DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
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 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.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
For Examiner’s Interview fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html).
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
Independent: 1, 9 and 16.
Pending: 1, 2, 4-5, 7-20.
Withdrawn: 16-20.
Canceled: 3 and 6.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/17/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-14 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., US Patent 10186400 B2; in view of Solayappan et al., US Patent 6781184 B2.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Wu discloses forming a first oxygen-containing material (224, fig. 2B) a metal component (210, fig. 2A) of a semiconductor processing chamber (fig. 1), wherein the first oxygen-containing material (224, fig. 2B) comprises silicon oxide, yttrium oxide, or aluminum oxide (column 13, lines 10-11);
forming a barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58 “aluminum oxide”) on the first oxygen-containing material (224, fig. 2B); and
forming a second oxygen-containing material (230, fig. 2B; column 13, lines 33-42) on the barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58), wherein the second oxygen-containing material (230, fig. 2B; column 13, lines 33-42) comprises silicon oxide, yttrium oxide, or aluminum oxide.
Wu is silent regarding: wherein the barrier layer comprises hafnium oxide, lanthanum oxide, tungsten, tungsten nitride, or titanium nitride.
Solayappan discloses barrier layer 36 can use high-k dielectric material for barrier, material oxide for example hafnium, tungsten or the likes (column 3, lines 60-67; column 4, lines 1-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a material such as Hafnium Oxide (HfO) for barrier layer since Hafnium oxide is superior higher dielectric constant this can miniaturization of the barrier thickness.
Re: Claim 2, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: wherein the first oxygen-containing material (224, fig. 2B) and the second oxygen-containing material (230, fig. 2B; column 13, lines 33-42) comprise the same material (material such as yttrium oxide, or aluminum oxide).
Re: Claim 4, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: wherein the barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) is characterized by a thickness of less than or about 25 nm (column 15, lines 8-11).
Re: Claim 5, Wu and Solayappan discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: alternating layers 224-236 described above can have ratio such as 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, and so on between the different types of metal oxide layers. However, Wu did not teach wherein a thickness of the barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material (224, fig. 2B), the barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58), and the second oxygen-containing material (230, fig. 2B; column 13, lines 33-42). However, thickness range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re: Claim 7, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: wherein the barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) is deposited by atomic layer deposition (column 13, lines 19-21).
Re: Claim 8, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: subsequent to forming the second oxygen-containing material (230, fig. 2B; column 13, lines 33-42), exposing (column 9, lines 18-26) the metal component of a semiconductor processing chamber (fig. 1) to a halogen-containing species (column 7, lines 61-67;column 8, lines 1-8), wherein the barrier layer (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) reduces an amount of corrosion (column 3, lines 66-67;column 4, lines 1-8) constituents interacting with the metal component of a semiconductor processing chamber (fig. 1).
Re: Independent Claim 9, Wu discloses i) forming an oxygen-containing material (224 and 230, fig. 2B) on a metal substrate (column 9, lines 27-41), wherein the oxygen-containing material (224, fig. 2B) comprises silicon oxide, yttrium oxide, or aluminum oxide (column 12, lines 63-67;column 13, lines 1-11);
ii) forming a barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58), wherein the barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) overlies the oxygen-containing material (224 and 230, fig. 2B); and
iii) repeating operations (as shown in figure 2B “repeat n times”) i and ii to form an alternating stack of oxygen-containing materials (224 and 230, fig. 2B) and barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) on the metal substrate (column 9, lines 27-41),
Wu is silent regarding: wherein a temperature is maintained at less than or about 450 °C while forming the oxygen-containing materials and the barrier material, wherein the barrier layer comprises hafnium oxide, lanthanum oxide, tungsten, tungsten nitride, or titanium nitride.
Solayappan discloses barrier layer 36 can use high-k dielectric material for barrier, material oxide for example hafnium, tungsten or the likes (column 3, lines 60-67; column 4, lines 1-47) and Solayappan teaches barrier layer can made using a low deposition temperature a temperature of 450.degree. C. or less (column 3, lines 45-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a material such as Hafnium Oxide (HfO) for barrier layer since Hafnium oxide is superior higher dielectric constant this can miniaturization of the barrier thickness and using a low deposition temperature can reduce thermal stress which can achieving electrical properties like lower leakage current, prevent degradation of underlying layers.
Re: Claim 10, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Wu is silent regarding: wherein a temperature (column 15, lines 38-48) is maintained at less than or about 300 °C while forming the oxygen-containing materials (224 and 230, fig. 2B) and the barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58).
Solayappan discloses barrier layer can made using a low deposition temperature a temperature of 450.degree. C. or less (column 3, lines 45-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a material such as Hafnium Oxide (HfO) for barrier layer since Hafnium oxide is superior higher dielectric constant this can miniaturization of the barrier thickness and using a low deposition temperature can reduce thermal stress which can achieving electrical properties like lower leakage current, prevent degradation of underlying layers.
Re: Claim 11, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: wherein the metal substrate (column 9, lines 27-41) comprises a stainless steel or aluminum semiconductor processing chamber (fig. 1) component.
Re: Claim 12, Wu and Solayappan discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: alternating layers 224-236 can have ratio such as 2:1, 3:1, 4:1. However, Wu did not teach wherein the alternating stack comprises greater than three layers of barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58). However, thickness range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re: Claim 13, Wu and Solayappan discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: alternating layers 224-236 described above can have ratio such as 2:1, 3:1, 4:1, and so on between the different types of metal oxide layers. However, Wu did not teach wherein each barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) is characterized by a thickness of less than or about 10% of a total thickness of the alternating stack of oxygen-containing materials and barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58). However, thickness range would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re: Claim 14, Wu and Solayappan disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: iv) exposing the substrate (column 9, lines 27-41) to a halogen-containing species (column 7, lines 61-67;column 8, lines 1-8).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., US Patent 10186400 B2; in view of Solayappan et al., US Patent 6781184 B2; further in view of Chiruvolu et al., US PG pub. 20060134347 A1.
Re: Claim 15, Wu and Solayappan discloses all the limitations of claim 9 on which this claim depends. Wu further discloses: wherein: the halogen-containing species (column 7, lines 61-67;column 8, lines 1-8) comprises fluorine (“such as C.sub.2F.sub.6, SF.sub.6, SiCl.sub.4, HBr, NF.sub.3, CF.sub.4, CHF.sub.3, CH.sub.2F.sub.3, F, NF.sub.3”); the oxygen-containing material (224 and 230, fig. 2B) comprises yttrium oxide (column 13, lines 10-11 “Y.sub.2O.sub.3”); however Wu did not teach the barrier material (228, fig. 2B;column 14, lines 56-58) is lanthanum oxide.
Chiruvolu discloses barrier material can uses material such as lanthanum oxide (¶0246).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include lanthanum oxide material for barrier material since material such as lanthanum oxide can improves density hardness of material and form as a coating for high temperature environments since it has great thermal insulation properties.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to current application disclosure.
* (“Hagleitner et al., US PG pub. 20140097469 A1”) Discloses a Silicon Nitride (SiN) passivation structure for a semiconductor device and methods of fabrication thereof are disclosed. In general, a semiconductor device includes a semiconductor body and a SiN passivation structure over a surface of the semiconductor body. In one embodiment, the SiN passivation structure includes one or more Hydrogen-free SiN layers on, and preferably directly on, the surface of the semiconductor body, a Hydrogen barrier layer on, and preferably directly on, a surface of the one or more Hydrogen-free SiN layers opposite the semiconductor body, and a Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) SiN layer on, and preferably directly on, a surface of the Hydrogen barrier layer opposite the one or more Hydrogen-free SiN layers. The Hydrogen barrier layer preferably includes one or more oxide layers of the same or different compositions. Further, in one embodiment, the Hydrogen barrier layer is formed by Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2,4-5 and 7-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZ CHIU whose telephone number is 571-272-8656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00AM to 5:00PM (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 https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ajay Ojha can be reached on 571-272-8936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSZ K CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Tsz.Chiu@uspto.gov
/AJAY OJHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898