DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 33-39 and 41-42 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons, as none of the previously examined claims required any of the following newly added subject matter:
A. Forming a second piezoelectric capacitor over the semiconductor substrate adjacent to the first piezoelectric capacitor, wherein the second piezoelectric capacitor includes a second metal electrode, the first and second metal electrodes being at different elevations; forming a second intermediate layer on the second metal electrode; patterning the second intermediate layer; forming a second metal layer on the second intermediate layer, wherein the second metal layer is electrically connected to the second metal electrode; and patterning the second metal layer (claim 33, with claims 34-35 and 37-39 depending therefrom).
B. The first intermediate layer is formed of titanium (Ti), tungsten-titanium (TiW), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), nickel (Ni), gold (Au), chromium (Cr), ruthenium (Ru) or indium tin oxide (ITO) (claim 36).
C. The metal electrode includes platinum (Pt), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), ruthenium (Ru), or a combination thereof (claim 41, with claim 42 depending therefrom).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 33-39 and 41-42 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-9, 32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “the conductive segments 171 and 172 are designed to cover an entirety of the intermediate segments 161 and 162, and thus the intermediate segments 161 and 162 can be kept separate from the etchant during the wet etching operation” (Specification, par. 0043), does not reasonably provide enablement for “the intermediate layer is completely isolated from an etchant by the metal layer during the patterning of the first metal layer” (claim 1, lines 10-12), “the first intermediate layer is completely isolated from an etchant by the first metal layer during the patterning of the first metal layer” (claim 32, lines 10-12) and “the intermediate layer is completely isolated from an etchant by the metal layer during the patterning of the first metal layer” (claim 40, lines 9-11. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to perform the method of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification and figures of the instant application do not provide any direction as to how to perform the method involving completely isolating the intermediate layer from any and all etchant during a patterning step or process. There are known techniques for encapsulating, covering, potting and isolating materials, and it is impossible to determine the quantity of experimentation necessary to ascertain what steps would preferably have been performed to completely isolate the intermediate layer from an etchant (or whether it is isolated from all etchants or if instead it is only one specific type of etchant for which the intermediate layer is isolated). The figures also do not shed any light onto the method as they are not shown in three-dimension and a complete isolation does not seem to be shown. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to surmise with any predictability which method would be used to completely isolate the intermediate layer. Accordingly, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 112(a) by virtue of their dependency upon the non-enabled subject matter of claim 1. The claims have been examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 1-9, 32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 32 and 40 each disclose effectively the same indefinite limitation: “the intermediate layer is completely isolated from an etchant by the metal layer during the patterning of the metal layer” (lines 10-12; emphasis added). This language is indefinite as the “etchant” lacks antecedent basis. There is nothing previously in the claims which requires any etchant at all. As such, it is not clear if an etchant was inadvertently omitted from early limitations in the claims. Further, “patterning” can be performed by numerous methods which do not require etchant at all, which also renders the limitation indefinite. As such, there may well be no etchant required even in the final three lines of the claim, because if the patterning was performed using, e.g. laser ablation with a mask, then no etchant was applied and the final limitation no longer makes any sense.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of claim 1.
NOTE: All of the examined claims (i.e. claims 1-9, 32 and 40) have been interpreted and examined as best understood according to the 112(b) rejections, above.
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 1-2, 4-9, 32 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin (TW 202012923 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method for manufacturing a semiconductor structure, comprising: forming a piezoelectric capacitor (104, 106, 108) over a semiconductor substrate (102), wherein the piezoelectric capacitor includes a metal electrode (108, including 306, 308) (fig. 7-9; pg. 4, lines 11-30); forming an intermediate layer (310) on the metal electrode (fig. 10; pp. 10-11, final 2 lines and lines 1-3); patterning the intermediate layer using a first mask layer (“shielding layer”, also referred to as “masking layer”) (fig. 10, pg. 11, lines 4-13); forming a metal layer (314, 316, 318, 320) on the intermediate layer, wherein the metal layer is electrically connected to the metal electrode, wherein the intermediate layer is surrounded by the metal layer from an upper surface (fig. 11, as annotated below) and a lateral surface (fig. 11, as annotated below) of the intermediate layer (fig. 11; pg. 11, lines 26-31 and 38-44); and patterning the metal layer using a second mask layer (another “shielding layer”, also referred to as “masking layer”), wherein the intermediate layer is completely iso
PNG
media_image1.png
431
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
lated from an etchant by the metal layer during the patterning of the metal layer (annotated fig. 11, below; pg. 12, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the piezoelectric capacitor is tapered from the semiconductor substrate (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the patterning of the metal layer includes performing a wet etching with the etchant being an acidic etching solution (pg. 12, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer contacts the metal layer and the metal electrode (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: forming a *high-k material layer (312) conformally over the piezoelectric capacitor; forming a dielectric layer (1202) conformally over the high-k material layer (figs. 10-12; pg. 11, lines 1-3; pg. 12, lines 20-30); and exposing a portion (all) of the metal electrode prior to the forming of the intermediate layer (fig. 9).
*NOTE: there is no industry standard, nor is there any definition in the instant disclosure which would dictate what is or is not considered to be a “high-k” material. The word “high” is relative and is subjectively defined, as what is high-k in one application would be considered low-k in another. It is understood that “high-k” materials are simply dielectric or insulative materials and the claim is being examined under BRI according to this interpretation.
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the intermediate layer contacts the high-k material layer and the dielectric layer (fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metal electrode is a bottom electrode disposed under a piezoelectric material of the piezoelectric capacitor, and the bottom electrode protrudes farther than the piezoelectric material (fig. 9).
NOTE: The terms “bottom” and “top” are held to have some spatially relative meaning, but are entirely subjectively defined. In fact the Applicant’s own specification dictates as much:
[0016] Further, spatially relative terms, such as "beneath," "below," "lower," "above," "over," "upper," "on" and the like, may be used herein for ease of description to describe one element or feature's relationship to another element(s) or feature(s) as illustrated in the figures. The spatially relative terms are intended to encompass different orientations of the device in use or operation in addition to the orientation depicted in the figures. The apparatus may be otherwise oriented (rotated 90 degrees or at other orientations) and the spatially relative descriptors used herein may likewise be interpreted accordingly. (emphasis added)
As such, according to the Applicant’s own definition, the “bottom” electrode can be a top electrode if viewed or oriented differently, and the “top” electrode can be a bottom electrode if viewed or oriented differently. This is true for claim 9 as well.
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metal electrode is a top electrode disposed above a piezoelectric material of the piezoelectric capacitor, and the piezoelectric material protrudes farther than the top electrode (fig. 9).
Regarding claim 32, Lin discloses a method for manufacturing a semiconductor structure, comprising: forming a first piezoelectric capacitor (104, 106, 108) over a semiconductor substrate (102), wherein the first piezoelectric capacitor includes a first metal electrode (108, including 306, 308) (fig. 7-9; pg. 4, lines 11-30); forming a first intermediate layer (312) on the first metal electrode (fig. 10; pp. 10-11, final 2 lines and lines 1-3); patterning the first intermediate layer using a first mask layer (“shielding layer”, also referred to as “masking layer”) (fig. 10, pg. 11, lines 4-13); forming a first metal layer (314, 316, 318, 320) on the first intermediate layer, wherein the first metal layer is electrically connected to the first metal electrode, wherein the first intermediate layer is surrounded by the first metal layer from an upper surface (fig. 11, as annotated above) and a lateral surface (fig. 11, as annotated above) of the first intermediate layer (fig. 11; pg. 11, lines 26-31 and 38-44); and patterning the metal layer using a second mask layer (another “shielding layer”, also referred to as “masking layer”), wherein the first intermediate layer is completely isolated from an etchant by the first metal layer during the patterning of the first metal layer (annotated fig. 11, above; pg. 12, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 40, Lin discloses a method for manufacturing a semiconductor structure, comprising: forming a piezoelectric capacitor (104, 106, 108) over a semiconductor substrate (102), wherein the piezoelectric capacitor includes a metal electrode (108, including 306, 308) (fig. 7-9; pg. 4, lines 11-30); forming an intermediate layer (312) on the metal electrode (fig. 10; pp. 10-11, final 2 lines and lines 1-3); patterning the intermediate layer using a first mask layer (“shielding layer”, also referred to as “masking layer”) (fig. 10, pg. 11, lines 4-13); forming a metal layer (314, 316, 318, 320) on the intermediate layer, wherein the metal layer is electrically connected to the metal electrode, wherein the intermediate layer is surrounded by the metal layer from an upper surface (fig. 11, as annotated below) and a lateral surface (fig. 11, as annotated below) of the intermediate layer (fig. 11; pg. 11, lines 26-31 and 38-44); and patterning the metal layer using a second mask layer (another “shielding layer”, also referred to as “masking layer”), wherein the intermediate layer is completely isolated from an etchant by the metal layer from the upper surface and the lateral surface of the intermediate layer during the patterning of the metal layer (annotated fig. 11, below; pg. 12, lines 1-6).
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Oku et al (US 6,013,926).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses all of the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Lin, however, does not explicitly disclose that a width of the second mask layer is substantially greater than a width of the first mask layer from top-view perspectives.
Oku teaches that it is well known to perform a similar method, wherein a width of a second mask layer (15) is substantially greater than a width of a first mask layer (42) from top-view perspectives (figs. 1a-1e; col. 21, lines 6-26).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the current invention of Lin to incorporate the preferred mask width dimension of Oku. POSITA would have realized that a wider second mask can be easily and readily applied to achieve the desired etching/material removal area. Further, it stands to obvious reason that the second mask of Lin would be wider than the first, because the width of the metal layer to be etched is greater than the width of the openings formed in the intermediate layer previously. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant disclosure that any special mask or etching step(s) was/were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the old method of Lin with the well-known wider second mask of Oku. This combination would have been easily performed with knowledge of the commonly understood advantages and with reasonable expectations of success. Further, there is no apparent criticality to this limitation in the claims, and in fact, there is no indication as to how this supposed limitation would actually affect or define the claimed method in any manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has made the conclusory statement that Lin and Oku do not disclose the features of the final 6 lines of claim 1, but has provided no factual evidence to support such an assertion. As such, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Moreover, the updated prior art rejection of claim 1 (and new rejection of claims 32 and 40) clearly demonstrates that Lin does in fact disclose all of the argued features of at least claims 1, 32 and 40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to Udayakumar et al. (US 2013/0062996 A1); which is particularly relevant to the claimed inventions.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey T Carley whose telephone number is (571)270-5609. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571)272-0993. 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.
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729