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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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. There is no support for “ a same second width” as disclosed in line 16 of claim 1, “ the first width and the second width are substantially the same” as disclosed in claim 9 , lines 5-6 pp. 5; and “a same second width” as disclosed in claim 16 lines 12-13 pp 7. The specification discloses the width of the via(s) [051-052]. In addition, the specification also states:
[007]Cross-sectional views are simplifications provided to help illustrate the relative positioning of various regions/layers and describe various processing steps. One skilled in the art would appreciate that the cross-sectional views are not drawn to scale and should not be viewed as representing proportional relationships between different regions/layers. Moreover, while certain features are illustrated with straight 90-degree edges, in reality such features may be more "rounded" and/or gradually sloping or tapered. Examiner notes that there is no support in the specification for a via having a constant/same width. Furthermore, using “substantially” to modify a dimension that is not disclosed in the specification is also new matter.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, the limitation of “removing a portion of the layer of barrier material and a portion of the layer of contact material to form a via” is ambiguous. As claimed, the term “via” formed by “removing a portion…” , appears to represent an opening or void. However ,the specification [043]refers to the vias as sections of the layer of barrier material 300 and the layer of contact material 400 not etched forming a via 510 connecting to the feature 110 of the underlying metal layer. Each via 510 may include a barrier segment 310 and a contact segment 410.
As claimed, it is unclear if the via is defined as an absence of material or the presence of a subsequent material(e.g. pillars or segments) . One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim once the removal step is performed. To further prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the vias represent sections of the barrier material and contact material remaining. However, appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation of ”removing a portion of the layer of barrier material and a portion of the layer of contact material to form a via” is ambiguous. As claimed, the term “via” formed by “removing a portion…” , appears to represent an opening or void. However ,the specification [043]refers to the vias as sections of the layer of barrier material 300 and the layer of contact material 400 not etched forming a via 510 connecting to the feature 110 of the underlying metal layer. Each via 510 may include a barrier segment 310 and a contact segment 410.
As claimed, it is unclear if the via is defined as an absence of material or the presence of a subsequent material(e.g. pillars or segments) . One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim once the removal step is performed. To further prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the vias represent sections of the barrier material and contact material remaining. However, appropriate correction is required.
The term “substantially the same” in claim 9 lines 5-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification states: [007]Cross-sectional views are simplifications provided to help illustrate the relative positioning of various regions/layers and describe various processing steps. One skilled in the art would appreciate that the cross-sectional views are not drawn to scale and should not be viewed as representing proportional relationships between different regions/layers. Moreover, while certain features are illustrated with straight 90-degree edges, in reality such features may be more "rounded" and/or gradually sloping or tapered. Examiner notes that the current claim attempts to capture that the first width and the second width are substantially the same” when the drawings are not to scale and the specification does not provide a particular degree or standard to define the term “substantially the same”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of “removing a portion of the layer of barrier material and a portion of the layer of contact material to form a plurality of vias” is ambiguous. As claimed, the term “via” formed by “removing a portion…” , appears to represent an opening or void. However ,the specification [043]refers to the vias as sections of the layer of barrier material 300 and the layer of contact material 400 not etched forming a via 510 connecting to the feature 110 of the underlying metal layer. Each via 510 may include a barrier segment 310 and a contact segment 410.
As claimed, it is unclear if the vias are defined as an absence of material or the presence of a subsequent material . One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim once the removal step is performed. To further prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the vias represent sections of the barrier material and contact material remaining(e.g. pillars or segments). However, appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 8, 16,18 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doris (US Pub no. 2021/0066578 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Doris et al discloses A method of manufacturing an integrated circuit device, the method comprising: forming a layer of barrier material (16L)on a surface, wherein the surface includes an interlayer dielectric (10)and a feature(12) of a metal layer[0033], a top surface of the feature (12)of the metal layer extending in a straight line across a first width of the feature(12) of the metal layer[0039], forming a layer (18L)of contact material on and above the layer of barrier material(16L), wherein the contact material includes ruthenium[0043]; removing a portion of the layer of barrier material (16L)and a portion of the layer(18L) of contact material to form a via(18/16) [0050-0053];and depositing a magnetoresistive stack(26P) on an upper surface of the layer (18L)of contact material, such that the magnetoresistive stack(26P) is physically in contact with a first portion(upper portion of 18) of the via(18/16 of 19s fig. 9) (fig. 8), the magnetoresistive stack(26P) having a third width, wherein the first portion (upper portion of 18)of the via(18/16 of 19s fig. 9) and the second portion (16)of the via (18/16 of 19s fig. 9)in contact with the feature (12)of the metal layer have a same second width(Examiner notes via (18/16 of 19s fig. 9)is in contact with feature 12 by way of element 14) fig. 8; wherein after depositing the magnetoresistive stack(26P), the third width of the magnetoresistive stack(26P) and the first width of the top surface of the feature (12)of the metal layer extending in the straight line are each greater than the second width of the first and second portions of the via(18/16 of 19s fig. 9)fig. 8[0051][0076].
Regarding claim 3, Doris et al discloses wherein the barrier material(16L)
includes titanium, tantalum, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, or a combination thereof[0043]
Regarding claim 7, Doris et al discloses wherein removing a portion of the layer of contact material (18L)includes: etching a first region of the layer of contact material(18L), wherein the first region is in contact with the feature(12) of the metal layer; and etching a second region of the layer of contact material(18L), wherein the second region is in contact with the interlayer dielectric(10)[0050].
Regarding claim 8, Doris et al discloses after forming the layer of contact material(18L), and prior to removing the portion of the layer of contact material(18L):depositing a photoresist(22) above the layer of contact material(18L); and patterning the photoresist using a binary mask[0048]; wherein the portion of the layer of barrier material (16L)and the portion of the layer of contact material(18L) are defined by the patterned photoresist(22)[0050].
Regarding claim 16, Doris et al discloses A method of manufacturing an integrated circuit device, the method comprising: forming a layer of barrier material (16L)above a metal layer(12)[0051], wherein the barrier material (16L)includes titanium, tantalum, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, or a combination thereof[0043], and wherein the metal layer (12)includes a feature, wherein a top surface of the feature of the metal layer (12)extends in a straight line across a first width of the feature of the metal layer fig. 8/fig. 9: forming a layer of contact material (18L)above the layer of barrier material(16L)[0044], removing a portion of the layer of barrier material (16L)and a portion of the layer of contact material(18L) to form a plurality of vias(19s)[0053], each with a second width: depositing a second interlayer dielectric(24) between vias(19s) of the plurality of vias(19s)[0060]: depositing layers of material (28,30,32)corresponding to magnetoresistive stacks(26P): and etching the layers of material(28,30,32) to form a plurality of magnetoresistive stacks(26P)[0076], wherein a bottom surface of each magnetoresistive stack(26P) of the plurality of magnetoresistive stacks(26P) is in direct contact with an upper surface of a first portion(18) of a corresponding via(19s) of the plurality of vias(19s)[0060], wherein the first portion(16) of the via(19s) in contact with the feature of the metal layer(12) have a same second width(Examiner notes via (18/16) is in contact with feature 12 by way of element 14 and element 18 and element 16 has the same width) fig. 8/fig. 9, wherein after depositing the plurality of magnetoresistive stacks(26P), a third width of each magnetoresistive stack (26P)and the first width of the feature of the metal layer (12)extending in the straight line are each greater than the second width of the via(19s) fig. 8[0051][0076].
Regarding claim 18, Doris et al discloses wherein layers of material (28,30,32)corresponding to a magnetoresistive stack(26P) include: first layers (32)of material that constitute a free region[0076]; second layers(28) of material that constitute a fixed region[0076]; and a dielectric layer(30), disposed between the first layers and second layers[0076] fig. 9.
Regarding claim 19, Doris et al discloses wherein each magnetoresistive stack (26P) of the plurality of magnetoresistive stacks(26P) is coaxial to tis corresponding via(19s) fig. 8/fig. 9.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris (US Pub no. 2021/0066578 A1) in view of Fukuzumi (US Pub no.2004/0056288 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Doris et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but
fails to teach where the contact material includes aluminum doped with copper.
Fukuzumi et al discloses a contact material including aluminum doped with
copper[0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the invention to further modify Hashemi et al with the teachings of
Doris et al because the substitution of one known element for another would have
yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
(KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris (US Pub no. 2021/0066578 A1) in view of Yamagishi (US Pub no. 2009/0224300 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Doris et al discloses where the magnetoresistive stack 30
but fail to teach includes a synthetic antiferromagnetic.
However, Yamagishi et al discloses teaches a magnetic memory device
comprising synthetic antiferromagnetic (51) [0104]. It would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify
Doris et al with the teachings of Yamagishi et al to provide easy rotation.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 10,11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris (US Pub no. 2021/0066578 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Doris et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the second width of the vias(18/16-19s)[0056] but fails to teach less than or equal to approximately 100 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a width of less than or equal to approximately 100 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 9, Doris et al discloses A method of manufacturing an integrated circuit device, the method comprising: forming a layer of barrier material (16L)on a surface, wherein the surface includes an interlayer dielectric( 10)and a feature (12)of a metal layer[0033], a top surface of the feature (12)of the metal layer extending in a straight line across a first width of the feature (12)of the metal layer(fig. 9), and the barrier material(16L) includes titanium, tantalum, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, or a combination thereof[0043]; forming a layer of contact material(18L) above the layer of barrier material(16L)[0044], wherein the contact material includes aluminum, ruthenium, cobalt, tantalum, tantalum nitride, or a combination thereof[0045]; depositing a photoresist (22)above the layer of contact material(18L)[0048]; patterning the photoresist(22)[0048-0049]; removing a portion of the layer of barrier material(16L) and a portion of the layer of contact material (18L)to form a via (19S)having a first portion (18)with a first width that is physically in contact with a magnetoreistive stack(26P) and a second width( width of 16) in contact with the feature of the metal layer, wherein the first width and the second width are substantially the same fig. 8 and fig,.9, wherein the portion of the layer of barrier material (16)and the portion of the layer of contact material (18)are defined by the patterned photoresist[0052], and depositing layers of material (28,30,32)corresponding to a magnetoresistive stack(26P) having third width[0076], wherein after depositing the layers of material(28,30,32) corresponding to the layer (12)extending in the straight line are each greater than the first width and the second width of the via(18/16 of 19s) fig. 8[0051][0076].
