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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 5 and 11 recite where the dopant is selected from triethylaluminum and aluminum chloride. However, Paragraph 53 of the originally filed specification where these are dopant precursors and Paragraph 54 states where this dopant precursor “reacts” with a second oxidant to form the doped hafnium oxide film on the substrate (Paragraph 54). As such, the reacted precursor dopant is not the same as the dopant within the HfO2 and therefore the recitation of the dopant as the recited material is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tapily et al. (US 2015/0255267).
Considering claims 1 and 8, Tapily teaches a semiconductor device with an aluminum-doped high-k film (abstract). Tapily teaches where the film is aluminum-doped hafnium oxide with an atomic content of aluminum of less than about 10% (Paragraph 19) and specific examples are taught of HfO2 films having an aluminum content of 2.4%, 4.2%, and 6.7% (Paragraph 40) (e.g. a monolayer) and where these have thicknesses of about 0.80 nm, 0.8 nm, and 0.875 nm (Fig. 6), respectively. The number of layers, Al content, and thickness values fall within and anticipate that which is claimed. See MPEP 2131.03. Tapily does not expressly teach the claimed remanent polarization. However, Tapily teaches a substantially identical HfO2 coating doped with Al as that which is claimed and disclosed and therefore the remanent polarization is expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claims 2-3, Tapily teaches specific examples of HfO2 films having an aluminum content 4.2% and 6.7% (Paragraph 40) with thicknesses of 0.8 nm and 0.875 nm (Fig. 6), respectively. See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 4, as outlined above, Tapily teaches an Al dopant concentration of 2.4%, 4.2%, and 6.7% (Paragraph 40) and meets the instant claim as Tapily teaches a film (e.g. a monolayer) having the claimed content as no particular number of layers or dopant adjustment is recited. See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 5, Tapily teaches where the doped aluminum is formed from precursors including triethylaluminum and AlCl3 (Paragraph 23) and is considered to meet the claimed limitation for the rationale set forth above.
Considering claim 6, Tapily teaches where the substrate is Si, Ge, SiGe, or semiconductors (Paragraph 21).
Considering claim 9, Tapily teaches examples of the thickness being 0.80 nm, 0.8 nm, and 0.875 nm (Fig. 6). See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 10, Tapily teaches a single layer (Paragraph 40). See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 11, Tapily teaches where the doped aluminum is formed from precursors including triethylaluminum and AlCl3 (Paragraph 23) and is considered to meet the claimed limitation for the rationale set forth above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily et al. (US 2015/0255267) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above further in view of Mueller et al. (US 2017/0207225).
Considering claims 7 and 12, Tapily teaches semiconductor devices and circuits with doped HfO2 films having a high dielectric constant (Paragraphs 2-4). However, Tapily does not teach the claimed NCFET.
In a related field of endeavor, Mueller teaches microelectronic circuits (abstract). The circuit comprises a memory transistor (Paragraph 18) comprising a substrate and a stack of layers comprising an insulating layer (Paragraphs 77-78) and where the insulating layer comprises doped HfO2 where the dopant may be one or more of Al, Si, Y, Gd, Sr, and Zr (Paragraph 79). The memory transistor may be a negative capacitance transistor (Paragraph 25) of a field effect transistor (Paragraph 84).
As both Tapily and Mueller teach circuits with hafnium oxide layers they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the doped hafnium oxide layer of Tapily with the negative capacitance FET taught by Mueller as this is considered a conventionally known use of doped hafnium oxide in an electronic circuit and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (US 2006/0166476), Doh et al. (US 2006/0257563), Tonomura (US 2007/0232501), and Lei et al. (US 2018/0265967) teach doped hafnium oxide coatings with content overlapping that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
