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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tak et al. (US 2009/0072349 A1) in view of Fu et al. (US 2009/0227105 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Tak discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising:
a bottom electrode material of a storage node (123);
a fill material (113) formed within a cavity formed by the bottom electrode material, wherein:
sidewalls of the cavity and a bottom surface of the cavity are formed by the bottom electrode material (see Fig. 3)
the fill material completely fills the cavity (see Fig. 3); and
side surfaces of the fill material and a bottom surface of the fill material are in direct physical contact with only the bottom electrode material (see Fig. 3)
a dielectric material (203) formed on the bottom electrode material and the fill material, wherein the dielectric material is in direct physical contact with a top surface of the bottom electrode material, side surfaces of the bottom electrode material, and a top surface of the fill material (see Fig. 3); and
a top electrode material (303).
Tak does not disclose a multilayer barrier material as claimed.
Fu discloses using multilayer barrier materials (“barrier” comprising both “a titanium oxynitride layer (TiON)” and “a tantalum oxynitride (TaON) Layer”, ¶ 0059). There was a benefit to using a multilayer barrier material in that it prevents diffusion between metals and dielectrics (¶ 0007 of Fu). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use a multilayer barrier material between the top electrode and the dielectric material of Tak such that the multilayer barrier material is formed on the dielectric material and the top electrode is formed on the multilayer barrier material and in direct physical contact with a layer of the multilayer barrier material for this benefit. Fu further discloses that the multilayer barrier material has an oxygen content in a range of between 3-60 atomic % of the barrier material (oxygen is 33 atomic % of both TiON and TaON).
Regarding claim 31, Tak in view of Fu does not disclose the effects of a barrier material on the breakdown voltage of the dielectric material. However, as the composition of the barrier material is identical to that claimed, is should therefore similarly increase the breakdown voltage. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 32, Tak further discloses wherein the apparatus is a single-sided pillar capacitor (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 34, Fu further discloses wherein each layer of the multilayer barrier material is formed using a titanium oxynitride material (¶ 0059).
Regarding claim 35, Fu further discloses wherein the oxygen content in the multilayer barrier material is in a range between 3-60 atomic % of the titanium oxynitride material (oxygen is 33 atomic % of TiON).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 29, 31-32, and 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tak et al. in view of Fu et al. has been made, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights