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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 16 are pending and rejected. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 21-24, 27, 29, 31, 33-35, 37, 39, and 41-42 are withdrawn. Claims 3-5, 7-15, 17-20, 25-26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, and 43-50 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahar, US 2019/0198606 A1 in view of Won, “Effects of Defects Generated in ALD TiO2 Films on Electrical Properties and Interfacial Reaction in TiO2/SiO2/Si System upon Annealing in Vacuum”, 2008 and Groner, “Electrical characterization of thin Al2O3 films grown by atomic layer deposition on silicon and various metal substrate”, 2002.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 6, Nahar teaches a method of forming at least a portion of at least one conductive capacitor electrode of a capacitor that comprises a pair of conductive capacitor electrodes having a capacitor insulator there-between that comprises forming an insulative first material comprising an amorphous insulative metal oxide (abstract). They teach reducing the insulative metal oxide in a reducing-ambient to form a conductive second material from the insulative first material (abstract). They teach that the reducing-ambient both (a) removes oxygen from and the changes in the stoichiometry of the metal oxide, and (b) crystallizes the metal oxide into a crystalline state that is conductive (abstract). They teach that an amorphous insulative first material 24 comprising an amorphous insulative metal oxide is formed within an opening (0030 and Fig. 5). They teach that the amorphous insulative metal oxide material is reduced in a reducing-ambient to form conductive second material 26 from insulative first material 24 (0031 and Fig. 6). They teach forming an oxidation-barrier material 40 on the conductive crystalline metal oxide 26 (0032 and Fig. 7). They teach that the oxidation-barrier material 40 is insulative, e.g., alumina, Si3N4, SiO2, etc. (0033). They teach that the reducing ambient comprises a plasma and a temperature of 100°C to 900°Cand the that exposure-time to the reducing-ambient is from 1 second to 48 hours (0024). They teach that the reducing ambient comprises nitrogen ions, molecular and/or ionized ammonia, molecular and/or ionized N2H2 (0025-0026). They teach that the amorphous insulative oxide comprises or consists of TiO2 and the conductive crystalline metal oxide comprises or consists of at least one of (a) TiOx, where 0<x<1.5, and (b) TiOyNz, where 0<x±y<2.0 and 0<x<1.5 (0027). Therefore, Nahar teaches preparing an oxide interface by forming a first oxide of amorphous TiO2 and contacting the surface of the oxide with a plasma of a reducing gas comprising nitrogen atoms and/or molecular and/or ionized NH3 to obtain a treated surface, i.e. reduced oxide, and depositing a second oxide on the treated surface, where the second oxide is Al2O3, SiO2, or Si3-N4, so as to provide an interface between a first and second oxide.
Nahar teaches that the metal oxide after reduction is conductive, however, they do not specifically state that the interface is conductive. As discussed above, the first oxide is taught to be TiO2 and the second oxide is Al2O3, SiO2, or Si3-N4, such that the first and second oxides meet the requirements of instant claims 31 and 33. As noted above, Nahar also teaches that the reducing gas comprises nitrogen ions and/or ionized ammonia as required by claims 1 and 6.
Nahar further teaches that each material may be formed using any suitable technique, where an example is atomic layer deposition (0041). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first and second oxide layer by ALD as required by claim 2 because Nahar teaches that any layer can be formed by this method.
They do not teach the resistivity of the amorphous TiO2 film prior to exposure to the plasma.
Won teaches growing TiO2 layers at 130°C on SiO2-coated Si substrates by ALD (abstract). They teach that the as-deposited TiO2 thin film had an amorphous structure with OH groups and a high resistivity of 6x103 Ω-cm, i.e., 60 Ω-m (abstract). While they do not teach the temperature for measuring the film, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it is measured at room temperature because there is no indication that an elevated or special temperature is used.
From the teachings of Nahar and Won, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have deposited the amorphous TiO-2 film using the process of Won so as to provide a film having a resistivity of 60 Ω-m because Nahar teaches forming an amorphous TiO2 film, where the films can be formed by ALD and Won provides an ALD process for forming an amorphous TiO-2- film such that it will be expected to deposit the film as desired. Therefore, in the process of Nahar in view of Won, a first oxide will be provided having a surface, wherein said first oxide is characterized by a resistivity within the claimed range or at least overlapping the claimed range since the temperature of measurement is suggested to be done at room temperature, which is considered to overlap the claimed range and further because it is an oxide that meets the requirements of claim 31. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
They do not teach the resistivity of the second oxide, which as noted above is selected from materials including alumina.
Groner teaches depositing Al2O3 films by ALD and characterizing the electrical properties (abstract). They teach that excellent insulating properties were observed for nearly all of the alumina films (abstract). They teach that for films having a thickness of greater than or equal to 50 A excellent insulating behavior was provided with resistivities as high as 1016 Ωcm (pg. 190, section 3.2). They teach that alumina films grown by ALD on silicon substrates have resistivities within the claimed range (Table 1). While they do not teach the temperature for measuring the film, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it is measured at room temperature because there is no indication that an elevated or special temperature is used.
From the teachings of Groner, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have deposited the second oxide film of alumina using the process of Groner so as to provide a film having a resistivity of within or at least overlapping the claimed resistivity because Nahar teaches forming an alumina film, where the films can be formed by ALD and Groner provides an ALD process for forming an alumina- film such that it will be expected to deposit the film as desired. Therefore, in the process of Nahar in view of Won and Groner, second oxide will be deposited onto the treated surface, wherein said second oxide is characterized by a resistivity within the claimed range or at least overlapping the claimed range since the temperature of measurement is suggested to be done at room temperature, which is considered to overlap the claimed range and further because it is an oxide that meets the requirements of claim 33. Since they provide the process of claim 1 of depositing the second oxide on the first oxide it is also expected to turn the treated surface into a conductive oxide interface between the two materials. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
As to controlling the time of said contacting to control abstraction of oxygen from the first oxide, Nahar teaches that the exposure time to the reducing ambient is from 1 second to 48 hours, where the amorphous insulative metal oxide consists of TiO2 and the conductive crystalline metal oxide is TiOx, where 0<x<1.5 and/or TiOyNz, where 0<x±y<2.0 and 0<x<1.5 (0024 and 0027). They teach that the reducing-ambient both (a) removes oxygen from and changes the stoichiometry of the metal oxide, and (b) crystalizes the metal oxide into a crystalline state that is conductive (0023). Therefore, since they teach a specific time for the exposure, which overlaps the claimed range, where the exposure abstracts oxygen atoms from the first oxide so as to increase the conductivity, it is also considered to provide controlling the time of the contacting so as to control abstraction of oxygen atoms from the first oxide, thereby controlling the sheet resistance and/or carrier density of the treated surface. Further, since they suggest the claimed process, controlling the time of contacting is also expected to be capable of altering the sheet resistance of the interface by at least 250-fold under substantially the same conditions except for the time of contacting. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Therefore, since Nahar in view of Won and Groner provide the claimed process steps, including controlling the exposure time to a range overlapping the claimed range, where they indicate that the process also abstracts oxygen, the interface between the treated TiO-2 layer and the Al2O3 layer is also expected to be conductive and have a sheet resistance and carrier density within the ranges of claim 1, where the sheet resistance and carrier density are also expected to be controlled by the time of contacting so as to tune the ranges. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 16, Nahar in view of Won and Groner suggest the process of claim 1. As noted above, Nahar teaches that the temperature during plasma treatment is in the range of 100°C to 900°C (0024). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have heated the first oxide to a temperature in the range of 100-900°C prior to plasma exposure because it will achieve the desired temperature for the reducing environment using plasma as opposed to plasma treating while heating which would result in plasma treating at a temperature below the desired range. Therefore, the first oxide will be subjected to a thermal treatment overlapping the claimed temperature range when heating to the desired temperature before contacting with a plasma gas. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 4/16/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to applicant's argument that Nahar does not identify that varying only plasma exposure time under otherwise substantially the same conditions is capable of producing at least a 250-fold change in the sheet resistance of an oxide/oxide interface formed after deposition of the second oxide or that such a large controlled tunability outcome necessarily and inevitably results from practicing Nahar, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Nahar teaches an exposure-time range that overlaps the claimed range, where the process removes oxygen from the oxide surface so as to increase the conductivity, such that the process is also expected to control the properties of the oxide film by removing oxygen and tuning resistance to levels overlapping the claimed range. Further, while Nahar’s focus is making the oxide layer conductive, since Nahar in view of Won and Groner suggest the claimed process, it is also expected to result in the claimed features, including being capable of altering the sheet resistance by at least 250-fold under substantially the same conditions. Specifically, since they provide materials meeting the claimed requirements (titania and alumina), treating the first oxide using an exposure time overlapping the claimed range with a plasma including the claimed gases (ammonia and/or nitrogen), where the oxides before treatment are expected to have resistivities within or overlapping the claimed ranges, and depositing the second oxide using ALD as claimed, the resulting process is expected to also be capable of the same change in sheet resistance.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that inherency requires inevitability, not possibility, as noted above since Nahar in view of Won and Groner provide the claimed process, the same results are expected to occur. While they do not indicate that the exposure time specifically tunes the properties, they teach that the plasma exposure does tune the properties, including removing oxygen, where they provide an exposure time range, such that the time range is also expected to tune the properties as required by claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the application of the second oxide protects the interface from the ambient, evidencing a deliberate tuning mechanism, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Specifically, Nahar in view of Won and Groner suggest applying the second oxide to the treated surface to prevent oxidation such that it is also expected to provide a tuning mechanism. Further, Nahar deposits the second oxide as an oxidation barrier (0032), suggesting that it will also protect the conductive oxide and the interface.
It is noted that Nahar teaches using a thickness for the first oxide of 15 to 500 angstroms (0028), i.e., 1.5 to 50 nm and a thickness of the second oxide of 0 to 50 angstroms (0036), i.e., 0 to 5 nm. The instant specification describes a thickness of the first oxide being in a range of no more than 1 mm in thickness, no more than 100 microns, etc., where example provides ranges of 30 nm to 100 microns, etc. (pg. 10, lines 22-31). The second oxide is described as having a thickness of no more than 1 mm, no more than 100 microns, with examples of from 10 nm to 1 mm, etc. (pg. 11, line 25 to pg. 12, line 2). Therefore, the thickness used by Nahar includes a range that is smaller than the thicknesses described in the instant specification, which may differentiate the inventive process from the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments over Guo are not addressed herein because the reference is no longer being used in the above rejection.
In light of the amendments to the claims the previous claim objection and 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
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 CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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 http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights