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
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medina Silva et al (US Publication No. 2022/0278276) in view of Bessonov et al (US Publication No. 2017/0015599) and Cho et al (US Publication No. 2022/0246718).
Regarding claim 1, Medina Silva discloses a method of forming a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a 2D material layer Fig 7-8 MoS2 over a bottom metal layer Fig 7-8 Bottom electrode ¶0059 and 0077; forming a top metal layer Fig 7-8 Top electrode ¶0059 and 0077over the 2D material layer Fig 7-8 MoS2; and performing a treatment to the 2D material layer ¶0032 and 0067, to form an oxide region interfacing both the 2D material layer and the top metal layer Fig 7-8. Medina Silva discloses all the limitations but silent on the specifics of the 2D material treatment. Whereas Bessonov discloses a method of forming a semiconductor device Fig 1, comprising: forming a 2D material layer Fig 1; performing an oxidation treatment to the 2D material layer, to form an oxide region Fig 1 ¶0050-0052, 0062-0063. Medina Silva and Bessonov are analogous art because they are directed to devices with 2D materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Medina Silva because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the treatment step and incorporate the teachings of Bessonov as an alternative treatment known in the art to form an oxide layer. Medina Silva and Bessonov disclose all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the top metal layer. Whereas Cho discloses forming a top metal layer Fig 8, 310 over a top surface and extending along opposite sidewall of the 2D material layer Fig 8, 330. Medina Silva and Cho are analogous art because they are directed to devices with 2D materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Medina Silva because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the top metal layer and incorporate the teachings of Cho as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Bessonov discloses wherein the oxidation treatment is performed using a UV ozone oxidation ¶0051, 0055, 0059, 0062-0063.
Regarding claim 3, Medina Silva discloses wherein the 2D material layer is a semiconductor Fig 1 ¶0045.
Regarding claim 4, Medina Silva discloses wherein the 2D material layer is transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) Fig 1 ¶0045.
Regarding claim 5, Medina Silva discloses wherein the top metal layer is Au, Ag, Pt, or a combination thereof ¶0059.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0252554) in view of Chung et al (US Publication No. 2022/0165871).
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses a method of forming a semiconductor device Fig 1-11, comprising: disposing a first metal layer Fig 3, 24A over a substrate Fig 3, 20; forming a first oxide layer Fig 3, 22/26A/28A over the first metal layer, wherein the first oxide layer wraps around the first metal layer when viewed from a cross-sectional view Fig 3; forming a 2D material layer Fig 4, 30A over the first oxide layer Fig 4, 22/26A/28A and extending across the first metal layer such that the 2D material layer is on opposite sides of the first metal layer Fig 5, wherein the 2D material layer is a semiconductor ¶0020-0021;forming a second oxide layer Fig 6, 32A over the 2D material layer Fig 6, 30A; and disposing a second metal layer Fig 10, 24B over the second oxide layer Fig 6, 32B.Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the 2D material layer. Whereas Chung discloses wherein the 2D material layer Fig 1A, 110 extends along opposite sidewalls of the first oxide layer Fig 1A, 108. Chen and Chung are analogous art because they are directed to devices with 2D materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Medina Silva because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the 2D material layer and incorporate the teachings of Chung as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 23, Chen discloses wherein the first oxide layer interfaces with the 2D material layer and the first metal layer Fig 3-11.
Claims 22, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0252554) and Chung et al (US Publication No. 2022/0165871) in further view of Sharma et al (US Publication No. 2020/0388685).
Regarding claim 22, Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the 2D material layer. Whereas Sharma discloses wherein the second oxide layer interfaces with the second metal layer and the 2D material layer Fig 14. Chen and Sharma are analogous art because they are directed to devices with 2D materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of the 2D material layer and incorporate the teachings of Sharma as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice and device choice.
Regarding claim 28, Sharma in view of Chen discloses wherein the second oxide layer has a U-shape when viewed from a cross-sectional view Fig 14.
Regarding claim 29, Sharma in view of Chen discloses wherein the second oxide layer has a top surface higher than a top surface of the second metal layer and lower than a top surface of the 2D material layer Fig 14.
Claims 24-27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0252554) and Chung et al (US Publication No. 2022/0165871) in further view of Bessonov et al (US Publication No. 2017/0015599).
Regarding claim 24, Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the type of material. Whereas Bessonov discloses wherein the 2D material layer and the first oxide layer comprises a same transition metal ¶0049-0052 and 0055. Chen and Bessonov are analogous art because they are directed to devices with 2D materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material used and incorporate the teachings of Bessonov 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 design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Regarding claim 25, Bessonov in view of Chen discloses wherein the transition metal of the 2D material layer and the first oxide layer is tungsten¶0049-0052 and 0055.
Regarding claim 26, Bessonov in view of Chen discloses wherein the 2D material layer and the oxide layer comprises a same transition metal ¶0049-0052 and 0055.
Regarding claim 27, Bessonov in view of Chen discloses wherein the transition metal of the 2D material layer and the second oxide layer is tungsten¶0049-0052 and 0055.
Regarding claim 30, Bessonov in view of Chen discloses wherein the first oxide layer is W02, W03, or a combination thereof ¶0049-0052 and 0055.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After further search and consideration of Applicant’s response, it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach or suggest “selectively oxidizing the first portion of the 2D material layer to form an oxidized region, while leaving at least a region of the second portion of the 2D material layer un-oxidized, wherein the oxidized region has a top surface higher than a top surface of the 2D material layer and lower than a top surface of the metal layer”, as recited in independent claim 6.
Claims 7-10 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 21-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
