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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has not filed an information disclosure statement (“IDS”) in the current application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
At least one of claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least one of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,080,768. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application encompasses the same structure as the U.S. Patent, and is broader than U.S. Patent. It is broader as it doesn’t claim the minimum electron concentration of the second oxide metal material. Rather, it states it must be greater than the first oxide metal oxide material. Further, the rest of the structure of the current application will read on the structure of the U.S. Patent and vice-versa.
Drawings
Any and all drawing corrections required in the parent application, 17/407,097, are required to be made in this continuation application. If Applicant has already incorporated said corrections, or no corrections were required, Applicant must make a statement to that effect to remove this objection.
Specification
Any and all specification corrections required in the parent application, 17/407,097, are required to be made in this continuation application. If Applicant has already incorporated said corrections, or no corrections were required, Applicant must make a statement to that effect to remove this objection.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are potentially allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
This is a child application of 17/407,097 (U.S. Pat. No. 12,080,768). The independent claims (claims 1, 8, and 16) of this application contain the allowable subject matter of the parent application. Therefore, this application is allowable for the same reasons as the parent application, and detailed further below.
Examiner has stated claims 1-20 are potentially allowable because of the double patenting above. If the double patenting is resolved, along with the specification and drawing objections above then this application will be allowed.
Regarding claim 1,
The prior art does not teach the structural limitation:
the source/drain electrodes comprise a top electrode, and an entire top surface of the top electrode of the source/drain electrodes is coplanar with an entire top surface of the gate dielectric layer and an entire top surface of the gate electrode.
The closest the prior art gets is figure 14 of Chan. However, elements 50 and 51 entire top surfaces are not coplanar.
Regarding claims 8,
The prior art does not teach the structural limitation for the same reasons as claim 1 above:
the top surface of the source/drain electrodes is entirely coplanar with a top surface of the gate dielectric layer and a top surface of the gate electrode.
Regarding claims 16,
The prior art does not teach the structural limitation for the same reasons as claim 1 above:
an entire top surface of the top electrode of the source/drain electrodes is coplanar with an entire top surface of the gate dielectric layer and an entire top surface of the gate electrode.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2822
Prosecution Insights