Doris et al teaches the first width and the second width of the vias(18/16-19s)[0056] but fails to teach less than or equal to approximately 100 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a width of less than or equal to approximately 100 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 10, Doris et al discloses etching the layers of material (28,30,32) to form the magnetoresistive stack(26P)[0076], wherein the magnetoresistive stack(26P) is coaxial to the via(19S) fig. 8.
Regarding claim 11, wherein layers of material corresponding to a magnetoresistive stack include: first layers of material (32)that constitute a free region[0076]: second layers of material(28) that constitute a fixed region[0076], and
a dielectric layer(30), disposed between the first layers (32)and second layers.(28)[0076].
Regarding claim 14, wherein the patterning the photoresist (22)includes patterning the photoresist using a binary mask[0048].
Claim(s) 6, 12, 13,17, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris (US Pub no. 2021/0066578 A1) in view of Hashemi (US Pub no. 2020/0220068 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Doris et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5 but fails to teach wherein the third width of the magnetoresistive stack is at least approximately 3 nm greater than the second width of the via.
However, in the same endeavor, Hashemi et al discloses the third width of the magnetoresistive stack(30P) is at least approximately 3 nm greater than the second width of the via(16/14) [0049][0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Doris et al with the teachings of Hashemi et al to optimize switching efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Doris et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10 but fails to teach wherein the third width of the magnetoresistive stack is at least approximately 3 nm greater than the second width of the via.
However, in the same endeavor, Hashemi et al discloses the third width of the magnetoresistive stack(30P) is at least approximately 3 nm greater than the second width of the via(16/14) [0049][0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Doris et al with the teachings of Hashemi et al to optimize switching efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Doris et al discloses wherein etching the layers of
magnetic material (28,30,32)does not redeposit material from the via onto sidewalls of the magnetoresistive stack(26P) (Since it 26P is wider than via (19s) redeposited material from via will not exist) fig. 8 .
Regarding claim 17, Doris et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 16 and teaches further comprising, after forming
a layer of contact material(18L), and prior to removing a portion of the layer of contact
material depositing a photoresist(22) above the layer of contact material(18L),
and patterning the photoresist(22) using a binary mask
; wherein the portion of the layer of barrier material (16L)and the portion of the layer of
contact material(18L) are defined by the patterned photoresist(22)[0050] but fails to teach wherein the photoresist includes a low temperature oxide, near frictionless carbon, or both.
However, Hashemi et al discloses a photoresist includes frictionless carbon[0031]. Since frictionless carbon is one of finite solutions to aid in high resolution lithography. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Doris et al since a person of ordinary skill 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))
Regarding claim 20, Hashemi et al discloses wherein a second width of each of the plurality of vias is less than or equal to approximately 100 nm[0035]; and a third width of a magnetoresistive slack is at least approximately 3 nm greater than the second width of each via[0049] fig. 7.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris (US Pub no. 2021/0066578 A1) in view of Gaidis (US Pub no. 2012/0326250
A1).
Regarding claim 15, Doris et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9
but fails to teach plurality of metal layers above a silicon substrate, and the first metal
layer is the metal layer that is closest to the silicon substrate.
However, Gaidis et al discloses integrated circuit device includes a plurality of
metal layers (120) above a silicon substrate[0032], and the first metal layer(120) is the
metal layer that is closest to the silicon substrate[0032]. It would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify
Doris et al with the teachings of Gaidis et al so that each cell has a different
electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the third bottom electrode metal-containing layer 18L of Doris does not have a first portion in contact with a feature of a metal layer and a second portion in contact with the conductive structure that "have a same second width" as recited by amended claim 1. To the contrary, the third bottom electrode metal-containing layer 18 of Doris does not even contact the conductive structure 12. Where contact between the first bottom electrode metal-containing layer 14 occurs, the width of 14 is significantly larger than the third bottom electrode metal-containing layer 18, as shown in Fig. 9 Thus, Doris does not teach or disclose "depositing a magnetoresistive stack on an upper surface of the layer of contact material, such that the magnetoresistive stack is physically in contact with a first portion of the via, the magnetoresistive stack having a third width, wherein the first portion of the via and a second portion of the via in contact with the feature of the metal layer have a same second width" as recited by amended claim 1.
Examiner notes that since claim 1 includes the term “comprising” which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) . The via 19s of Doris et al contains portions 18, 16, & 14 fig. 8/fig. 9. The first portion 18 of via 19s is physically in contact with the magnetoresistive stack as shown in fig. 8 and fig. 9. The second portion (16)of the via (19s) is contacting the feature of the metal layer 12 by way of portion 14. First portion 18 and second portion 16 have the same width (as shown in fig. 8). The claim does not require physical contact of the second portion of the via to the metal layer and the claim is not limited to the via having only having two portions. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813