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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment received on 7/30/2024. Claims 13-25 are pending in this application. Claims 1-12 are canceled.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 20, line 2: delete (1) “less”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 13-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (“Hf0.5Zr0.5O2-Based Ferroelectric Gate AlGaN/GaN HEMTs With Large Threshold Voltage Tunning Range”) in view of Brehin et al. (“A switchable two-dimensional electron gas based on ferroelectric Ca:SrTiO3”).
Re claim 13, Wu teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, pages 337-339, a non-volatile field-effect transistor, the transistor comprising:
-a first electrode (Gate(W)) called a gate electrode including a first contact (Ti/Au),
-a second electrode (Source) called a source, the source (Source) comprising a second contact,
-a third electrode (Drain) called a drain, the drain (Drain) including a third contact,
-a channel between the drain (Drain) and the source (Source), formed by a two-dimensional electron gas (e.g., 2DEG channel),
-a remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO), the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) having at least two electrically controllable remanent states (e.g., on/off), the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) being in contact with the channel (2DEG channel), the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) including at least one oxide layer (e.g., Hf0.5Zr0.5O2(HZO)), and
the first electrode (Gate(W)) being in contact with the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) and an application of a voltage between the first contact (Ti/Au) and a contact amongst the second contact and the third contact (of Source & Drain) leading to a non-volatile modulation of a conductivity of the two-dimensional gas forming the channel (2DEG channel).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wu does not explicitly teach a reducing layer configured to create the two-dimensional gas forming the channel at an interface between the reducing layer and the remanent-state subassembly, the reducing layer being made of at least one metal-type reducing material, each metal-type reducing material having an atomic concentration of metal elements greater than or equal to 50%.
Brehin teaches, pages 1-4, a reducing layer (thin Al film) configured to create the two-dimensional gas forming the channel (e.g., 2DEG) at an interface between the reducing layer (Al film) and the remanent-state subassembly (SRTiO3), the reducing layer (thin Al film) being made of at least one metal-type reducing material (e.g., Al), each metal-type reducing material (Al) having an atomic concentration of metal elements greater than or equal to 50% (e.g., about 100 % Al in thin Al film).
As taught by Brelin, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Wu to obtain a reducing layer configured to create the two-dimensional gas forming the channel at an interface between the reducing layer and the remanent-state subassembly, the reducing layer being made of at least one metal-type reducing material, each metal-type reducing material having an atomic concentration of metal elements greater than or equal to 50% as claimed, because it aids in achieving channel having strong electric field tunability and improving switch performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Brehin in combination Wu due to above reason.
Further, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular atomic concentration, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the atomic concentration is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the atomic concentration is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another atomic concentration. Indeed, it has been held that mere concentration limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed atomic concentration, because a change in atomic concentration would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Re claim 14, in combination cited above, Brehin teaches wherein the reducing layer (thin Al film) is a monolayer of metal-type reducing material (e.g., Al film) or a multilayer of metal-type reducing materials, the reducing material (Al) or materials each having an atomic concentration of metal elements greater than or equal to 50% (e.g., about 100% Al) (see also discussion in claim 13).
Re claim 15, Wu teaches, Fig. 1, wherein the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) comprises at least one non-volatile dielectric layer (HZO) or multilayer (HZO-AL2O3) electrically controlled by an effect chosen among a ferroelectric effect, a trapped charge effect, an ion migration effect and a combination of a plurality of the effects (based on properties of HZO & Al2O3) (see also Brehin, STO).
Re claim 16, in combination cited above, Behin teaches wherein each metal-type reducing material (Al) has an atomic concentration of metal elements greater than or equal to 80% (e.g., about 100% Al in thin Al film) (see also discussion in claim 13).
Re claim 17, in combination cited above, Behin teaches wherein each metal element (Al) is chosen from a list consisting of Mg, Al (in thin Al layer, page 1), Ti, V, Ni, Cr, Mn, Cu, Mo, Nb, Ru, Rh, Pd, Ag, Hf, Ta, W, Ir, Bi, Co, Y, Pt, W, Au and Fe or an alloy thereof.
Re claim 18, in combination cited above, Behin teaches wherein each metal element is chosen from a list consisting of aluminum (in Al layer, page 1), tantalum, yttrium, magnesium and ruthenium.
Re claims 19 & 20, in combination cited above, Behin teaches wherein the reducing layer (thin Al film/layer) has a thickness less than or equal to 15 nanometers; less than or equal to 10 nanometers (e.g., 1.8 mm thick Al film, page 4).
Re claim 21, in combination cited above, Wu teaches, Fig 1, the transistor includes a substrate (SiC substrate) on which rests the drain (Drain), the source (Source) and the reducing layer (see Behin’s teaching), the channel (2DEG channel) and the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) form a stack in this order, and the first electrode (Gate (W)) rests on the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO); and Behin teaches the reducing layer (Al layer), the channel (2DEG channel) and the remanent-state subassembly (STO) form a stack in this order (pages 1 & 4).
Re claim 22, in combination cited above, Wu teaches, Fig. 1, wherein: the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) rests on (a side of) the first electrode (Gate(W)), the drain (Drain), the channel (2DEG) and the source (Source) rest on (a side of) the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO), and Behin teaches, page 1, the reducing layer (Al layer) is arranged over the channel (2DEG).
Re claim 24, Wu teaches wherein the remanent-state subassembly (ALD-HZO) includes a layer chosen amongst: an oxide layer made of perovskite oxides, an oxide layer of (Hf1-XZrx) O2, x varying between 0 and 1 (e.g. Hr0.5Zr0.5O2, page 1), and a layer made of poly(vinylidene fluoride).
4. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as modified by Brehin as applied to claims 13 & 22 above, and further in view of Kinoshita et al. (US 2017/0319582).
The teachings of Wu/Brehin have been discussed above.
Re claim 23, Wu/Behin does not explicitly teach a protective layer arranged over the reducing layer.
Kinoshita teaches, Fig. 1, [0025], a protective layer (24) arranged over the reducing layer (consider layer 16).
As taught by Kinoshita, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a protective layer as claimed, because it aids in enhancing protection to under layers in the formed device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kinoshita in combination Wu/Behin due to above reason.
5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as modified by Brehin as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hazama (US 6,144,585).
The teachings of Wu/Brehin have been discussed above.
Re claim 25, Wu/Behin does not explicitly teach wherein the transistor includes a read unit, the read unit including a sub-unit for applying a voltage between the drain and the source and a sub-unit for measuring a current between the drain and the source.
Hazama teaches the transistor (memory transistor) includes a read unit (e.g., read means), the read unit including a sub-unit for applying a voltage (e.g., voltage apply means) between the drain and the source and a sub-unit for measuring a current (e.g., current detecting means) between the drain and the source (see claims 31 & 36).
As taught by Hazama, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a read unit having sub-units as claimed, because it aids in achieving multi-valued memory with reduced reading operating.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Hazama in combination Wu/Behin due to above reason.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 7/17/26
Prosecution Insights