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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) #1 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim #1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2019/0115353), hereinafter referred to as "O’Brien" and in view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0105772), hereinafter referred to as "Chen".
O’Brien shows, with respect to claim #1, device structure, comprising: a conductive feature (fig. #4a, item 350) (paragraph 0036) disposed in a first dielectric layer (fig. #4a, item 380) (paragraph 0035); a ferroelectric tunnel junction (FTJ) stack (fig. #4a, item 110 consisting of item 404) (paragraph 0027, 0039) disposed over the conductive feature (fig. #4a, item 350), the FTJ stack (paragraph 0037) comprising: a bottom electrode layer (fig. #4a, item 130) (paragraph 0027) electrically coupled to the conductive feature (paragraph 0030, 0033), a ferroelectric layer (fig. #4a, item 140) over the bottom electrode layer (paragraph 0027), and a top electrode layer (fig. #4a, item 160) on the ferroelectric layer (paragraph 0027); a spacer (fig. #4a, item 211) (paragraph 0033) disposed along and interfacing sidewalls of the FTJ stack (fig. #4a, item 110); a second dielectric layer (fig. #3, item 371) disposed over the spacer and the FTJ stack (paragraph 0037); and a contact via extending through the second dielectric layer and in contact with a top surface of the top electrode layer (paragraph 0026), wherein the top electrode layer is formed of a conductive metal oxide (paragraph 0031).
O’Brien fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a device comprising a hard mask layer over the top electrode layer a spacer disposed along and interfacing sidewalls of the FTJ stack and sidewalls of the hard mask layer; a second dielectric layer disposed over the spacer and the FTJ stack; and a contact via extending through the second dielectric layer and the hard mask layer to contact a top surface of the top electrode layer wherein an etch stop layer over the conductive feature and the first dielectric layer, wherein a portion of the bottom electrode layer extends completely through the etch stop layer.
Chen teaches with respect to claim #1, a device comprising a hard mask layer (fig. #1a, item 128) (paragraph 0023) over the top electrode layer (fig. #1a, item 114) (paragraph 0015) a spacer (fig. #1a, item 118) (paragraph 0021) disposed along and interfacing sidewalls of the FTJ stack and sidewalls of the hard mask layer (paragraph 0027); a second dielectric layer (fig. #1a, item 130) disposed over the spacer and the FTJ stack (paragraph 0023); and a contact via (fig. #1a, item 120te) extending through the second dielectric layer and the hard mask layer to contact a top surface of the top electrode layer (paragraph 0024) an etch stop layer (fig. #2, item 124) (paragraph 0025) over the conductive feature (fig. #2, item 104) (paragraph 0016) and the first dielectric layer (fig. #2, item 122) (paragraph 0025), wherein a portion of the bottom electrode layer extends completely through the etch stop layer (fig. #2, item 104) (paragraph 0016).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1 to modified the invention of O’Brien as modified by the invention of Chen, which teaches, a device comprising a hard mask layer over the top electrode layer a spacer disposed along and interfacing sidewalls of the FTJ stack and sidewalls of the hard mask layer; a second dielectric layer disposed over the spacer and the FTJ stack; and a contact via extending through the second dielectric layer and the hard mask layer to contact a top surface of the top electrode layer wherein an etch stop layer over the conductive feature and the first dielectric layer, wherein a portion of the bottom electrode layer extends completely through the etch stop layer, to incorporate a structural condition that is able to store data without power, as taught by Chen.
O’Brien shows, with respect to claim #4, wherein the ferroelectric layer comprises hafnium oxide, hafnium silicate, hafnium zirconate, barium titanate, lead titanate, strontium titanate, calcium manganite, bismuth ferrite, aluminum scandium nitride, aluminum gallium nitride, aluminum yttrium nitride, lead zirconate titanate, barium strontium titanate, strontium bismuth tantalate (paragraph 0028).
O’Brien shows, with respect to claim #5, a structure wherein a composition of the top electrode layer is different from a composition of the bottom electrode layer (paragraph 0031).
O’Brien shows, with respect to claim #6, a structure wherein the bottom electrode layer comprises tantalum nitride, titanium nitride, tantalum, tungsten, platinum, ruthenium, iridium, or molybdenum (paragraph 0030).
O’Brien fails to show, with respect to claim #8, a device wherein a composition of the etch stop layer is different from a composition of the spacer.
