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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IA (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-11 are examined in this office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki et al. (US Patent Pub 20190371798 A1, hereafter referred to as Yamazaki 798) in view of Tang et al. (US Patent Pub 20200295008 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamazaki 798 teaches a microelectronic device suitable for as a memory device comprising:
an access device comprising a source region and a drain region spaced from the source region (Fig. Fig. 5B, source region 231a and drain region 231b);
an insulative material vertically adjacent to the access device (Fig. 5B, insulative material 274);
and a capacitor within the insulative material and in electrical communication with the access device (Fig. 1B, capacitor 100 (not numbered in Fig. 5B). Fig. 5B shows portion of capacitor within insulative material 274, therefore the capacitor is within 274. Capacitor 100 is in direct electrical contact with access device 231 (layer containing source region 231a and drain region 231b)).
the capacitor comprising:
a material comprising silicon oxynitride or titanium silicon nitride over surfaces of the insulative material (Fig. 5B shows material 280 over surfaces of the insulative material. Paragraph 0159 teaches the material 280 can be silicon oxynitride).
a first electrode (Fig. 5B, first electrode 230. Paragraph 0131 teaches 230 functions as the first electrode of the capacitor)
a dielectric material on the first electrode (Fig. 5B, dielectric material 130)
and a second electrode on the dielectric material (Fig. 5B, second electrode 120).
Yamazaki 798 fails to specifically teach the first electrode being comprised of titanium nitride on the material.
However, Tang teaches a microelectronic memory structure for use in DRAM having a first electrode comprising titanium nitride on the material (Tang, Fig. 34B, first electrode 106. Paragraph 0117 teaches first electrode 106 can be comprised of titanium or a metal containing compositions such as a metal nitride. Therefore, first electrode 106 can be titanium nitride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Tang into the method of Yamazaki 798 by forming the first electrode a first electrode comprising titanium nitride on the material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of forming capacitors with desired characteristics necessary for use in a DRAM device (Tang, paragraph 0002-0003).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1, wherein the dielectric material comprises one or more of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, aluminum oxide, lanthanum oxide, titanium dioxide, tantalum oxide, scandium oxide, and gallium oxide (Tang, paragraph 0117 teaches dielectric material 108 can be silicon dioxide or silicon nitride).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US Patent Pub 20200286686 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1 above.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach a capacitor with a first electrode having a thickness within a range of about 5.0 Å to about 30.0 Å.
However, Lin teaches a microelectronic device with a capacitor having a first electrode having a thickness within a range of about 5.0 Å to 30.0 Å (Lin, paragraph 0047 teaches the thickness t3 of first electrode 402 is of a range from 20 Å to 100 Å, which can be within the claimed thickness range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Lin into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming a capacitor wherein a thickness of the first electrode is within a range of from about 5.0 Å to about 30.0 Å.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of forming capacitors that improve the reliability of ferroelectric memory (Lin, Abstract).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited electrode thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired capacitor performance. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US Patent Pub 20190139954 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach the semiconductor material comprising titanium silicon nitride and having a thickness within a range of from about 3.0 Å to about 15.0 Å.
However, Cheng teaches a microelectronic device with a material layer formed of titanium silicon nitride and has a thickness within a range of from about 3.0 Å to about 15.0 Å (Cheng, Fig. 2K, material layer 142. Paragraph 0026 teaches material layer 142 can be titanium silicon nitride and has a thickness between about 5 Å and 25 Å, which is within the claimed thickness range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Cheng into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming the material layer comprising titanium silicon nitride and having a thickness within a range of from about 3.0 Å to about 15.0 Å. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of preventing the diffusion or reaction of constituents between layers (Cheng, paragraph 0026).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited titanium silicon nitride layer thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired capacitor performance. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Otsuki et al. (US Patent Pub 20040232467 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach the titanium silicon nitride material having a silicon content within a range of from about 1 atomic percent to about 25 atomic percent.
However, Otsuki teaches a microelectronic device with a capacitor material formed of titanium silicon nitride having a silicon content within a range from about 1 atomic percent to about 25 atomic percent (Otsuki, paragraph 0016 teaches the titanium silicon nitride containing layer 55 having a silicon atomic percentage between 10 to 40 percent, which is within the claimed percentage range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Otsuki into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming a capacitor material layer of titanium silicon nitride wherein the titanium silicon nitride comprises a silicon content within a range of from about 1 atomic percent to about 25 atomic percent. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of being used as a barrier metal layer for a semiconductor device to prevent the diffusion of Cu. (Otsuki, Abstract).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited silicon content percentage through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired capacitor performance. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to teach the titanium silicon nitride material having a silicon content of less than about 15 atomic percent.
However, Otsuki teaches a microelectronic device with a capacitor material formed of titanium silicon nitride having a silicon content of less than about 15 atomic percent (Otsuki, paragraph 0016 teaches the titanium silicon nitride containing layer 55 having a silicon atomic percentage between 10 to 40 percent, which is within the claimed percentage range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Otsuki into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming a capacitor material layer of titanium silicon nitride wherein the titanium silicon nitride comprises a silicon content of less than about 15 atomic percent. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of being used as a barrier metal layer for a semiconductor device to prevent the diffusion of Cu (Otsuki, Abstract).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US Patent Pub 20170352559 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach the semiconductor material comprising silicon oxynitride and having a thickness within a range of from about 1.0 Å to about 20.0 Å.
However, Liu teaches a microelectronic device with a material layer formed of silicon oxynitride and has a thickness within a range of from about 1.0 Å to about 20.0 Å (Liu, Fig. 2B, material layer 116. Paragraph 0031 teaches 116 can be silicon oxynitride. Paragraph 0030 teaches 116 has a thickness range of about 10 Å to 50 Å, which is within the claimed thickness range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming a material layer of silicon oxynitride having a thickness within a range of from about 1.0 Å to about 20.0 Å. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of reducing damage between the capacitor layers (Liu, paragraph 0030).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited silicon oxynitride layer thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired capacitor performance. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Ozaki et al. (US Patent Pub 20170373168 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach the semiconductor material comprising silicon oxynitride and exhibits an atomic percent of nitrogen increasing with an increasing distance from the surfaces of the insulative material.
However, Ozaki teaches a microelectronic device with a material layer formed of silicon oxynitride and exhibits an atomic percent of nitrogen increasing with an increasing distance from the surfaces of the insulative material (Ozaki, Fig. 3B, material layer 31b. Paragraph 0044 teaches 31b is formed of silicon oxynitride and that the nitrogen concentration increases with increasing distance from the surface of insulative material 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Ozaki into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming a material layer of silicon oxynitride that exhibits an atomic percent of nitrogen increasing with an increasing distance from the surfaces of the insulative material. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of mitigating the trapping of electrons as well as suppressing leakage current (Ozaki, paragraph 0035).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US Patent Pub 20170018648 A1, hereafter referred to as Yamazaki 648).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic memory device of Claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach the semiconductor material comprising silicon oxynitride and comprises: from about 9 atomic percent nitrogen to about 17 atomic percent nitrogen; and from about 48 atomic percent oxygen to about 56 atomic percent oxygen.
However, Yamazaki 648 teaches a microelectronic memory device with a material layer formed of silicon oxynitride and comprises about 9 atomic percent nitrogen to about 17 atomic percent nitrogen; and from about 48 atomic percent oxygen to about 56 atomic percent oxygen. (Yamazaki 648, Fig. 5A, material layer 402b. Paragraph 0078 teaches 402 has a second layer (referred to as 402b in paragraph 0085) that goes across the capacitor 690 and can be silicon oxynitride. Paragraph 0079 teaches 402b has a composition of 0.5 atomic percent to 15 atomic percent Nitrogen, and an oxygen composition of 50 atomic percent to 70 atomic percent. The atomic percent range for both Nitrogen and Oxygen fall within the claimed atomic percentage ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamazaki 648 into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming a material layer of silicon oxynitride comprising: from about 9 atomic percent nitrogen to about 17 atomic percent nitrogen; and from about 48 atomic percent oxygen to about 56 atomic percent oxygen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of preventing entry of hydrogen or a hydrogen compound into an oxide semiconductor layer formed later in fabrication, and improving the overall reliability of a semiconductor device (Yamazaki 648, paragraph 0079).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited silicon oxynitride material layer’s nitrogen and oxygen atomic percentages through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired capacitor performance. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. (US Patent Pub 20190165263 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach an additional material comprising silicon oxynitride or titanium silicon nitride between the dielectric material and the second electrode.
However, Hansen teaches a microelectronic device with an additional material comprising silicon oxynitride between the dielectric material and the second electrode. (Hansen, Fig. 1C, Silicon oxynitride layer 106 between dielectric material 108 and second electrode 118. Paragraph 0035 teaches 106 can be silicon oxynitride and 108 is the dielectric material. Paragraph 0023 teaches 118 is the second electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Hansen into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming an additional material comprising silicon oxynitride or titanium silicon nitride between the dielectric material and the second electrode of the microelectronic device of claim 1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of protecting the memory cells from damage during processing as well as facilitating desired dimensions and spacing of components of the memory structure during fabrication (Hansen, paragraph 0036).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (20210104396 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1 with a first electrode comprising titanium nitride on the material.
Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang fails to specifically teach the first electrode having a titanium nitride thickness less than about 20.0 Å and exhibits a resistivity less than about one-third a resistivity of a titanium nitride material overlying a silicon dioxide material and having a same thickness as the first electrode.
However, Jung teaches a titanium nitride thickness of 20 Å and therefore exhibit a resistivity less than about one-third a resistivity of a titanium nitride material overlying a silicon dioxide material and having a same thickness as the first electrode (Jung, paragraph 0055 teaches the TiN film (comprising layers 370 and 380) can have a combined thickness that does not exceed 20 Å, which is within the claimed thickness range. Paragraph 0133 and Fig 6A of applicant's own specification teaches that the resistivity of TiN films at relatively lower thicknesses (such as 20 Å) overlaying a silicon dioxide film treated with SiON have a resistivity less than about one-third of the resistivity of a TiN material overlying an untreated silicon dioxide material. Therefore, the 20 Å thick TiN film taught by Jung satisfies the claimed resistivity characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Jung into the method of Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang by forming the electrode with thickness less than about 20.0 Å and with a resistivity less than about one-third a resistivity of a titanium nitride material overlying a silicon dioxide material and having a same thickness as the first electrode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yamazaki 798 in view of Tang in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing the electrode with improved smoothness, conformality, and relatively low electrical resistivity (Jung, paragraph 0023).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE R GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (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 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.
/V.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899