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, 10, 12, and 16 are pending and rejected. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 21-24, 27, 29, 31, 33-35, 37, 39, and 41-42 are withdrawn. Claims 3-5, 7-9, 11, 13-15, 17-20, 25-26, 28, 30, 32, 36, 38, 40, and 43-50 are cancelled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/6/2022 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, “interface is characterized a sheet resistance” is grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, that claim requires that the sheet resistance is within a range of 102 to 107 ohm/square, however, claim 1 has been amended to require that the sheet resistance is less than 105 ohm/square, such that the range of claim 10 includes a range greater than that allowed by claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what sheet resistance is required for claim 10. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as requiring a sheet resistance within a range of from 102 to less than 105 ohms/square so as to align with the range of claim 1. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
Regarding claim 12, the claim requires a carrier density within a range of from 1011 to 1016 per cm2, however, claim 1 has been amended to require that the carrier density is at least 1014 cm-2, such that claim 12 includes a range greater than that allowed by claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear what carrier density is required for claim 12. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as requiring a sheet resistance within a range of from at least 1014 to 1016 per cm2 so as to align with the range of claim 1. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the claim requires that the reducing gas comprises nitrogen atoms, however, this feature has been added into claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 no longer further limits claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nahar, US 2019/0198606 A1 in view of Guo, US 2016/0133689 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 10, and 12, 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°C (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 TiO2 and contacting the surface of the oxide with a plasma of a reducing gas comprising nitrogen atoms 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 atoms (nitrogen ions, ionized ammonia, or ionized N2H2) 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 second oxide layer by ALD as required by claim 2 because Nahar teaches that any layer can be formed by this method.
Nahar does not specifically teach that the second oxide is an amorphous oxide, however, they do not indicate that it is crystalline. Nahar teaches that the alumina layer is used as an oxidation-barrier (0032-0033).
Guo teaches reducing water molecule infiltration from water vapor in the ambient using a moisture barrier comprising a layer of aluminum oxide formed by an ALD process (abstract). They teach that the moisture barrier includes at least one layer of aluminum oxide formed by an ALD process (0036). They teach that layers of aluminum oxide formed by ALD are distinguished by an amorphous microstructure, high conformality and uniform thickness compared to layers of aluminum oxide formed by other methods (0036).
From the teachings of Guo, 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 an amorphous alumina layer by ALD because Nahar teaches depositing the layer by ALD and Guo indicates that alumina layers deposited by ALD are characterized by an amorphous microstructure and because they are indicated as being good moisture barriers such that it will be expected to also prevent the underlying layer from oxidizing from moisture. Therefore, the second oxide will be an amorphous oxide.
Therefore, 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 claims 1, 10, and 12 because Nahar in view of Guo provides the claimed process steps using claimed materials. Further, since the second oxide is formed on the treated surface of the first oxide, the interaction between the treated surface and the first oxide (due to the contact between them) is also expected to form a conductive oxide interface due to the materials and process meeting the claimed steps and requirements. 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 Guo 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 11/6/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Nahar’s method provides converting an entire layer of an oxide material to produce a bulk conductive structure as opposed to having a specific conductive interface having defined electrical properties, a specific confined conductivity range or interfacial region is not required by the claims. Specifically, as claimed the conductivity is not required to be limited to the interface, only that the specific range of carrier density and sheet resistance is provided at the interface between the treated surface of the first oxide and the second oxide. It is noted that the definition of the term “conductive oxide interface” provided on pg. 7 of the instant specification indicates that the interface is substantially more electrically conductive than the bulk oxides, such that the electric conductivity is limited to the vicinity of the plane interface, this is not considered to prohibit the bulk oxide from having any degree of conductivity, only that the conductivity of the interface is more conductive. Specifically, a bulk oxide is expected to have some degree of conductivity, where by performing the claimed process, the interface is expected to have an increased conductivity at the interface. Additionally, the specification indicates that the “interface” is, for example, atoms within 5 nm of the border. Nahar teaches that the thickness of each of the materials 20, 22, 24, and 26 is 15 Angstroms to 500 Angstroms, i.e., 1.5 nm to 50 nm, such that the thickness of the layers overlaps a range in which the thickness of the bulk oxide can be considered the interface. It is also noted that the instant specification at Example 2 indicates that increasing the crystallinity of a TiO-2 layer provides a lower sheet resistance, where TiO2 crystallinity is correlated to conductivity of the 2DEG at the oxide interface. Further, instant claim 16 requires subjecting the first oxide to a thermal treatment at a temperature of at least 200°C prior to contacting with the plasma of a reducing gas, where the instant specification at pg. 9, line 30 to pg. 10, line 2 indicates that the thermal treatment reduces sheet resistance by enhancing crystallinity of the first oxide. Nahar teaches that the plasma crystallizes the metal oxide which increases the conductivity (0023-0024). Therefore, increasing the crystallinity of the oxide layer to increase the conductivity (lower resistance) as in the process of Nahar is also expected to provide increased conductivity at the interface because it provides the claimed process steps using oxides described in the claims and specification and because the specification indicates that the crystallinity and conductivity of the oxide can be increased prior to forming the interface.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Nahar does not describe forming an amorphous oxide, it is noted that Nahar suggests forming the oxide layers by ALD, where the second oxide can be alumina. Applicant’s arguments at page 7 indicate that alumina is known to be amorphous under typical deposition conditions, suggesting that the layer of Nahar will also be amorphous. The rejection above has been modified to include Guo to provide the suggestion of forming an amorphous alumina layer.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Nahar does not teach the conductivity confined to the interface, as discussed above, since Nahar in view of Guo provide the claimed process using materials described in the specification, the process is also expected to result in forming an interface having the described conductivity. 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)”.
Conclusion
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