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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the previous prior art in view of Stan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 7, and 13 are 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 7,
Claim 7 is indefinite as it mixes statutory classes. Under MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite”. Claim 7 requires the method step of “a polarity of an energy band of the drain region is inverted when a voltage applied to the gate is 0 V”. Which is to say it is unclear when one will infringe the device. Is it when the device of claim 1 is made? Or, is when uses the device and applies 0V to the gate?
Because the claim contains both a method and device in the same claim the claim is indefinite. See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vijh et al., “Graphene Based Tunnel Field Effect Transistor for RF Applications”, 1019 Photonics & Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS-Spring), pgs. 256-259, IEEE, 17-20 June 2019 (“Vijh”), in view of Stan et al. (US 2009/0174435 A1) (“Stan”).
Regarding claim 1, Vijh teaches:
a source region (figure 1 source; hereinafter “A”);
a channel region (figure 1 between source, drain, and gate; hereinafter “B”);
a drain region (figure 1 drain; hereinafter “C”); and
a gate (figure 1 gate; hereinafter “D”),
wherein the channel region (B) is between the source region (A) and the drain region (C),
wherein the source region (A), the channel region (B), and the drain region (C) comprise a semiconductor material with a bandgap that is smaller than 0.9 eV (table 1 shows that graphene has a bandgap of 0eV),
wherein the drain region (C) has a dopant concentration that is smaller than 5x1019 cm-3 (pg. 256 at ¶ 2), and
wherein the gate (D) is positioned along the channel (C) and isolated from the channel (D is isolated from C by means of the insulator shown with a thickness of Tox; Pg. 256 at ¶ 2).
Additionally and/or alternatively, Vijh does not teach
wherein the source region (A) has a dopant concentration that is smaller than 5x1019 cm-3.
This is because Vijh teaches the doping concentration of the source is 1x1020 cm-3.
However, changing the doping concentration of source regions in transistors is well-known and routinely done in the semiconductor arts to produce different characteristics of the device. At least one reason why one would change the doping concentration of the source region is to create an ohmic contact or Schottky contact with the source region.
Further, under MPEP 2144.05, citing Titanium Metals Corp. of America v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1985), because the proportions of the prior art are so close to the claimed range one skilled in the art would not expect the source to have different properties or to function differently.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the doping concentration of the source to be smaller than the claimed amount
Vijh does not teach:
Wherein a dopant of the drain region has the same polarity as a dopant of the source region.
This is because Vijh teaches a p-i-n graphene transistor.
Stan teaches:
That graphene transistor can be either PIN type, such as the one taught by Vijh, and they can also be other variations such as NPN, PNP, PIP, and NIN. ¶ 0147.
Therefore, Stan teaches that the source and drain can either be the same doping (NPN, PNP, PIP, or NIN) or they can be doped different (PIN). Thus, Stan teaches that these different doping profiles for the graphene transistor are art recognized equivalents, MPEP 2144.06, and the art recognized as being suitable for the same intended purpose of being a graphene transistor, MPEP 2144.07. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the doping type of the drain of Vijh to match the doping type of the source of Vijh to be the same, and vice-versa.
Regarding claim 3, Vijh teaches:
wherein the semiconductor material is germanium, a III-V material, graphene, or black phosphorus (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Vijh teaches:
wherein the drain region has a dopant concentration that is smaller than 5x1019 cm-3, and wherein the source region has a dopant concentration of more than 5x1019 cm-3 (Pg. 256 at ¶ 2).
Regarding claims 5-6, Stan teaches:
The dopant of the source can be either P or N. ¶ 0147, where source/channel/drain can be NPN, PNP, PIP, or NIN.
Regarding claims 7 and 13,
This is rejected under intended use of the device (e.g. operating). MPEP 2114(II), where the manner of operating the device, the operating with low-power logic with a specific subthreshold slope, does not differentiate the claimed device from the prior art. Because the prior art teaches the same structure it would have been obvious that it could have been operated in the same manner.
Regarding claim 9, Vijh teaches:
wherein a length of the channel region (B) is between 3 nm and 100 nm (As shown in figure 1 the channel is the same length as the gate. Pg. 256 at ¶ 2 teaches the gate length is 30nm. Therefore, the channel is the same length).
Regarding claim 10, Vijh teaches:
wherein a length of the source region or the drain region is between 3 nm and 40 nm (pg. 256 at ¶ 2, where the source is 25nm and the drain in 5 nm).
Regarding claim 11, Vijh does not teach:
a plurality of feedback field effect transistors according to claim 1, wherein the feedback field effect transistors are arranged in a logic configuration.
However, this is obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art. It is obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art is going to put a plurality of the transistors together to form logic circuits and other circuits. While Vijh teaches the transistors may be undesirable for use in digital logic circuits is not state they are unacceptable for their use in digital logic circuits. Thus, while they may not ideally be used for logic configurations one of ordinary skill in the art would know that Vijh is not teaching away from their use. To quote the Applicant provided EPO report “Logic devices and memory devices represent standard applications of transistors”. Thus, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 13 above. There is no structural difference between the prior art device and the claimed device; therefore, the prior art can be used in a memory device. See claim 11 above.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vijh, in view of Stan, in view of Sutter.
Regarding claim 2, Vijh does not teach:
wherein the semiconductor material is a carbon nanotube.
Sutter teaches:
That carbon nanotubes are an obvious variant of graphene. ¶ 0006. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute art recognized equivalents for the same purpose and/or intended purpose. MPEP 2144.06-07.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vijh, in view of Stan, in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 8, Vijh does not teach:
a source electrode in contact with the source region; and
a drain electrode in contact with the drain region.
Examiner is taking Official Notice that a source electrode and drain electrode will need to be connected to their respective regions in order for the transistor of Vijh to work. Without said electrodes the one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to use the device of Vijh. Examiner proffers Lemaitre et al. (US 2017/0040443 A1) (“Lemaitre”) where this is shown in figure 1 and discussed in ¶ 0016.
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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights