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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign benefit based on KR10-2023-0082887 filed on 06/27/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1,4, 11-12, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gawase et al. (US 20230413530 A1 – hereinafter Gawase).
Regarding Claim 1, Gawase teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig. 48; specifically, [0260]-[0283], and as cited below), comprising:
an oxide semiconductor layer (16 – Fig. 48 – [0264]);
a first electrode (72 – [0282]) and a second electrode (38 – [0260]) on the oxide semiconductor layer (16) that are apart from each other (72 and 38 are apart);
a metal oxide layer (73 – [0282] – aluminum oxide) between the oxide semiconductor layer (16) and at least one of the first electrode (72) and the second electrode;
a metal nitride layer (71 – [0282] – titanium nitride) between the metal oxide layer (73) and the oxide semiconductor layer (16);
a gate electrode (18 – [0283]) apart from the oxide semiconductor layer (16); and
a gate insulating layer (20 – [0266]) between the oxide semiconductor layer (16) and the gate electrode (18).
Regarding Claim 4, Gawase teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a length of the oxide semiconductor layer is less than 1 micron ([0050]).
Regarding Claim 11, Gawase teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide layer (73) includes at least one of W, Co, Ni, Fe, Ti, Mo, Cr, Zr, Hf, Nb, Ta, Ag, Au, Al, Cu, Sn, V, Ru, Pt, Zn, and Mg ([0282] – Al or Zr).
Regarding Claim 12, Gawase teaches the semiconductor device of claim 11, wherein the metal nitride layer (71) includes at least one of Ga, W, Zn, V, and Ti ([0282] – Ti).
Regarding Claim 16, Gawase teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the first electrode, the metal oxide layer, the metal nitride layer, the oxide semiconductor layer, and the second electrode are arranged sequentially in a thickness direction of the first electrode (see Fig. 48).
Regarding Claim 20, Gawase teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein an interfacial resistance exists between the oxide semiconductor layer (16) and the metal oxide layer (73) (since intervening layers 71, 26, 12 will their own resistances).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawase.
Regarding Claim 2, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein the metal nitride layer includes oxygen.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative composition i.e., “wherein the metal nitride layer includes oxygen” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the metal nitride layer includes oxygen, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 3, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of a thickness of the metal oxide layer and a thickness of the metal nitride layer is less than a thickness of the oxide semiconductor layer.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “wherein at least one of a thickness of the metal oxide layer and a thickness of the metal nitride layer is less than a thickness of the oxide semiconductor layer” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein at least one of a thickness of the metal oxide layer and a thickness of the metal nitride layer is less than a thickness of the oxide semiconductor layer, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 5, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 5 nm or less.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 5 nm or less” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 5 nm or less, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 6, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 5 nm or less.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 0.5 nm to 3.5 nm” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 0.5 nm to 3.5 nm, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 7, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the metal nitride layer is 10 nm or less.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “wherein a thickness of the metal nitride layer is 10 nm or less” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a thickness of the metal nitride layer is 10 nm or less, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 8, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the metal nitride layer is 10 nm or less.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 0.2 times to 2 times greater than a thickness of the metal nitride layer” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is 0.2 times to 2 times greater than a thickness of the metal nitride layer, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 9, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 9 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of the metal nitride layer is 10 nm or less.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative thickness i.e., “wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is less than or equal to 25 % of a thickness of the first electrode” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a thickness of the metal oxide layer is less than or equal to 25 % of a thickness of the first electrode, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 10, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 10 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein the metal oxide layer includes a metal identical to a metal included in an electrode in contact with the metal oxide layer, the electrode selected from the first electrode and the second electrode.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative composition i.e., “wherein the metal oxide layer includes a metal identical to a metal included in an electrode in contact with the metal oxide layer, the electrode selected from the first electrode and the second electrode” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein the metal oxide layer includes a metal identical to a metal included in an electrode in contact with the metal oxide layer, the electrode selected from the first electrode and the second electrode, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 13, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 13 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a surface of at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is stepped by the metal oxide layer.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative dimension i.e., “wherein a surface of at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is stepped by the metal oxide layer” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a surface of at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode is stepped by the metal oxide layer, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 14, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 14 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the metal nitride layer is greater than or equal to a width of the oxide semiconductor layer.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein a width of the metal nitride layer is greater than or equal to a width of the oxide semiconductor layer.” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a width of the metal nitride layer is greater than or equal to a width of the oxide semiconductor layer., solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Regarding Claim 15, Gawase teaches claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. But Gawase does not expressly disclose wherein a width of the metal nitride layer is greater than or equal to a width of the oxide semiconductor layer.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative width i.e., “wherein a difference between a width of the oxide semiconductor layer and a width of the metal nitride layer is greater than or equal to a difference between the width of the oxide semiconductor layer and a width of the metal oxide layer.” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a difference between a width of the oxide semiconductor layer and a width of the metal nitride layer is greater than or equal to a difference between the width of the oxide semiconductor layer and a width of the metal oxide layer., solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 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 the Examiner’s Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 17: The semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the metal oxide layer includes: a first metal oxide layer between the first electrode and the oxide semiconductor layer; and a second metal oxide layer between the second electrode and the oxide semiconductor layer, and the metal nitride layer is between the first metal oxide layer and the oxide semiconductor layer.
Claims 18-19 depend from claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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 J. Maldonado can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights