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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 15, 17-19, 27, 29, 31, 37, 51 and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo (US 5596214).
Regarding claim 1, Endo discloses a ferroelectric field-effect transistor comprising:
a substrate (1) [Figs. 3-4];
a source (6) disposed over a first region of the substrate [Figs. 3-4];
a drain (7) disposed over a second region of the substrate, wherein the second region is spaced apart from the first region [Figs. 3-4];
a channel (CH) comprised of a semiconductor material within a third region that is between the first region and the second region [Fig. 3, annotated below; and col. 7, lines 3-5]; and
a gate stack (3,11/12,5) [Figs. 3-4] comprising:
an interfacial layer (3) disposed over the channel, wherein the interfacial layer (3) comprises thermally grown silicon nitride [col. 14, lines 57-60], and wherein a ratio of a permittivity of the interfacial layer to a permittivity of silicon dioxide is greater than 2 [col. 12, lines 33-38], thereby reducing an electric field in the interfacial layer relative to a silicon dioxide interfacial layer to increase a time-to-breakdown of the gate stack [The court has held that [w]hen the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971); Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); and Northam Warren Corp. v. D. F. Newfield Co., 7 F. Supp. 773, 22 USPQ 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1934)]; and
a layer of ferroelectric material (11/12) disposed over the interfacial layer (3) [Figs. 3-4, col. 15, lines 4-6, and col. 17, lines 25-30].
[AltContent: textbox (CH)]
PNG
media_image1.png
508
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Endo discloses wherein the channel (CH) comprises a crystalline, poly-crystalline,
Regarding claim 17. Endo discloses wherein the interfacial layer (3) has a permittivity that is larger than 4 [col. 12, lines 33-38].
Regarding claim 18, Endo discloses wherein the interfacial layer (3) comprises high permittivity (k>4) insulators [col. 12, lines 33-38 and col. 14, lines 57-60].
Regarding claim 19, Endo discloses wherein the high permittivity (k>4) insulators comprise silicon nitride,
Regarding claim 27, Endo discloses wherein the ferroelectric material (11/12) comprises a perovskite material (e.g. BST) [col. 15, lines 3-6, and Table 1].
Regarding claim 29, endo discloses a method of fabricating a ferroelectric field-effect transistor comprising:
providing a substrate (1) [Figs. 3-4];
disposing a source (6) over a first region of the substrate [Figs. 3-4];
disposing a drain (7) over a second region of the substrate [Figs. 3-4], wherein the second region is spaced apart from the first region forming a channel (CH) between the source and the drain [Fig. 3, annotated above];
forming a gate stack (3,11/12,5) [Figs. 3-4] by:
disposing an interfacial layer (3) over the channel (CH) [Fig. 3, annotated above], wherein the interfacial layer comprises thermally grown silicon nitride [col. 14, lines 57-60], and wherein a ratio of a permittivity of the interfacial layer to a permittivity of silicon dioxide is greater than 2 [col. 12, lines 33-38], thereby reducing an electric field in the interfacial layer relative to a silicon dioxide interfacial layer to increase a time-to- breakdown of the gate stack [The court has held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)]; and
disposing a layer of ferroelectric material (11/12) over the interfacial layer (3) [Figs. 3-4, col. 15, lines 4-6, and col. 17, lines 25-30].
Regarding claim 31. Endo discloses wherein the interfacial layer (3) has a permittivity that is larger than 4 [col. 12, lines 33-38].
Regarding claim 37, Endo discloses wherein the ferroelectric material (11/12) comprises a perovskite material (e.g. BST) [col. 15, lines 3-6, and Table 1].
Regarding claim 51, Endo discloses wherein the channel (CH) comprises a crystalline, poly-crystalline, or amorphous form of two-dimensional semiconductors [col. 14, lines 50-51: “p-type silicon substrate”].
Regarding claim 53, Endo discloses wherein the interfacial layer (3) comprises high permittivity (k>4) insulators [col. 12, lines 33-38 and col. 14, lines 57-60].
Regarding claim 54, Endo discloses wherein the high permittivity (k>4) insulators comprise silicon nitride, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon- oxynitride, hafnium oxynitride, zirconium oxynitride, lanthanum oxide, other doped binary oxides, and combinations thereof [col. 12, lines 33-38 and col. 14, lines 57-60].
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 21-25 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5596214) in view of Young et al. (US 2020/0176585).
Regarding claims 21-25 and 33-35, Endo is silent with respect to the ferroelectric material comprising a binary material.
However,
Regarding claim 21, Young teaches wherein the ferroelectric material (232) comprises a binary material [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 22, Young teaches wherein the binary material is hafnium oxide [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 23, Young teaches wherein the hafnium oxide is zirconium doped zirconium-doped [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 24, Young teaches wherein the hafnium oxide is doped with a dopant atom [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 25, Young teaches wherein the dopant atom is from the group consisting of aluminum, yttrium, and silicon [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 33, Young teaches wherein the ferroelectric material (232) comprises a binary material [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 34, Young teaches wherein the binary material is hafnium oxide [paragraph 0035].
Regarding claim 35, Young teaches wherein the hafnium oxide is zirconium-doped [paragraph 0035].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Endo by including a ferroelectric material comprising a binary material as taught by Young because helps to improve transistor performance [paragraph 0043].
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo (US 5596214).
Regarding claims 28 and 38, Endo, as stated before, teaches the same claimed the interfacial material [See col. 12, lines 33-38 and col. 14, lines 57-60]. Hence, it is assumed that the interface in Young also provides an endurance of greater than 1012 cycles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 20, 26, 36, 52 and 55 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 15, 17-19, 21-25,27-29, 31, 33-35, 37-38, 51 and 53-54 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yosuda (US 7781824) teaches memory cell comprising a SiO2/Si3N4) interface layer 102 and ferroelectric (HFON) 103 [See Fig. 26].
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1727. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/Jose R Diaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights