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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 3 Modification B (Remarks; page 1, claims 1-7, 9-18, and 20) in the reply filed on 21 May 2026 is acknowledged. No claim appears generic as claims 9, 13, and 14 (Remarks; page 1) require a “ferroelectric layer over a back gate terminal of a substrate; and a base on the ferroelectric layer…” which does not appear to read on at least, for example, species 1 modification A, species 2 modification A, species 3 modification A, and species 4 modification A.
Furthermore, claims 3 and 20 read on non-elected species 4 modification A and non-elected species 2 modification B, respectively, and are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-18 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14 and 18 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 14, it recites “wherein one of the emitter or collector is over the first portion of the ferroelectric layer, and wherein the base is over the second portion of the ferroelectric layer”. Claim 14 depends from claim 9, which does not recite first or second portions of the ferroelectric layer, and only recites first and second portions of the base. This leaves the claim unclear as to what “first and second portions” of the ferroelectric layer that claim 14 intends to refer to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites “the first portion of the ferroelectric spacer”. Claim 18 depends from claims 17 and 15, and “a first portion of the ferroelectric spacer” has not been defined, leaving this limitation unclear as to what “the first portion” of the ferroelectric spacer the limitation intends to refer to. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fabio Carta et al. (US 20160218200 A1; hereinafter Carta).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Carta discloses a structure (Fig. 15) comprising:
a base (region with width “w” and including epitaxial layer 226; ¶0058; ¶0066) over a substrate (210; ¶0066) and including a first portion (portion between 221’s) laterally between an emitter (221/218 left) and a collector (221/218 right) (¶0004, ¶0066), and a second portion (226) over the first portion; and
a ferroelectric spacer (224 which is hafnium oxide as described in ¶0064, wherein this is the same material as in the instant invention and therefore satisfies this limitation) adjacent the second portion of the base (226) (as shown in Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 4, Carta discloses the structure of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric spacer (224) includes a polarized region (between 218 and 226) and a non-polarized region (area of 224 above the tops of 226 and 218) on the polarized region (wherein the “polarized” region is implicitly satisfied as a feature of operation of the device meeting the structure of claims 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Carta discloses the structure of claim 4, wherein the polarized region of the ferroelectric spacer (224) is on one of the emitter and the collector (polarized region of 224 is on 221 of the collector and/or the emitter).
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, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin Cai et al. (US 20130256757 A1; hereinafter Cai) in view of Carta.
PNG
media_image2.png
589
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Cai discloses a structure (Fig. 7) comprising:
a base (32/52/72; ¶0037/¶0027/¶0054) over a substrate (10; ¶0019) and including a first portion (32 below the dotted line X-X’) laterally between an emitter (34/64; ¶0037/¶0042) and a collector (36/66; ¶0037/¶0042), and a second portion (32 above the dotted line X-X’) over the first portion; and
a spacer (70; ¶0034) adjacent the second portion (52) of the base.
Cai does not expressly disclose wherein the spacer is a ferroelectric spacer, but notes in ¶0034 that any dielectric material employed to form a spacer known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Carta discloses a structure (Fig. 15) comprising:
a base (region with width “w” and including epitaxial layer 226; ¶0058; ¶0066) over a substrate (210; ¶0066) and including a first portion (portion between 221’s) laterally between an emitter (221/218 left) and a collector (221/218 right) (¶0004, ¶0066), and a second portion (226) over the first portion; and
a ferroelectric spacer (224 which is hafnium oxide as described in ¶0064, wherein this is the same material as in the instant invention and therefore satisfies this limitation) adjacent the second portion of the base (226) (as shown in Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Carta’s ferroelectric (hafnium dioxide) spacer material in Cai’s device because of their art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose of being a spacer material and/or in order to obtain good etch selectivity relative to other dielectric materials (Carta; ¶0052).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the base further includes a third portion (52/72) on the second portion and adjacent the ferroelectric spacer (70 as modified) or over an upper surface of the ferroelectric spacer, the third portion (52/72) having a higher dopant concentration than the first portion (32 below X-X’) and the second portion (32 above X-X’) of the base (as described in ¶0028 of Cai in view of Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric spacer (70 as modified) includes a polarized region (region of 70 between 64 and 66) and a non-polarized region (region of 70 above the tops of 64 and 66) on the polarized region (wherein the “polarized” region is implicitly satisfied as a feature of operation of the device meeting the structure of claims 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 4, wherein the base further includes a third portion (52/72) on the second portion (32 above X-X’ line), the third portion (52/72) having a higher dopant concentration than the first portion and the second portion of the base (as described in ¶0028 of Cai in view of Fig. 2), and the non-polarized region of the ferroelectric spacer is adjacent the third portion (52/72) (as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 4, wherein the polarized region of the ferroelectric spacer (70) is on one of the emitter (34) and the collector (36) (as shown in Fig. 7).
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Jin Cai et al. (US 20140088401 A1; hereinafter Cai’401) and Karthik Balakrishnan et al. (US 20180019330 A1; hereinafter Balakrishnan).
Regarding Claim 9, Cai discloses a structure (Fig. 7) comprising:
a substrate (10; ¶0019); and
a base (32/52/72; ¶0037/¶0027/¶0054) on the ferroelectric layer and including a first portion (32 below the dotted line X-X’) laterally between an emitter (34/64; ¶0037/¶0042) and a collector (36/66; ¶0037/¶0042), and a second portion (32 above the dotted line X-X’) over the first portion.
Cai does not expressly disclose a back gate terminal of the substrate.
PNG
media_image3.png
289
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Cai’401 teaches a bipolar transistor comprising an emitter (102), base (106/101), and collector (103) (Fig. 1; ¶0022) featuring a back gate terminal (109) of the substrate (105) (Fig. 1; ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the back gate terminal of Cai’401 in the device of Cai in order to have depletion occur in the base near the buried oxide (104; Cai’401; ¶0022 which is equivalent to the substrate and buried oxide layer 20 of Cai; ¶0021) to provide a net increase in the collector current/current gain in the lateral SOI BJT (Cai’401; ¶0022).
Modified Cai does not expressly disclose a ferroelectric layer over the back gate terminal (as modified by Cai’401; 109) of the substrate.
PNG
media_image4.png
468
717
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Balakrishnan discloses a similar device (Fig. 1A) comprising a buried oxide layer (2/3; ¶0037-¶0038) between a substrate (1) and a lateral bipolar junction transistor (¶0037) comprising hafnium oxide (¶0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the hafnium oxide of the buried oxide layer of Balakrishnan for the buried oxide layer (20) of modified Cai, as Cai discloses in ¶0021 that the buried oxide layer may contain a stack of multiple dielectrics, while Balakrishnans stack of multiple dielectrics including hafnium oxide provide the benefit of functioning as an etch stop layer for patterning the base region (Balakrishnan; ¶0023).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 9, wherein the ferroelectric layer (70 as modified) includes a polarized region (region of 70 between 64 and 66) and a non-polarized region (region of 70 above the tops of 64 and 66) adjacent the polarized region (wherein the “polarized” region is implicitly satisfied as a feature of operation of the device meeting the structure of the claims).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 9, wherein one of the emitter (34/64) and the collector (36/66) is over the first portion of the ferroelectric layer (as modified; a first portion of 20), and wherein the base (32/52/72) is over the second portion of the ferroelectric layer (as modified; a second portion of 20).
Claims 11-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai in view of Cai’401, Balakrishnan, and Carta.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 9, further comprising a spacer (Fig. 7; 70; ¶0034) adjacent the second portion (32 above the dotted line X-X’) of the base and above the ferroelectric layer (as modified by Balakrishnan 2/3).
Modified Cai does not expressly disclose wherein the spacer (Cai; 70) is a ferroelectric spacer, but notes in (Cai; ¶0034) that any dielectric material employed to form a spacer known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Carta discloses a structure (Fig. 15) comprising:
a base (region with width “w” and including epitaxial layer 226; ¶0058; ¶0066) over a substrate (210; ¶0066) and including a first portion (portion between 221’s) laterally between an emitter (221/218 left) and a collector (221/218 right) (¶0004, ¶0066), and a second portion (226) over the first portion; and
a ferroelectric spacer (224 which is hafnium oxide as described in ¶0064, wherein this is the same material as in the instant invention and therefore satisfies this limitation) adjacent the second portion of the base (226) (as shown in Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Carta’s ferroelectric (hafnium dioxide) spacer material in Cai’s device because of their art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose of being a spacer material and/or in order to obtain good etch selectivity relative to other dielectric materials (Carta; ¶0052).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 11, wherein the base further includes a third portion (52/72) on the second portion and adjacent the ferroelectric spacer (70, as modified) or over an upper surface of the ferroelectric spacer, the third portion (52/72) having a higher dopant concentration than the first portion (32 below X-X’) and the second portion (32 above X-X’) of the base (as described in ¶0028 of Cai in view of Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Cai discloses a structure comprising:
a substrate (10; ¶0019);
a base (32/52/72; ¶0037/¶0027/¶0054) on the ferroelectric layer and including a first portion (32 below the dotted line X-X’) laterally between an emitter (34/64; ¶0037/¶0042) and a collector (36/66; ¶0037/¶0042), and a second portion (32 above the dotted line X-X’) over the first portion; and
a spacer (70; ¶0034) adjacent the second portion of the base (32 above X-X’).
Cai does not expressly disclose a back gate terminal of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Cai’401 teaches a bipolar transistor comprising an emitter (102), base (106/101), and collector (103) (Fig. 1; ¶0022) featuring a back gate terminal (109) of the substrate (105) (Fig. 1; ¶0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the back gate terminal of Cai’401 in the device of Cai in order to have depletion occur in the base near the buried oxide (104; Cai’401; ¶0022 which is equivalent to the substrate and buried oxide layer 20 of Cai; ¶0021) to provide a net increase in the collector current/current gain in the lateral SOI BJT (Cai’401; ¶0022).
Modified Cai does not expressly disclose a ferroelectric layer over the back gate terminal (as modified by Cai’401; 109) of the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Balakrishnan discloses a similar device (Fig. 1A) comprising a buried oxide layer (2/3; ¶0037-¶0038) between a substrate (1) and a lateral bipolar junction transistor (¶0037) comprising hafnium oxide (¶0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the hafnium oxide of the buried oxide layer of Balakrishnan for the buried oxide layer (20) of modified Cai, as Cai discloses in ¶0021 that the buried oxide layer may contain a stack of multiple dielectrics, while Balakrishnans stack of multiple dielectrics including hafnium oxide provide the benefit of functioning as an etch stop layer for patterning the base region (Balakrishnan; ¶0023).
Modified Cai does not expressly disclose wherein the spacer (Cai; 70) is a ferroelectric spacer, but notes in (Cai; ¶0034) that any dielectric material employed to form a spacer known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, Carta discloses a structure (Fig. 15) comprising:
a base (region with width “w” and including epitaxial layer 226; ¶0058; ¶0066) over a substrate (210; ¶0066) and including a first portion (portion between 221’s) laterally between an emitter (221/218 left) and a collector (221/218 right) (¶0004, ¶0066), and a second portion (226) over the first portion; and
a ferroelectric spacer (224 which is hafnium oxide as described in ¶0064, wherein this is the same material as in the instant invention and therefore satisfies this limitation) adjacent the second portion of the base (226) (as shown in Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Carta’s ferroelectric (hafnium dioxide) spacer material in Cai’s device because of their art-recognized suitability for the intended purpose of being a spacer material and/or in order to obtain good etch selectivity relative to other dielectric materials (Carta; ¶0052).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 15, wherein the base further includes a third portion (52/72) on the second portion and adjacent the ferroelectric spacer (70, as modified) or over an upper surface of the ferroelectric spacer, the third portion (52/72) having a higher dopant concentration than the first portion (32 below X-X’) and the second portion (32 above X-X’) of the base (as described in ¶0028 of Cai in view of Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 15, wherein the ferroelectric layer (70 as modified) includes a polarized region (region of 70 between 64 and 66) and a non-polarized region (region of 70 above the tops of 64 and 66) on the polarized region (wherein the “polarized” region is implicitly satisfied as a feature of operation of the device meeting the structure of the claims).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 17, wherein the first portion of the ferroelectric spacer (at least a portion of spacer 70) is on one of the emitter (34/64) and the collector (36/66) (as shown in Cai Fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 7, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 1 (see above). However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
a non-ferroelectric spacer adjacent the second portion of the base, opposite the ferroelectric spacer. As shown above, both spacers (70), as modified by the teaching of Carta, would be ferroelectric spacers, and not wherein only one of the two sidewall spacers is ferroelectric.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Cai teaches the structure of claim 9 (see above).
However, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the Examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, all the limitations of the instant invention in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation); further including:
a non-ferroelectric spacer adjacent the second portion of the base. As shown above, both spacers (70), as modified by the teaching of Carta, would be ferroelectric spacers, and not wherein only one of the two sidewall spacers is ferroelectric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN PRIDEMORE whose telephone number is (703)756-4640. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm EST.
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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
NATHAN PRIDEMORE
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/NATHAN PRIDEMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights