DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raaijmakers (US 2001/0024387) in view of Yamazaki ‘835(US 2016/0260835) and Yakubo (WO 2019/145803, wherein US 2020/0401170 is used an English Equivalent for the translation purpose)
Regarding claim 1, Raaijmakers discloses a method for manufacturing a metal oxide comprising :a first step of introducing a precursor and a carrier/purge gas (Fig.5, numeral 107; Fig.4B, numeral 204); a second step of stopping introduction of the precursor and exhausting the precursor (Fig.5, numeral 115; Fig.4B, numeral 206) a third step of introducing an oxidizing gas (Fig.4B, numeral 208; Fig.5, numeral 108); and a fourth step of stopping introduction of the oxidizing gas and exhausting the oxidizing gas to obtain a metal oxide (Fig. 4B, numeral 210).
Raaijmakers does not disclose (1) a fifth step of performing heat treatment after the fourth step, wherein the heat treatment is performed at higher than or equal to 320 °C and lower than or equal to 450 °C, wherein the heat treatment is performed in a mixed atmosphere of a nitrogen gas and an oxygen gas, wherein an amount of moisture contained in the mixed atmosphere is 1 ppb ; (2)wherein the metal oxide comprises a region with a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry.
Regarding element (1), Yamazali’835 discloses a fifth step of performing heat treatment after the fourth step, wherein the heat treatment is performed at higher than or equal to 320 °C and lower than or equal to 450 °C ([0207], wherein the heat treatment is performed in a mixed atmosphere of a nitrogen gas and an oxygen gas, wherein an amount of moisture contained in the mixed atmosphere is low ([0204]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Raaijmakers with Yamazaki’835 to perform heat treatment after the fourth step, wherein the heat treatment is performed at higher than or equal to 320 °C and lower than or equal to 450 °C, wherein the heat treatment is performed in a mixed atmosphere of a nitrogen gas and an oxygen gas, wherein an amount of moisture contained in the mixed atmosphere is 1 ppb for the purpose of reducing oxygen vacancies in oxide films (Yamazaki’835, [0205]).
Regarding element (2), Yakubo however discloses the metal oxide comprises a region with a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry ([0271]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Raaijmakers with Yakubo to have the metal oxide comprises a region with a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry for the purpose improving transistor’s characteristics (Yakubo, [0271]).
Regarding claim 2, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the first step to the fourth step are performed repeatedly (Fig.4B, numeral 215).
Regarding claim 3, Raaijmakers discloses the precursor includes hafnium ([0075]) and further includes any one or more selected from chlorine, fluorine, bromine, iodine, and hydrogen ([0075]).
Regarding claim 4, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the oxidizing gas includes any one or more selected from O3 ([0094]).
Regarding claim 5, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the carrier/purge gas includes any one or more selected from N2 ([0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the precursor is HfCl4 ([0075]) and the oxidizing gas includes O3 ([0094]).
Claim(s) 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raaijmakers (US 2001/0024387) in view of Clark (US 2020/0035493) and Yakubo (WO 2019/145803, wherein US 2020/0401170 is used an English Equivalent for the translation purpose)
Regarding claim 7, Raaijmakers discloses a method for manufacturing a metal oxide comprising: a first step of introducing a first precursor and a carrier/purge gas (Fig.4B, numeral 202); a second step of stopping introduction of the first precursor and exhausting the first precursor (Fig.4B, numeral 206); a third step of introducing an oxidizing gas (Fig.4B, numeral 208); a fourth step of stopping introduction of the oxidizing gas and exhausting the oxidizing gas (Fig.4B, numeral 210); a fifth step of introducing a second precursor (Fig.4B, numeral 216); a sixth step of stopping introduction of the second precursor and exhausting the second precursor (Fig.4B, numeral 218); a seventh step of introducing the oxidizing gas (Fig.4B, numeral 220); and an eighth step of stopping the introduction of the oxidizing gas and exhausting the oxidizing gas to obtain a metal oxide (Fig.4B, numeral 222), wherein the first step to the eighth step are performed in a temperature range higher than or equal to 210 0C and lower than or equal to 300 0C ([0086]).
Raaijmakers does not disclose (1) that the metal oxide is hafnium zirconium oxide; (2) wherein the metal oxide comprises a region with a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry.
Regarding element (1), Raaijmakers discloses forming ternary dielectric layers containing zirconium ([0121]). And Clark discloses forming hafnium zirconium oxides by atomic layer deposition ([134]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Raaijmakers with Clark to form hafnium zirconium oxides for the purpose using these oxides in application where high dielectric constants are needed (Clark, [0004]).
Regarding element (2), Yakubo however discloses the metal oxide comprises a region with a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry ([0271]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Raaijmakers with Yakubo to have the metal oxide comprises a region with a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry for the purpose improving transistor’s characteristics (Yakubo, [0271]).
Regarding claim 8, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the first step to the eight steps are performed repeatedly (Fig.4B, numeral 215).
Regarding claim 9, Raaijmakers discloses the precursor includes hafnium ([0075]) and further includes any one or more selected from chlorine, fluorine, bromine, iodine, and hydrogen ([0075]).
Regarding claim 10, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the oxidizing gas includes any one or more selected from O3 ([0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Raaijmakers discloses wherein the carrier/purge gas includes any one or more selected from N2 ([0087]).
Regarding claim 12, Clark discloses wherein the first precursor is HfCl4 ([0134), the second precursor is ZrCl4 ([0134]) and the oxidizing gas includes O3 ([0120]; note: ozone).
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (2017/0309732) in view Raaijmakers.
Regarding claim 13, Yamazaki discloses a method for manufacturing a stacked film, comprising the steps of: forming a first metal oxide film (Fig. 24, numeral 230a; [0079])); forming a second metal oxide film (230b) using an atomic layer deposition method ([0239]) so as to be in contact with the first metal oxide (Fig. 24); performing microwave treatment on the first metal oxide film and the second metal oxide film in an atmosphere comprising oxygen ([0222]]-[0224]) and heating the first metal oxide film and the second metal oxide film which are in contact with each other at a temperature higher than or equal to 100 0C and lower than or equal to 400 C ([0228]) ,wherein the second metal oxide film after the fourth step comprises a hydrogen concentration lower than or equal to 5 x 1019 atoms/cm3 in secondary ion mass spectrometry ([0146]).
Yamazaki does not disclose wherein the formation step of the second metal oxide film comprises: a first step of introducing a precursor and a carrier/purge gas; a second step of stopping introduction of the precursor and exhausting the precursor a third step of introducing an oxidizing gas; and a fourth step of stopping introduction of the oxidizing gas and exhausting the oxidizing gas , wherein the first step to the fourth step are performed in a temperature range higher than or equal to 210 0C and lower than or equal to 300 0C,
Raaijmakers however discloses a first step of introducing a precursor Fig.4B, numeral 204)and a carrier/purge gas; a second step of stopping introduction of the precursor (206); and exhausting the precursor; a third step of introducing an oxidizing gas((208); and a fourth step of stopping introduction of the oxidizing gas and exhausting the oxidizing gas (210), wherein the first step to the fourth step are performed in a temperature range higher than or equal to 210 0C and lower than or equal to 300 0C ([0086]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamazaki with Raaijmakers to perform the above steps for the purpose of fabrication a metal oxide film.
Regarding claim 14, Yamazaki discloses wherein the first metal oxide film (104) is a semiconductor film ([0206]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamazaki discloses wherein a hydrogen concentration in the first metal oxide film is reduced by the heating ([0263]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamazaki discloses wherein the heating of the first metal oxide film and the second metal oxide film using a rapid thermal annealing ([0436]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-16 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
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891