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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kijima et al., US 2006/0118844 in view of Wu et al., US 2005/0285171.
Kijima et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including an integrated chip device, comprising:
A substrate 10;
An oxide semiconductor 20 disposed over the substrate 10; and
A ferroelectric material 30 having an outer surface on the oxide semiconductor (see figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0042-0077).
Kijima et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the ferroelectric material comprises a species that is arranged along the outer surface and that is configured to suppress diffusion of oxygen, hydrogen and/or oxygen vacancies between the oxide semiconductor and the ferroelectric material.
Wu et al. discloses a ferroelectric material comprising an element with a valence of 5 that is used to inhibit interdiffusion (see paragraphs 0023-0029). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ferroelectric material of Kijima et al. so as to apply elements that prohibit interdiffusion in order to prevent unwanted elements and compounds from migrating to nearby layers.
Concerning dependent claim 12, Kijima et al. and Wu et al. do not expressly disclose the claimed concentration of the species in the ferroelectric layer. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al., US 2020/0075631 in view of Tamura, U.S. Patent 6,380,573 or Yoo, US 2019/0019683.
Dong et al. shows the invention substantially as claimed including an integrated chip device, comprising:
A substrate 302;
A first conductive structure over the substrate;
An oxide semiconductor 310 disposed over the substrate;
A ferroelectric material 312 over the substrate and having an outer surface disposed on the oxide semiconductor; and a second conductive structure over the substrate, wherein the oxide semiconductor and the ferroelectric material are between the first conductive structure (leftmost stacked structure containing 306) and the second conductive structure (stacked structure containing 306 to the right of leftmost structure—see fig. 4E2 and paragraphs 0068-0079).
Dong et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the ferroelectric material comprises nitrogen dopants or fluorine dopants arranged along the outer surface. Tamura discloses forming a ferroelectric layer comprising a nitrogen material (see abstract), and Yoo discloses forming a ferroelectric layer with fluorine in order to enhance crystallinity of the ferroelectric material (see paragraphs 0059-0060). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Dong et al. so as to comprise either nitrogen as suggested by Tamura or fluorine as suggested by Yoo because Tamura shows nitrogen to be a suitable material to be used with ferroelectrics and because fluorine is shown by Yoo to enhance the crystallinity of the ferroelectric.
As to dependent claim 18, note that when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation the second conductive structure can vertically extend from above a top of the first conductive structure to below a bottom of the first conductive structure by taking a portion of the conductive structures.
Regarding dependent claim 19, note that the outer surface of the oxide semiconductor in the primary reference of Dong et al. physically contacts a sidewall of the ferroelectric material (see fig. 4E2).
With respect to dependent claim 20, Dong et al., Tamura, and Yoo do not expressly disclose the claimed concentration of the species in the ferroelectric layer. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the limitations of: a ferroelectric layer along sidewalls of the plurality of conductive lines and dielectric layers; and a species disposed within the ferroelectric layer, wherein the species has a concentration that decreases from the channel layer towards a surface of the ferroelectric layer that faces away from the channel layer, as required by independent claim 1.
Claims 11 and 13-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
September 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights