DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 9/15/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (the embodiment of Figs. 2A-2B, 4H, 10) in the reply filed 9/15/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn, because the limitation of claim 9 “wherein the high-k gate dielectric layer comprises a first high-k dielectric material, and wherein the high-k gate dielectric layer comprises a plurality of doped regions that include a second high-k dielectric material that is different from the first high-k dielectric material” is described in the elected embodiment of Figs. 2A-2B, 4H, and 10, and its associated text. Rather, it is a part of nonelected embodiments (see embodiment II, see Figs. 5 and 6B-6D, and see e.g. para 83 and 90-91, wherein the doped layers 502 are “situated between layers 504” of the gate dielectric and “alternate” therewith).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/8/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first high-k terminal layer (214) comprises a high-k dielectric material having a band gap that is greater than approximately 5 electron-volts.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the term "approximately" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” defines a target (5 eV) and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “approximately” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. For example, it is unclear which of the following is “close enough” to 5 eV to be “approximately 5 eV” and which are not: 2, 2.5, 3, 2.5, 4, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.85, 4.9, 4.95, 4.98, 5.02, 5.05, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.75, 5.9, 6, 6.25, 6.5, 6.75, 7, etc. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the first high-k terminal layer comprises a high-k dielectric material having a dielectric constant that is greater than approximately 10.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the term "approximately" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “approximately” defines a target (10) and implicitly requires boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “approximately” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. For example, it is unclear which of the following is “close enough” to 10 to be “approximately 10” and which are not: 5, 6, 7, 7.5, 8, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.95, 9.98, etc. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0352379 A1 (“Lin”).
Lin teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
519
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lin teaches:
1. A transistor structure (see e.g. Fig. 6), comprising:
a gate electrode (e.g. “buried gate electrode 220”, see e.g. para 94);
an oxide-semiconductor channel layer (e.g. “channel layer 250”, see e.g. para 105);
a gate dielectric layer (e.g. “FE material layer 240”, see e.g. para 73; this layer is between 220 and channel 250 and insulated the two, and hence is reasonably interpreted as a “gate dielectric layer”, though it is not explicitly named that in this embodiment; however, in para 112, the a ferroelectric material is equated with the gate dielectric; in the Applicant’s specification, the gate dielectric layer may also be ferroelectric) between the gate electrode and the oxide-semiconductor channel layer (see e.g. Fig. 6); and
at least one of:
a first high dielectric constant (high-k) terminal layer (comprising e.g. “stress layer 230” and/or “seed layer 235”, see e.g. para 94; see e.g. para 99 and 103 for various possible materials, many of which are well-known high-k metal oxide materials) between the gate electrode and the gate dielectric layer, or
a second high-k terminal layer (comprising e.g. “insulating layer” or “blocking layer” 245, see e.g. para 79 wherein the high-k dielectric materials are listed) between the gate dielectric layer and the oxide-semiconductor channel layer.
3. The transistor structure of claim 1, wherein the transistor structure includes the first high-k terminal layer; and wherein the first high-k terminal layer comprises at least one of: an aluminum oxide (Al.sub.xO.sub.y) material, an yttrium oxide (Y.sub.xO.sub.y) material, a samarium oxide (Sm.sub.xO.sub.y) material, a gadolinium oxide (Gd.sub.xO.sub.y) material, a scandium oxide (Sc.sub.xO.sub.y) material, an ytterbium oxide (Yb.sub.xO.sub.y) material, or a lutetium oxide (Lu.sub.xO.sub.y) material (see e.g. para 99, 103).
7. The transistor structure of claim 1, wherein the transistor structure includes the second high-k terminal layer; and wherein the second high-k terminal layer comprises at least one of: a hafnium oxide (HfO.sub.x) material, a zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.x) material, a titanium oxide (Ti.sub.xO.sub.y) material, a magnesium oxide (MgO) material, a calcium oxide (CaO) material, or a hafnium zirconium oxide (Hf.sub.xZr.sub.yO.sub.z) material (see e.g. para 79).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-6, 8 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0352379 A1 (“Lin”).
Re claim 2, Lin teaches claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the transistor structure includes the first high-k terminal layer (see discussion of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach wherein a metal-to-oxygen bonding strength of a high-k material of the first high-k terminal layer is greater than a metal-to-oxygen bonding strength of a dielectric material of the gate dielectric layer.
However, Lin’s disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer and of the gate dielectric layer are substantially similar to the Applicant’s disclosed (and claimed, in e.g. claims 3 and 7), and thus the properties resulting from the materials would be the same.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from the disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer and to choose from the disclosed materials of the gate dielectric layer and arrive at combinations that, when tested, would have the claimed property.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claim 4, Lin teaches claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the transistor structure includes the first high-k terminal layer (see discussion of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach wherein the first high-k terminal layer comprises a high-k dielectric material having a band gap that is greater than approximately 5 electron-volts.
However, Lin’s disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer are substantially similar to the Applicant’s disclosed (and claimed, in e.g. claim 3), and thus the properties resulting from the materials would be the same.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from the disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer and arrive at a choice that, when tested, would have the claimed property.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claim 5, Lin teaches claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the transistor structure includes the first high-k terminal layer (see discussion of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach wherein the first high-k terminal layer comprises a high-k dielectric material having a dielectric constant that is greater than approximately 10.
However, Lin’s disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer are substantially similar to the Applicant’s disclosed (and claimed, in e.g. claim 3), and thus the properties resulting from the materials would be the same.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from the disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer and arrive at a choice that, when tested, would have the claimed property.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claim 6, Lin teaches claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the transistor structure includes the second high-k terminal layer (see discussion of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach wherein a metal-to-oxygen bonding strength of a high-k material of the second high-k terminal layer is approximately equal to a metal-to-oxygen bonding strength of an oxide-semiconductor material of the oxide-semiconductor channel layer.
However, Lin’s disclosed materials of the second high-k terminal layer and of the channel layer are substantially similar to the Applicant’s disclosed (and claimed, in e.g. claim 7), and thus the properties resulting from the materials would be the same.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from the disclosed materials of the second high-k terminal layer and to choose from the disclosed materials of the channel layer and arrive at combinations that, when tested, would have the claimed property.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claim 8, Lin teaches claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches wherein the transistor structure includes the first high-k terminal layer and the second high-k terminal layer, wherein the first high-k terminal layer includes a first high-k dielectric material, and wherein the second high-k terminal layer includes a second high-k dielectric material (see discussion of claim 1).
Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the first high-k dielectric material and the second high-k dielectric material are different high-k dielectric materials.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from the disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer and to choose from the disclosed materials of the second high-k terminal layer and arrive at combinations wherein the two materials are different, especially because many combinations of different materials are disclosed.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claim 15, Lin teaches:
15. A method (see e.g. Fig. 6 and e.g. para 94, 98-105), comprising:
forming a high dielectric constant (high-k) gate dielectric layer (e.g. “FE material layer 240”, see e.g. para 73; this layer is between 220 and channel 250 and insulated the two, and hence is reasonably interpreted as a “gate dielectric layer”, though it is not explicitly named that in this embodiment; however, in para 112, the a ferroelectric material is equated with the gate dielectric; in the Applicant’s specification, the gate dielectric layer may also be ferroelectric) of a backend transistor structure; and
forming a terminal layer (comprising e.g. “stress layer 230” and/or “seed layer 235”, see e.g. para 94; see e.g. para 99 and 103 for various possible materials, many of which are well-known high-k metal oxide materials; and/or comprising e.g. “insulating layer” or “blocking layer” 245, see e.g. para 79 wherein the high-k dielectric materials are listed) of the backend transistor structure, wherein the terminal layer is vertically adjacent to the high-k gate dielectric layer (see e.g. Fig. 6),
wherein the terminal layer comprises a first high-k dielectric material (see e.g. para 99, 103, 79) and
wherein the high-k gate dielectric layer comprises a second high-k dielectric material (see e.g. para 73).
Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the first high-k dielectric material is different from the second high-k dielectric material.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to choose from the disclosed materials of the first high-k terminal layer and to choose from the disclosed materials of the second high-k terminal layer and arrive at combinations wherein the two materials are different, especially because many combinations of different materials are disclosed.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claims 16-20, because the Applicant has elected the species shown in Figs. 2A-2B, 4H, 10, comprising a bottom gate 202 below the first high-k terminal layer 214, which is below the gate dielectric 204, which is below the second high-k terminal layer 216, which is below the channel 206, and because the Applicant indicated that claims 15-20 read on this embodiment (see remarks, filed 9/15/26), the interpretation of “on” in these claims must reasonably include “attached to, directly or indirectly”, and must include orientations wherein layer A may be “on” layer B even if it is below layer B).
Lin further teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
16. The method of claim 15, wherein forming the high-k gate dielectric layer comprises: forming the high-k gate dielectric layer on the terminal layer (see e.g. Fig. 6).
17. The method of claim 15, wherein forming the terminal layer comprises: forming the terminal layer on the high-k gate dielectric layer (see e.g. Fig. 6).
18. The method of claim 15, wherein forming the terminal layer comprises: forming the terminal layer on a gate electrode 202 of the backend transistor structure (see e.g. Fig. 6).
19. The method of claim 15, wherein forming the terminal layer comprises: forming the terminal layer on an oxide-semiconductor channel layer 206 of the backend transistor structure (see e.g. Fig. 6).
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising: forming a gate electrode 202 on the terminal layer (see e.g. Fig. 6).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
US 2021/0159342 A1 (“Asami”) discloses TFTs having similar oxide semiconductor layers to those disclosed and claimed.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights