art, Khaderbad teaches in [0025] that the profiles of chalcogen atoms in 2D channels can be such that the concentration of the chalcogen atoms can vary from the center of 2D channels to the edges of 2D channels, at the edges of 2D channels, the atomic concentration can drop from about 1.9 to about 0, e.g., linearly as shown in FIG. 1D or exponentially as shown in FIG. 1E and the atomic concentration drop can be a linear decreasing, an exponential decreasing, or other functional decreasing of the atomic concentration. Furthermore, there can be variations of atomic concentration in the center high mobility channel regions of 2D channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate teachings of Khaderbad of having different concentrations of chalcogen in different parts of the channel to arrive at the claimed limitation as taught by Khaderbad into Naylor.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Khaderbad structure into Naylor structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having different functional channels as needed for specific design considerations as is well known.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the concentration of the chalcogen element in the second chalcogenization portion decreases as a distance from the first chalcogenization portion increases (Khaderbad – [0025]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the gate structure (Naylor - ({235, 245}) – Fig. 2G) includes a gate dielectric film (235 – [0044]) and a gate electrode (245) sequentially stacked on the first bridge pattern ({221, 223, 222}), and a portion of the gate dielectric film (end portions) extends along an inner side surface of the gate spacer ({213, 214}).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Khaderbad and in further view of Debashis.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Naylor in view of Khaderbad teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. But the combination does not expressly teach wherein the two-dimensional chalcogenide is a compound represented by a chemical formula A2B3, where A is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si) and germanium (Ge), and B is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of sulfur (S), selenium (Se), and tellurium (Te).
However, in a related art Debashis teaches in [0052] “the channel layer 304 comprises a ferroelectric monochalcogenide, a material having the chemical composition MX where M can be tin (Sn) or germanium (Ge) and X can be sulfur (S), selenium (Se), and tellurium (Te)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate wherein the two-dimensional chalcogenide is a compound represented by a chemical formula A2B3, where A is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of silicon (Si) and germanium (Ge), and B is one or more elements selected from the group consisting of sulfur (S), selenium (Se), and tellurium (Te) as taught by Debashis into the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Debashis structure into the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having reliable materials to form channels as is well known.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Khaderbad and in further view of Debashis and Sharma.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Naylor in view of Khaderbad and Debashis teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. But the combination does not expressly teach wherein the two-dimensional chalcogenide includes silicon telluride (Si2Te3).
However, in a related art Sharma teaches in [0027] “a chalcogenide (e.g., a chalcogenide including silicon, telluride, arsenic, antimony, and/or germanium). The channel layer may also include a composite of one or more of the oxides listed above or a composite of one or more of the chalcogenides listed above”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate wherein the two-dimensional chalcogenide includes silicon telluride (Si2Te3) as taught by Sharma into the combination of Naylor, Khaderbad and Debashis.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Sharma structure into the combination of Naylor, Khaderbad and Debashis in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having reliable materials to form channels as is well known.
Claims 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naylor in view of Khaderbad.
Regarding Claim 16, Naylor teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig. 2G; specifically, [0023]-[0044], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (201 – Fig. 2G – [0044]);
a plurality of bridge patterns (plural {221, 223, 222} – part of channel region 225) sequentially stacked on the substrate (201), spaced apart from each other, and extending in a first direction (x-direction);
a gate electrode (245 – [0044]) extending in a second direction (y-direction) intersecting the first direction (x-direction) on the substrate (201), the plurality of bridge patterns penetrating through the gate electrode (245);
a gate spacer (213) extending along a side surface of the gate electrode (245), the plurality of bridge patterns (plural {221, 223, 222}) penetrating through the gate electrode (245);
a gate dielectric film (235) interposed between each of the bridge patterns (plural {221, 223, 222}) and the gate electrode (245) and between the gate electrode (245) and the gate spacer (213); and
a source/drain pattern ({211, 212} – [0044]) connected to the plurality of bridge patterns (plural {221, 223, 222}) on a side surface of the gate spacer (213), wherein each of the bridge patterns (plural {221, 223, 222}) includes a first chalcogenization portion (223) overlapping the gate electrode (245) and a second chalcogenization portion ({221, 222}) overlapping the gate spacer (213).
But Naylor does not expressly disclose:
the first chalcogenization portion (223) includes Si2Te3-x (where 0 ≤ x < 3), and
the second chalcogenization portion ({221, 222}) includes Si2Te3-y (where y > x and 0 < y ≤ 3).
However, in a related art, Khaderbad teaches in [0025] that the profiles of chalcogen atoms in 2D channels can be such that the concentration of the chalcogen atoms can vary from the center of 2D channels to the edges of 2D channels, at the edges of 2D channels, the atomic concentration can drop from about 1.9 to about 0, e.g., linearly as shown in FIG. 1D or exponentially as shown in FIG. 1E and the atomic concentration drop can be a linear decreasing, an exponential decreasing, or other functional decreasing of the atomic concentration. Furthermore, there can be variations of atomic concentration in the center high mobility channel regions of 2D channels.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate teachings of Khaderbad of having different concentrations of chalcogen in different parts of the channel to arrive at the claimed limitation as taught by Khaderbad into Naylor.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Khaderbad structure into Naylor structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious benefits having different functional channels as needed for specific design considerations as is well known.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16, wherein a concentration of tellurium (Te) in the second chalcogenization portion decreases as a distance from the first chalcogenization portion increases (Khaderbad – [0025]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Naylor and Khaderbad teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16, further comprising: an internal spacer (214) on a side surface of the gate electrode (245) between each of the plurality of bridge patterns (plural {221, 223, 222}), wherein at least a portion of the second chalcogenization portion ({221, 222}) overlaps the internal spacer (214).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10, 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898