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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 2017/0141235).
With regard to claim 1, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, a semiconductor device comprising: a substrate (102) on which a channel layer (108) is provided; an insulation layer (110) provided on the substrate; a ferroelectric layer (112) provided on the insulation layer; a fixed charge region provided in the ferroelectric layer and containing charges of a predetermined polarity ([0028]); and a gate (114) provided on the ferroelectric layer.
However, Lin does not explicitly teach that an absolute value of a charge density in the fixed charge region is greater than 0 and less than 5 µC/cm2. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that charge density would impact hysteresis and sub-threshold swing ([0030]).
The specific claimed charge density, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” charge density disclosed by Lin ([0030]) that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired hysteresis, sub-threshold swing, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the absolute value of a charge density in the fixed charge region is greater than 0 and less than 5 µC/cm2 is used, as already suggested by Lin.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the charge density stated and since these charge densities are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Lin.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed charge density or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 2, Lai teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
However, Lin does not explicitly teach that the absolute value of the charge density in the fixed charge region is greater than 2 µC/cm2 and less than 3 µC/cm2. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that charge density would impact hysteresis and sub-threshold swing ([0030]).
The specific claimed charge density, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” charge density disclosed by Lin ([0030]) that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired hysteresis, sub-threshold swing, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the absolute value of the charge density in the fixed charge region is greater than 2 µC/cm2 and less than 3 µC/cm2 is used, as already suggested by Lin.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the charge density stated and since these charge densities are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Lin.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed charge density or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 7, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, that the fixed charge region is disposed on an interface between the ferroelectric layer and the insulation layer ([0028]-[0029]).
With regard to claim 8, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, that the fixed charge region is disposed within the ferroelectric layer ([0028]-[0029]).
With regard to claim 9, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, that the fixed charge region is located adjacent to an interface between the ferroelectric layer and the insulation layer ([0028]-[0029]).
With regard to claim 10, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, that the fixed charge region has a negative (-) charge density in a semiconductor device of a PMOS structure, and has a positive (+) charge density in a semiconductor device of an NMOS structure ([0019], [0031]).
With regard to claim 11, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, that the ferroelectric layer includes a fluorite-based material, a perovskite, aluminum nitride, or magnesium oxide ([0023]).
With regard to claim 12, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, that the channel layer includes at least one of Si, Ge, SiGe, a Groups III-V semiconductor, an oxide semiconductor, a nitride semiconductor, an oxynitride semiconductor, a two-dimensional (2D) material, quantum dots, and an organic semiconductor ([0019]).
With regard to claim 13, in reference to the claim language referring to " wherein a threshold voltage of the semiconductor device is controlled by adjusting a work function of the gate," intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above with regard to claim 1, Lin shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Lin's device.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 14, 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 2017/0141235) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2020/0212168).
With regard to claim 3, Lai teaches most of the limitations of the claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Lai does not explicitly teach that a thickness of the fixed charge region is 1Å to 10Å.
Yoo teaches that a thickness of the fixed charge region is 1Å to 10Å ([0054]) so that, “an internal electric field E224 can be formed in the ferroelectric layer,” ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai with the fixed charge region of Yoo so that an internal electric field can be formed in the ferroelectric layer.
With regard to claim 4, Lai teaches most of the limitations of the claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Lai does not explicitly teach that the ferroelectric layer has a dopant concentration gradient in its thickness direction, and the fixed charge region is defined by a dopant concentration collecting region in the ferroelectric layer.
Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, that the ferroelectric layer (324) has a dopant concentration gradient in its thickness direction (see Fig 13), and the fixed charge region (324a) is defined by a dopant concentration collecting region in the ferroelectric layer to, “trap negative charge and polarize a corresponding positive charge and generate an internal electric field,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai with the ferroelectric layer configuration of Yoo so that an internal electric field can be generated.
With regard to claim 6, Lai teaches most of the limitations of the claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Lai does not explicitly teach that the ferroelectric layer has an oxygen vacancy concentration gradient in its thickness direction, and the fixed charge region is defined by an oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region in the ferroelectric layer.
Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, that the ferroelectric layer (324) has an oxygen vacancy concentration gradient in its thickness direction (see Fig 11), and the fixed charge region (324a) is defined by an oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region in the ferroelectric layer to, “trap negative charge and polarize a corresponding positive charge and generate an internal electric field,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai with the ferroelectric layer configuration of Yoo so that an internal electric field can be generated.
With regard to claim 14, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, a semiconductor device comprising: a substrate (102) on which a channel layer (108) is provided; an insulation layer (110) provided on the substrate; a ferroelectric layer (112) provided on the insulation layer; and a gate (114) provided on the ferroelectric layer.