Chen teaches with respect to claim #8, a device wherein a composition of the etch stop layer (Silicon Carbide; fig. #2, item 124) (paragraph 0025) is different from a composition of the spacer (Silicon Oxide; fig. #2, item 118) (paragraph 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8 to modified the invention of O’Brien as modified by the invention of Chen, which teaches, a device wherein a composition of the etch stop layer is different from a composition of the spacer, to incorporate a structural condition that good insulation protection while also providing a high performance, wide bandgap semiconductor, as taught by Chen.
O’Brien fails to show, with respect to claim #9, a device wherein the spacer comprises silicon nitride, wherein the etch stop layer comprises silicon carbide.
Chen teaches with respect to claim #9, a device wherein the spacer comprises silicon nitride (fig. #2, item 118) (paragraph 0021), wherein the etch stop layer comprises silicon carbide (fig. #2, item 124) (paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #9 to modified the invention of O’Brien as modified by the invention of Chen, which teaches, a device wherein the spacer comprises silicon nitride, wherein the etch stop layer comprises silicon carbide, to incorporate a structural condition that good insulation protection while also providing a high performance, wide bandgap semiconductor, as taught by Chen.
//
Claim #2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2019/0115353), hereinafter referred to as "O’Brien" as modified by Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0105772), hereinafter referred to as "Chen" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of Bibes et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0364536), hereinafter referred to as "Bibes".
O’Brien as modified by Chen, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
O’Brien as modified by Chen, fail to show, with respect to claim #2, a device wherein the top electrode layer allows transmission of radiation from a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a Neodymium:Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Nd:YAG) laser source, an argon ion (Ar+) laser source, a continuous-wave (CW) argon laser source, a krypton ion (Kr+) laser source, a GaAs diode laser source, or a helium-cadmium (He- Cd) laser source through an entire depth of the top electrode layer.
Bibes teaches, with respect to claim #2, a device wherein the top electrode layer allows transmission of radiation from a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a Neodymium: Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Nd:YAG) laser source, an argon ion (Ar+) laser source, a continuous-wave (CW) argon laser source, a krypton ion (Kr+) laser source, a GaAs diode laser source, or a helium-cadmium (He- Cd) laser source through an entire depth of the top electrode layer (paragraph 0035).
The Examiner notes that Bibes does not explicitly state wherein the top electrode layer allows transmission of radiation from a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a Neodymium: Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Nd:YAG) laser source, an argon ion (Ar+) laser source, a continuous-wave (CW) argon laser source, a krypton ion (Kr+) laser source, a GaAs diode laser source, or a helium-cadmium (He- Cd) laser source through an entire depth of the top electrode layer. However, the Examiner notes that it is well known in the art that compounds such as ZnO and ITO poses properties wherein an irradiated laser may be transmitted through the elements; i.e. as also shown by the Applicant in the presently presented specification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of O’Brien as modified by Chen, the modifications of the invention of Bibes, which teaches, a device wherein the top electrode layer allows transmission of radiation from a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a helium-neon (He-Ne) laser source, a Neodymium: Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet (Nd:YAG) laser source, an argon ion (Ar+) laser source, a continuous-wave (CW) argon laser source, a krypton ion (Kr+) laser source, a GaAs diode laser source, or a helium-cadmium (He- Cd) laser source through an entire depth of the top electrode layer, to incorporate a structural condition that would allow for a laser irradiation through the desired layer to the bottom of the device, as taught by Bibes.
O’Brien as modified by Chen, fails to show, with respect to claim #3, a device wherein the top electrode layer comprises indium-tin oxide (ITO), zinc oxide (ZnO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), gallium zinc oxide (GZO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), or antimony tin oxide (ATO).
Bibes teaches, with respect to claim #3, a device wherein the top electrode layer comprises indium-tin oxide (ITO), zinc oxide (ZnO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), gallium zinc oxide (GZO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), or antimony tin oxide (ATO) (paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of O’Brien as modified by Chen, with the modifications of the invention of Bibes, which teaches, a device wherein the top electrode layer comprises indium-tin oxide (ITO), zinc oxide (ZnO), fluorine doped tin oxide (FTO), gallium zinc oxide (GZO), aluminum zinc oxide (AZO), or antimony tin oxide (ATO) , to incorporate a structural condition that would reduce the stress and therefore reduce the warpage to the surrounding layers, as taught by Bibes.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
02/13/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899