DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Application
In response to Office action dated 10/01/2025 (“10-01-25 OA”), Applicant filed remarks and currently amended title and claims 2, 4, 6-8 and 10-12 while currently canceling claims 3 and 5 and adding new claims 13-18 in reply dated 12/01/2025 (“12-01-25 Reply”).
Pending claims 2, 4 and 6-18 are examined on their merits infra.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/03/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the 10-01-25 OA. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 because the statement under 37 CFR 1.97(e)(1) is provided for most of the references. The other references listed appear to be patent family members of the references under the aforementioned statement. All references have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to title overcome the objection to specification as set forth under line item number 1 of the 10-01-25 OA.
Applicant’s cancelation of limitations in independent claim 1 that appeared to be the same scope as dependent claim 8 overcomes the 35 USC 112(d) rejection as set forth in pages 3-4 of the 10-01-25 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 overcome the prior art rejections based at least in part on primary reference of Yamazaki as set forth under line item number 2 of the 10-01-25 OA.
Applicant’s incorporation of now canceled dependent claims 3 and 5 into independent claim 2 along with cancelation of other limitation in independent claim 2 have changed the scope of the independent claim and dependent claims thereof thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection infra.
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 18 is 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 18 depends on claim 1 that does not exist. This is unclear. For purpose of examination on the merits no prior art is applied to claim 18 because 18 is entirely unclear with respect to depending on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that 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.
Claims 2, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0092945 A1 to Honda et al. (“Honda”).
Regarding independent claim 2, Honda teaches of a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising a transistor (see section title before paragraph 0150), comprising the steps of:
forming an oxide semiconductor layer 106 (Figure 4A; paragraph 0156: “oxide semiconductor film”);
forming an oxide film 110 (Figure 4B; paragraph 0158: “For the gate insulating film 110, an oxide insulating film…”) comprising a region in contact with a side surface of the oxide semiconductor layer 106 and a region in contact with a top surface of the oxide semiconductor layer 106;
forming a first conductive layer 112 (Figure 4C; paragraph 0166: “…so that the gate electrode 112 is formed.”) over the oxide film 110;
forming an insulating layer 114 (Figure 5A; paragraph 0177: “Next, the interlayer insulating film 114 is formed over the gate insulating film 110 and the gate electrode 112 (see FIG. 5A).”) comprising a region in contact with a top surface of the first conductive layer 112, a region in contact with a side surface of the first conductive layer 112, and a region in contact with a top surface of the oxide film 110;
performing heat treatment (refer to paragraph 0163) to supply oxygen to the oxide semiconductor layer 106 from the oxide film 110, and
performing an impurity element doping treatment 181 (Figure 4D; paragraph 0167: “Next, dopant 181 is introduced into the oxide semiconductor film 106 with use of the gate electrode 112 as a mask…”) to the oxide semiconductor layer 106 through the oxide film 106 before the formation (Figure 5A occurs after Figure 4D) of the insulating layer 114,
wherein a channel formation region (center of 106) of the oxide semiconductor layer 106 and the first conductive layer 112 (i.e., gate) overlap with each other (i.e., vertically), and
wherein the impurity element 181 is phosphorous, boron, magnesium, aluminum, or silicon (refer to paragraph 0168: there is phosphorous, boron etc.).
Regarding claim 7, Honda teaches wherein the insulating layer 114 comprises any one of a silicon nitride (see paragraph 0178), silicon nitride oxide (see paragraph 0178), silicon oxynitride (see paragraph 0178), aluminum oxide (see paragraph 0178), aluminum oxynitride (see paragraph 0178), aluminum nitride (see paragraph 0178), hafnium oxide (see paragraph 0178), and hafnium aluminate.
Regarding claim 10, Honda teaches wherein the impurity element 181 is doped to the oxide semiconductor layer 106 by a plasma ion doping method or an ion implantation method (see paragraph 0169: there is ion implantation).
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.
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.
Claims (4, 6) and (16, 15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0092945 A1 to Honda et al. (“Honda”).
Honda teaches all limitations of parent claim 2 from which claims 4 and 6 depend.
Regarding claim 4 and 6, Honda teaches in paragraph 0163 of a heat treatment but does not expressly teach a temperature range. Honda also teaches of forming the insulating layer 114 in paragraph 0177-0179, but does not expressly teach of a temperature range. The claimed temperature ranges at issue appears to be [i] result-effective variables1 that may be [ii] optimized2 given the general conditions of the claim. As per ¶¶, 0163 and 177-0179 the claimed ranges are a result-effective variable that are adjusted in order to fill the required oxygen vacancies at a particular depth and at a particular amount; the claimed ranges are a result-effective variable that are adjusted in order to provide the correct protection provided by the insulating layer 114 to the below oxide semiconductor layer. The general condition of the claim structure is taught by Honda that already teaches the general structure/method taught by anticipation of present application’s independent claim.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that Honda may be optimized with respect to temperature in order to provide an optimum layer in a device/structure/method.
Honda teaches all limitations of parent claim 2 and intervening claim 10 from which claims 16 and 15 depend.
Regarding claim 16, Honda teaches in paragraph 0170 that the dopant of phosphorus has a dosage range of 1x1013 ions/cm² to 5x10¹⁶ ions/cm² that overlaps the claimed dosage range thereby making the claimed range prima facie obvious. Honda also teaches that the ion implantation has an accelerated voltage but does not give specific ranges. The claimed accelerated voltage range at issue appears to be a [i] result-effective variable3 that may be [ii] optimized4 given the general conditions of the claim. As per ¶. 0170 the claimed range is a result-effective variable that is adjusted in order to dope the specific dopant into the required layer at a particular depth/distance. The general condition of the claim structure is taught by Honda that already teaches a prima facie obvious range of dosage and the general structure taught by the anticipation of present application’s independent claim.
Regarding claim 15, Honda does not expressly teach the dosages of boron, however the optimization as discussed in claim 16 supra is still valid for the dosage range and the voltage range for boron.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that Honda may be optimized with respect to voltage and doping in order to provide the dopant at a particular depth.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 13-14 and 17 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.
Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 8, wherein the impurity element is doped to achieve a region with a concentration distribution where a concentration of the impurity element in the oxide film becomes higher as the impurity element becomes closer to the oxide semiconductor layer.
The prior art of Honda teaches in paragraph 0011, of the opposite concentration as required by claim 8 –-- Honda requires reduced impurity element of 106 when approaching/near 110.
Claim 9 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 9, wherein the impurity element is doped to achieve a region with a concentration distribution where a concentration of the impurity element becomes the highest in a boundary between the oxide semiconductor layer and the oxide film, in a vicinity of the oxide film in the oxide semiconductor layer, or in a vicinity of the oxide semiconductor layer in the oxide film.
The prior art of Honda teaches in paragraph 0011, of the opposite concentration as required by claim 9 –-- Honda requires reduced impurity element of 106 when approaching/near 110.
Claim 11 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 11, forming a second conductive layer below the oxide semiconductor layer, wherein the second conductive layer overlaps with the channel formation region of the oxide semiconductor layer and the first conductive layer, and
wherein the first conductive layer is in contact with the second conductive layer through an opening formed in the oxide film.
Dependent claim 12 contains allowable subject matter, because it depends on the allowable subject matter of claim 11.
Claim 13 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 13, further comprising a metal oxide layer, wherein the metal oxide layer is sandwiched between the first conductive layer and the oxide film, and wherein the insulating layer comprises a region in contact with a side surface of the metal oxide layer.
Dependent claim 14 contains allowable subject matter, because it depends on the allowable subject matter of claim 13.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter, because the closest prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements of claim 17, wherein the impurity element is doped to achieve a region with a concentration distribution where a concentration of the impurity element in the oxide semiconductor layer becomes higher as the impurity element becomes closer to the oxide film.
The prior art of Honda teaches in paragraph 0011, of the opposite concentration as required by claim 17 –-- Honda requires reduced impurity element of 106 when approaching/near 110.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
07 March 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
2 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where 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).
3 In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) (A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable before determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation).
4 In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Where 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).