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Withdrawn: 16-20.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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s IDS(s) submitted on 1/13/2026 and 5/15/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has/have considered by the examiner and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue that Wu and secondary reference "fail to provide the general conditions of previous claim 5, or that a thickness of the barrier layer is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material" Examiner disagree, as Wu teaches in figure 2B, a barrier layer 228, first oxygen containing material 224, and second oxygen containing material 230, however Wu does not specifically teach each of those layer thickness, however in column 14, lines 61-67 and column 15, lines 1-8 teaches that "Each layer of the rare earth metal-containing oxide may have a thickness of about 5-10 angstroms and may be formed by performing about 5-10 cycles of an ALD process, where each cycle forms a nanolayer (or slightly less or more than a nanolayer) of the rare earth metal-containing oxide. In one embodiment, each layer of the rare-earth metal-containing oxide is formed using about 6-8 ALD cycles. Each layer of the second oxide or other ceramic may be formed from a single ALD cycle (or a few ALD cycles) and may have a thickness of less than an atom to a few atoms. Layers of the rare earth metal-containing oxide may each have a thickness of about 5-100 angstroms, and layers of the second oxide may each have a thickness of about 1-20 angstroms in embodiments, and a thickness of 1-4 angstroms in further embodiments." and wherein first oxygen containing material 224 and barrier layer 230 are a rare earth metal oxide with a 5-100 angstroms, the second oxygen-containing material 228 ZrO.sub.2 a narrower embodiment of 1-20 angstroms the total angstroms provide the general conditions of claim 1 thickness of the barrier layer is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material if the first oxygen-containing material and barrier each have a thickness of 5 angstroms and second oxygen-containing material has a thickness off 20 angstroms the barrier would have a thickness of about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material. therefore, Wu does teach that the limitation of a thickness of the barrier layer is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material. For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 8 over Wu et al. US patent 10186400; in view of Solayappan et al. US patent 6781184 has been maintained.
Applicant' s arguments, see page 2 of Applicant Argument/remarks, filed 5/28/2026], with respect to Claims 9-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 of Claims 9-15 has been withdrawn.
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 and 8 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, and Wu further discloses in column 14, lines 61-67 and column 15, lines 1-8 "Each layer of the rare earth metal-containing oxide may have a thickness of about 5-10 angstroms and may be formed by performing about 5-10 cycles of an ALD process, where each cycle forms a nanolayer (or slightly less or more than a nanolayer) of the rare earth metal-containing oxide. In one embodiment, each layer of the rare-earth metal-containing oxide is formed using about 6-8 ALD cycles. Each layer of the second oxide or other ceramic may be formed from a single ALD cycle (or a few ALD cycles) and may have a thickness of less than an atom to a few atoms. Layers of the rare earth metal-containing oxide may each have a thickness of about 5-100 angstroms, and layers of the second oxide may each have a thickness of about 1-20 angstroms in embodiments, and a thickness of 1-4 angstroms in further embodiments" since Wu teaches these conditions in the paragraph above, it follows that Wu teaches wherein first oxygen containing material 224 and barrier layer 230 are a rare earth metal oxide with a 5-100 angstroms, the second oxygen-containing material 228 ZrO.sub.2 a narrower embodiment of 1-20 angstroms the total angstroms provide the general conditions of claim 1 thickness of the barrier layer is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material if the first oxygen-containing material and barrier have a thickness of 5 angstroms and second oxygen-containing material has a thickness of 20 angstroms, the barrier would have a thickness of about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material, Wu does teaches that the limitation of a thickness of the barrier layer is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material. Furthermore, 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).
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 10% 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). Since Wu teaches these conditions in the paragraph (column 14, lines 61-67 and column 15, lines 1-8), it follows that Wu teaches wherein first oxygen containing material 224 and barrier layer 230 are a rare earth metal oxide with a 5-100 angstroms, the second oxygen-containing material 228 ZrO.sub.2 a narrower embodiment of 1-20 angstroms the total angstroms provide the general conditions of claim 1 thickness of the barrier layer is less than or about 20% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material if the first oxygen-containing material and barrier have a thickness of 1 angstroms and second oxygen-containing material has a thickness of 20 angstroms, the barrier would have a thickness of about 10% of a combined thickness of the first oxygen-containing material, the barrier layer, and the second oxygen-containing material. Furthermore, 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).
Prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to current application disclosure.
* (“Waldfried et al., US PG pub. 20210317572 A1”) Discloses yttrium fluoride compositions, including deposited films, e.g., coatings, that contain yttrium fluoride; methods of preparing yttrium fluoride compositions and deposited film coatings that contain yttrium fluoride; as well as substrates that have a deposited film coating that contains yttrium fluoride at a surface and methods and equipment that include the substrates.
*(“Kim et al., US Patent 5627089 A”) discloses a method for fabricating a thin film transistor used for LCD which can improve performance and productivity of an element by forming it with atmospheric pressure CVD method including processes for forming a gate electrode having sloped sides on an insulation substrate, forming a gate insulation film a semiconductor layer and a channel protection layer successively with atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition method on all over the insulation substrate, patterning the channel protection layer such that the channel protection layer is to have a narrower pattern width than the pattern width of the gate electrode remaining the channel protection layer only on the semiconductor layer over the gate electrode, forming an impurity injected semiconductor layer for making resistive contact by injecting impurities into the semiconductor layer using the channel protection layer as a mask, and forming source and drain electrodes over the channel protection layer, the impurity injected semiconductor layer and the gate insulation film so that upper surface of the channel protection layer between them can be exposed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
Re: Independent Claim 9 (and its dependent claim(s) 10-15), the prior art of record do not disclose or suggest, in combination with all other limitations in the claim: i) forming an oxygen-containing material on a metal substrate, wherein the oxygen-containing material comprises silicon oxide, yttrium oxide, or aluminum oxide; ii) forming a barrier material, wherein the barrier material overlies the oxygen- containing material, wherein the barrier layer comprises hafnium oxide, lanthanum oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten, tungsten nitride, or titanium nitride; and iii) repeating operations i and ii to form an alternating stack of oxygen-containing materials and barrier materials on the metal substrate, wherein a temperature is maintained at less than or about 450 °C while forming the oxygen-containing materials and the barrier materials.
Conclusion
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 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, Leonard Chang can be reached on 571-270-3691. 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
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights