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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., US 2021/0399046 (corresponding to US 11,581,366), in view of Takesue, US 10,565,799.
In re Claim 1, Wu discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a substrate 100; a lower electrode (110, 116) on the substrate 100; an oxide channel 120 ([0039]) on the lower electrode (110, 116), the oxide channel 120 including vertical extension portions (portions of 120 marked as (1VEP, 2VEP) in Fig. A) extending in a first (vertical) direction perpendicular to the substrate 100; an upper electrode 118 on the oxide channel 120; a gate insulator 122 ([0038]) on a portion the oxide channel 120 that is exposed by the lower electrode (110, 116) and the upper electrode 118; and a gate electrode 112 ([0041]) on the gate insulator 122, wherein the upper electrode 118 and the lower electrode (110, 116) are separated from each other by the oxide channel 120 in the first (vertical) direction (Figs. 1-4; [0060 – 080]).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Wu’s Fig. 4Q annotated to show the details cited
Wu does not specify that the oxide channel is doped with ions.
The only difference between the Applicant’s Claim 1 and Wu’s reference is in the specifics of the oxide channel.
Takesue teaches a semiconductor device wherein the oxide channel is doped with ions (Fig. 24, column 19, line 62 – column 20, line 45).
To reject a claim based on this rationale set forth in MPEP 2143 (B), Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case, examiner articulates the following:
(1) Wu’s reference contains a semiconductor device which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (oxide channel) with oxide channel doped with ions;
(2) Takesue’s device with the oxide channel doped with ions and its functions were known in the art;
(3) Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art could have substituted one known element (oxide channel of Wu) for another (Takesue’s oxide channel doped with ions), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, because Takesue’s device successfully functions;
(4) In view of the facts of the case under consideration, there appear to be no additional findings (re, e.g. long-felt need, unexpected results, commercial success, etc.) needed, based on the Graham factual inquiries.
In re Claim 2, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 2 except for that the ions includes ions selected from the group consisting of F (Fluorine), Cl (Chlorine), Br (Bromine), I (Iodine), At (Astatine), and a combination thereof. The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 2 and Wu – Takesue’s references in the specified ions used. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the ions selected from the group consisting of F (Fluorine), Cl (Chlorine), Br (Bromine), I (Iodine), At (Astatine), and a combination thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 3, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of claim 1, including that the oxide channel 120 includes, a bottom portion (a portion of 120 marked as BP in Fig. A) in contact with the lower electrode (110, 116), and the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) extending in the first (vertical) direction at both ends of the bottom portion BP, except for that a mass percentage of ions of the bottom portion BP is greater than a mass percentage of ions of the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP). It is known in the art that the mass percentage of ions is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use that a mass percentage of ions of the bottom portion BP is greater than a mass percentage of ions of the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the ratio of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 4, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of claim 4 except for that the mass percentage of ions of the bottom portion BP of the oxide channel 120 is greater than about 10.0 wt% and less than about 50.0 wt%. It is known in the art that the mass percentage of ions is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the mass percentage of ions of the bottom portion BP of the oxide channel 120 is greater than about 10.0 wt% and less than about 50.0 wt%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In re Claim 5, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of claim 5 except for that the mass percentage of ions in the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) of the oxide channel 120 is about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt%.
It is known in the art that the mass percentage of ions is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the mass percentage of ions of vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) of the oxide channel 120 is about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt%., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 6, Wu taken with Takesue discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the oxide channel 120 includes one selected from the group consisting of In (Indium), Zn (Zinc), Sn (tin), Ga (Gallium), Hf (Hafnium), and a combination thereof ([0039]).
In re Claim 7, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 7 including that the oxide channel 120 includes In ([0039]), except for that an atomic percentage of In included in the oxide channel 120 is about 5 at% to about 55 at%.
It is known in the art that the atomic percentage of In is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the atomic percentage of In included in the oxide channel 120 is about 5 at% to about 55 at%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 8, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 8 except for that the oxide channel includes Ga of about 30 at% to about 45 at%. It is known in the art that an amount of Ga is a result effective variable – because the specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to the oxide channel includes Ga of about 30 at% to about 45 at%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 9, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 9 except for the lower electrode (110, 116) includes at least one of W (tungsten), Co (cobalt), Ni (nickel), Fe (iron), Ti (titanium), Mo (molybdenum), Cr (chromium), Zr (zirconium), Hf (hafnium), Nb (niobium), Ta (tantalum), Ag (silver), Au (gold), A l(aluminum), Cu (copper), Sb (antimony), V (vanadium), Ru (ruthenium), Pt (platinum), Zn (zinc), and Mg (magnesium).
Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the lower electrode (110, 116) includes at least one of W (tungsten), Co (cobalt), Ni (nickel), Fe (iron), Ti (titanium), Mo (molybdenum), Cr (chromium), Zr (zirconium), Hf (hafnium), Nb (niobium), Ta (tantalum), Ag (silver), Au (gold), A l(aluminum), Cu (copper), Sb (antimony), V (vanadium), Ru (ruthenium), Pt (platinum), Zn (zinc), and Mg (magnesium), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 10, Wu taken with Takesue discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein each of the oxide channel 120, the gate insulator 122, and the gate electrode 112 includes a vertical extension portion extending in the first (vertical) direction (Fig. A).
In re Claim 11, Wu taken with Takesue discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the gate electrode 112 surrounds the oxide channel 120 (Figs. 4).
In re Claim 12, Wu taken with Takesue discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the oxide channel 120 has a U-shaped cross section (1VEP, BP, 2VEP) (Fig. A).
In re Claim 13, Wu taken with Takesue discloses the semiconductor device of claim 3, wherein the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) include, a first vertical extension portion 1VEP extending from one (left) end of the bottom portion BP in the first (vertical) direction, and a second vertical extension portion 2VEP extending from the other (right) end of the bottom portion BP in the first (vertical) direction, and the gate electrode 112 includes, a first gate electrode (a left portion of 112) on the first vertical extension portion 1VEP and extending in the first (vertical) direction, and a second gate electrode (a right portion of 112) on the second vertical extension portion 2VEP and extending in the first (vertical) direction (Fig. A).
In re Claim 14, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 14 except for that the lower electrode (110, 116) and the oxide channel 120 have same width. The only difference between the Applicant’s Claim 14 and Wu – Takesue’s reference is in the specified ratio of the widths. It is known in the art that width is a result effective variable – because a volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the lower electrode (110, 116) and the oxide channel 120 having same width, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 15, Wu discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: providing a lower electrode (110, 116) on a substrate 100; depositing an oxide channel 120 on the lower electrode (110, 116); depositing a gate insulator 122 on the oxide channel 120; depositing a gate electrode 112 on the gate insulator 122; and depositing an upper electrode 118 on the oxide channel 120, wherein the upper electrode 118 and the lower electrode (110, 116) are spaced apart from each other by the oxide channel 120 in a first (vertical) direction perpendicular to the substrate 100, the oxide channel 120 includes vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) (Fig. A) extending in the first (vertical) direction, and the upper electrode 116 contacts a top surface of the oxide channel 120 (Figs. 1-4; [0060 – 080]).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the step of doping the oxide channel 120 with ions. The only difference between the Applicant’s Claim 15 and Wu’s reference is in the step of doping the oxide channel 120 with ions.
Takesue teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device wherein the oxide channel is doped with ions (Fig. 24, column 19, line 62 – column 20, line 45).
MPEP2143A sets forth a specific rationale for a finding of obviousness, according to which Office personnel must first resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference;
(2) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness
In the instant case, the examiner makes the following findings:
(1) Wu and Takesue references included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference;
(2) Due to a high level of education and skill of personal capable to operate a very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art could have combined the steps as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each step merely performs the same function as it does separately;
(3) One of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, because the methods of Wu and Takesue successfully function; and
(4) In view of the facts of the case under consideration, there appear to be no additional findings (re, e.g. long-felt need, unexpected results, commercial success, etc.) needed, based on the Graham factual inquiries.
In re Claim 16, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 16 except for that the ions are selected from the group consisting of F (Fluorine), Cl (Chlorine), Br (Bromine), I (Iodine), At (Astatine), and a combination thereof.
The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 16 and Wu – Takesue’s references in the specified ions used. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the ions selected from the group consisting of F (Fluorine), Cl (Chlorine), Br (Bromine), I (Iodine), At (Astatine), and a combination thereof, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 17, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 17 including that the depositing an oxide channel includes depositing the oxide channel 120 that includes a bottom portion BP contacting the lower electrode (110, 116) and the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) extending from the bottom portion BP in the first (vertical) direction, the doping the oxide channel with ions includes, doping the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) of the oxide channel 120, and doping the bottom portion BP of the oxide channel 120, except for that a mass percentage of ions in the bottom portion BP is greater than a mass percentage of ions in the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP).
It is known in the art that the mass percentage of ions is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use that a mass percentage of ions of the bottom portion BP is greater than a mass percentage of ions of the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the ratio of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 18, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 18 except for that the mass percentage of ions in the bottom portion BP of the oxide channel 120 is in a range from about 10.0 wt% to about 50.0 wt%. It is known in the art that the mass percentage of ions is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the mass percentage of ions of the bottom portion BP of the oxide channel 120 is greater than about 10.0 wt% and less than about 50.0 wt%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 19, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 19 except for that the mass percentage of ions in the vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) of the oxide channel 120 is in a range from about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt%. It is known in the art that the mass percentage of ions is a result effective variable – because specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the mass percentage of ions of vertical extension portions (1VEP, 2VEP) of the oxide channel 120 is about 0.1 wt% to about 10.0 wt%., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 20, Wu taken with Takesue discloses all limitations of Claim 20 except for that the oxide channel includes In of about 5 at% to about 55 at% and Ga of about 30 at% to about 45 at%. It is known in the art that an amount of Ga is a result effective variable – because the specific mass density depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to the oxide channel includes Ga of about 30 at% to about 45 at%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893