Lin does not explicitly teach a dopant concentration collecting region provided in the ferroelectric layer.
Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, a dopant concentration collecting region (324a) provided in the ferroelectric layer (324) to, “trap negative charge and polarize a corresponding positive charge and generate an internal electric field,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai with the ferroelectric layer configuration of Yoo so that an internal electric field can be generated.
However, Lin/Yoo does not explicitly teach that a dopant concentration in the dopant concentration collecting region is greater than 0 and less than 3.1×10^13/cm2. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that dopant concentration would impact charge density, hysteresis, and sub-threshold swing (Lin, [0030]).
The specific claimed dopant concentration, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” dopant concentration disclosed by Lin/Yoo (Lin, [0030]) that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired charge density, hysteresis, sub-threshold swing, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the dopant concentration in the dopant concentration collecting region is greater than 0 and less than 3.1×10^13/cm2 is used, as already suggested by Lin/Yoo.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the dopant concentration stated and since these dopant concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Lin/Yoo.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dopant concentration or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 15, Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, that the ferroelectric layer (324) has a dopant concentration gradient in its thickness direction (see Fig 13).
With regard to claim 17, Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, that the dopant concentration collecting region is disposed on an interface between the ferroelectric layer and the insulation layer or within the ferroelectric layer (see Fig 10).
With regard to claim 18, Lai teaches, in Fig 2, a semiconductor device comprising: a substrate (102) on which a channel layer (108) is provided; an insulation layer (110) provided on the substrate; a ferroelectric layer (112) provided on the insulation layer; and a gate (114) provided on the ferroelectric layer.
Lin does not explicitly teach an oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region provided in the ferroelectric layer.
Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, an oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region (324a) provided in the ferroelectric layer (324) to, “trap negative charge and polarize a corresponding positive charge and generate an internal electric field,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai with the ferroelectric layer configuration of Yoo so that an internal electric field can be generated.
However, Lin/Yoo does not explicitly teach that an oxygen vacancy concentration in the oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region is greater than 0 and less than 1.55×10^13/cm2. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that oxygen vacancy concentration would impact charge density, hysteresis, and sub-threshold swing (Lin, [0030]).
The specific claimed oxygen vacancy concentration, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” oxygen vacancy concentration disclosed by Lin/Yoo (Lin, [0030]) that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired charge density, hysteresis, sub-threshold swing, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the oxygen vacancy concentration in the oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region is greater than 0 and less than 1.55×10^13/cm2 is used, as already suggested by Lin/Yoo.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the oxygen vacancy concentration stated and since these oxygen vacancy concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Lin/Yoo.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed oxygen vacancy concentration or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 19, Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, that the ferroelectric layer (324) has an oxygen vacancy concentration gradient in its thickness direction (see Fig 11).
With regard to claim 20, Yoo teaches, in Figs 10-13, that the oxygen vacancy concentration collecting region is disposed on an interface between the ferroelectric layer and the insulation layer or within the ferroelectric layer (see Fig 10).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 2017/0141235) in view of Yoo et al. (US 2020/0212168) and Schröder (US 2019/0074295).
With regard to claim 5, Lai/Yoo teaches most of the limitations of the claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 4.
Lai/Yoo do not explicitly teach that the dopant includes at least one selected from Al, P, Ca, Sc, V, Cr, Sr, Y, Nb, Mo, Tm, Yb, Lu, Ta, W, B, and Mg.
Schröder teaches that the dopant includes at least one selected from Al, P, Ca, Sc, V, Cr, Sr, Y, Nb, Mo, Tm, Yb, Lu, Ta, W, B, and Mg ([0011]), “to improve the lifetime of the ferroelectric device,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai/Yoo with the dopants of Schröder to improve the lifetime of the ferroelectric device.
With regard to claim 16, Lai/Yoo teaches most of the limitations of the claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 14.
Lai/Yoo do not explicitly teach that the dopant includes at least one selected from Al, P, Ca, Sc, V, Cr, Sr, Y, Nb, Mo, Tm, Yb, Lu, Ta, W, B, and Mg.
Schröder teaches that the dopant includes at least one selected from Al, P, Ca, Sc, V, Cr, Sr, Y, Nb, Mo, Tm, Yb, Lu, Ta, W, B, and Mg ([0011]), “to improve the lifetime of the ferroelectric device,” ([0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Lai/Yoo with the dopants of Schröder to improve the lifetime of the ferroelectric device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2829
Prosecution Insights