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 Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objection to the claims and thus the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and thus the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) not included below and therefore the rejections not included below are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 1 and 9, the limitation “degassing a substrate disposed on a substrate support” is not supported by the original specification. Rather, the specification describes that the degassing of the substrate is performed in a load lock chamber before transporting the substrate to the processing chamber for performing sputtering, which contains the substrate support (see para 0021, 0028, Fig. 2). The specification does describe that the substrate support may be used for heating the substrate during processing (see para 0039, 0048) but does not describe that this heating is used to perform a degassing of the substrate in the processing chamber containing two or more targets. Therefore, the claims lack written description support and are rejected for containing new matter.
Claims 3-8 and 10-16 are also rejected by virtue of depending on claims that lack written description support.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Choi (US 20100328997 A1), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), Perino (US 5426075 A), and Yu (US 20200044152 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) teaches depositing a strontium ruthenate (SrRuO3 – first perovskite) film 16, or another perovskite such as LSMO, over a substrate 12 of a memory cell and then annealing the perovskite film layer, where the SRO layer forms a bottom electrode of the memory cell (Abstract, para 0010, 0027-0030, 0035, 0037, 0043, 0060; Fig. 1).
Ramesh fails to explicitly teach heating and degassing a substrate. However, Choi (US 20100328997 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a phase change memory element including a perovskite layer that may be formed by deposition in a film formation chamber 1005 (processing chamber) after a step of degassing the substrate including heating the substrate to a predetermined temperature within a degassing chamber 1006 of a vacuum processing apparatus (processing system) (para 0082, 0086, 0088; Fig. 10). Ramesh also teaches forming a perovskite onto a substrate, wherein the structure may be used as a memory cell (para 0010). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a degassing and heating process on the substrate of Ramesh within a degassing chamber of a processing system before depositing the perovskite layer within a processing chamber to remove impurities present in the substrate and thus improve product quality.
The combination of Ramesh and Choi fails to explicitly teach the perovskite film layer is deposited using multi-cathode sputtering deposition within a processing chamber comprising two or more targets, each target coupled to a respective cathode of two or more cathodes, and wherein the substrate is disposed on a substrate support. However, Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), in the analogous art of perovskites, teaches that perovskites may be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to pulsed laser deposition (para 0037). Additionally, Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), in the analogous art of perovskite deposition, teaches that layers with the formula ABO3 (perovskite) may be deposited by vacuum co-sputtering (multi-cathode sputtering) in the presence of a reactive plasma of argon and oxygen, wherein the composition of the layer is defined by the ratio of power applied to the targets (para 0081-0083, 0188, 0191). Ramesh teaches the perovskite layer may be deposited by pulsed laser deposition or other methods (para 0030, 0059). 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 substitute the pulsed laser deposition method of Ramesh with a multi-cathode sputtering operation, as described by Schloss and Mercs, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches co-sputtering multiple targets in a process chamber 100 comprising a plurality of cathodes 102 (two or more cathodes) each having a respective target 114 (two or more targets each coupled to a respective cathode) for performing co-sputtering on a substrate 108 disposed on a substrate support (para 0018-0021, 0029; Fig. 1). Because Subramani teaches that such process chambers were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the co-sputtering of Mercs in a processing chamber having a plurality of targets and cathodes and a substrate support for holding the substrate, as described by Subramani, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, and Subramani fails to explicitly teach the heating and degassing are performed in the processing chamber comprising two or more targets. However, Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches that a preheating/degas process and sputtering process may be performed in a same PVD chamber instead of in a separate chamber to reduce apparatus volume and cost (Abstract, para 0003-0007). 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 perform the heating and degassing of the substrate, as taught by Choi, within the PVD chamber and on the substrate support of Subramani in order to reduce apparatus volume and cost.
The combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, and Zhang teaches that the working pressure for depositing a thermoregulated layer that is a perovskite is preferably between 0.1 and 0.5 Pa, or 0.75 to 3.75 mTorr (0.1 to 5 mTorr) (Mercs para 0081-0083, 0195). Alternatively, or in addition, Mercs teaches that the morphology, density, and structure of the perovskite layer depends on the working pressure (para 0194), thus recognizing the total/working pressure of sputtering as a result-effective variable influencing the film properties. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of total pressure during multi-cathode sputtering by routine optimization, which can include a pressure of 0.1 to 5 mTorr. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Ramesh teaches the perovskite layer is annealed with other films on the substrate and then X-ray diffraction is performed on the annealed/crystallized layers with an underlying substrate to form a bottom electrode (Ramesh para 0028, 0030-0031, 0043), thus indicating that the substrate is also annealed with the perovskite layer. Alternatively, Perino (US 5426075 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a memory element including perovskite layers (col 1 line 6-33), wherein the deposited layers 60 are annealed along with the substrate 50 (col 11 line 31-50; Fig. 8A-8B). Because Perino teaches that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the film annealing of Ramesh with the substrate with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, and Perino fails to explicitly teach applying a bias to the substrate support to create a potential difference between the substrate support and the two or more cathodes. However, Yu (US 20200044152 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches forming metal oxide layers by co-sputtering, wherein a substrate bias is applied to the substrate support 534 via a bias electrode 540 to promote more energetic ions during deposition and control the bonding characteristics of the film (Abstract, para 0018, 0028, 0041-0042, 0051; Fig. 5). Because Yu teaches that such bias methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a bias to the substrate during deposition, which necessarily creates a potential difference between the substrate support and the two or more cathodes, to further control the deposition process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu teaches the processing chamber includes a plurality of targets 114 and a shield 106 rotatable to selectively cover one or more of the plurality of cathodes/targets to prevent them from sputtering and expose two or more of the cathodes/targets through openings or holes 104 for performing the co-sputtering process (Subramani para 0018-0021, 0029; Fig. 1, 1A).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu teaches the shield exposes a first target and second target, corresponding to a first and second cathode, during co-sputtering (multi-cathode sputtering deposition) while remaining targets are covered by the shield (Subramani para 0018-0021, 0029; Fig. 1A). Additionally, Mercs teaches using targets made of different metal materials for co-sputtering a perovskite layer (para 0188, 0191).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Choi (US 20100328997 A1), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), Perino (US 5426075 A), and Yu (US 20200044152 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iliopoulos (US 20150219565 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu fails to explicitly teach measuring a thickness and one or more material properties of the perovskite film layer at an on-board metrology station. However, Iliopoulos (US 20150219565 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a metrology chamber 122 (on-board metrology station) in a substrate processing system 100 for measuring multiple properties of a film after deposition including film thickness, film content, film uniformity, sheet resistance, and film stress in order to identify problems with the deposition process and ensure consistent film quality (para 0022, 0026; Fig. 1A). The previous combination teaches a processing system with multiple chambers for different purposes (Choi para 0078; Fig. 10). 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 include a metrology chamber within the processing system to measure film thickness and other properties of the deposited perovskite film in order to improve the consistency and quality of the deposited films.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Choi (US 20100328997 A1), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), Perino (US 5426075 A), and Yu (US 20200044152 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu fails to explicitly teach the first material is one of strontium, ruthenium, lanthanum, or manganese and the second material is one of lanthanum, bismuth, or iron. However, Ramesh teaches that the SrRuO3 bottom electrode layer may be replaced with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (LSMO) perovskite layer (para 0060). Additionally, Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches lanthanum strontium manganite, which is the same as lanthanum strontium manganese oxide, perovskites may be deposited by reactive sputtering using separate targets of lanthanum, strontium, and manganese in oxygen (para 0012, 0019), thus resulting in one of the targets (first target) being made of strontium (first material is strontium) and one of the targets (second target) being made of lanthanum (second material is lanthanum). Furthermore, Subramani teaches that more than two targets may be exposed at once for co-sputtering (para 0021). 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 substitute the sputtering of SrRuO3 of Ramesh in view of Mercs with sputtering of LSMO (LaSrMnO3), as described by Nguyen, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu fails to explicitly teach one of the first target or the second target is coupled to an RF cathode and an RF matching network. However, Ramesh teaches that the SrRuO3 bottom electrode layer may be replaced with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (LSMO) perovskite layer (para 0060). Additionally, Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches lanthanum strontium manganite, which is the same as lanthanum strontium manganese oxide, perovskites may be deposited by reactive sputtering using separate targets of lanthanum, strontium, and manganese in oxygen, wherein deposition may be done with RF power (para 0012, 0019). 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 substitute the sputtering of SrRuO3 of Ramesh in view of Mercs with sputtering of LSMO (LaSrMnO3) with RF power, as described by Nguyen, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, Perino teaches two target sputtering with RF power supplies and associated matching networks (col 6 line 4-37). Because Perino teaches that such power supply networks were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an RF power supply and matching network coupled to each of the targets of Nguyen with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu fails to explicitly teach the first material and second material is one of strontium, ruthenium, lanthanum, manganese, bismuth, or iron. However, Ramesh teaches that the SrRuO3 bottom electrode layer may be replaced with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (LSMO) perovskite layer (para 0060). Additionally, Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches lanthanum strontium manganite, which is the same as lanthanum strontium manganese oxide, perovskites may be deposited by reactive sputtering using separate targets of lanthanum, strontium, and manganese in oxygen (para 0012, 0019), thus resulting in one of the targets (first target) being made of strontium (first material is strontium) and one of the targets (second target) being made of lanthanum (second material is lanthanum). Furthermore, Subramani teaches that more than two targets may be exposed at once for co-sputtering (para 0021). 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 substitute the sputtering of SrRuO3 of Ramesh in view of Mercs with sputtering of LSMO (LaSrMnO3), as described by Nguyen, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Choi (US 20100328997 A1), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), Perino (US 5426075 A), and Yu (US 20200044152 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu teaches a plurality of targets (first and second targets made of a first material and second material) (Mercs para 0188, 0191), wherein the shield exposes the first and second target during the multi-cathode sputtering operation (Subramani para 0018-0021, 0029). The previous combination fails to explicitly teach the first and second material are the same. However, Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches co-sputtering two or more targets of the same material (para 0062). Because Tsunekawa teaches that such sputtering arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the film of Ramesh using co-sputtering with at least two of the same target with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Claim(s) 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Choi (US 20100328997 A1), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Ouyang (US 20230183853 A1), Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), Perino (US 5426075 A), Yu (US 20200044152 A1), and Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) teaches depositing a strontium ruthenate (first perovskite) film 16 over a substrate 12 and depositing a SRO (second perovskite) top electrode layer 20 over the first perovskite layer (para 0027-0032, 0038, 0042; Fig. 1, 5). Alternatively, Ramesh teaches depositing a strontium ruthenate (first perovskite) film 16 over a substrate 12 and then depositing a bismuth ferrite (second perovskite) layer 18 before annealing the layers (para 0027-0030; Fig. 1).
Ramesh fails to explicitly teach heating and degassing a substrate. However, Choi (US 20100328997 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a phase change memory element including a perovskite layer that may be formed by deposition in a film formation chamber 1005 (processing chamber) after a step of degassing the substrate including heating the substrate to a predetermined temperature within a degassing chamber 1006 of a vacuum processing apparatus (processing system) (para 0082, 0086, 0088; Fig. 10). Ramesh also teaches forming a perovskite onto a substrate, wherein the structure may be used as a memory cell (para 0010).
Because Choi teaches that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a degassing and heating process on the substrate of Ramesh within a degassing chamber of a processing system before depositing the perovskite layer within a processing chamber with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh and Choi fails to explicitly teach the first and second perovskite film layers are deposited using multi-cathode sputtering deposition within a processing chamber comprising two or more targets, each target coupled to a respective cathode of two or more cathodes, and wherein the substrate is disposed on a substrate support. However, Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), in the analogous art of perovskites, teaches that perovskites may be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to pulsed laser deposition (para 0037). Additionally, Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), in the analogous art of perovskite deposition, teaches that layers with the formula ABO3 (perovskite) may be deposited by vacuum co-sputtering (multi-cathode sputtering) in the presence of a reactive plasma of argon and oxygen, wherein the composition of the layer is defined by the ratio of power applied to the targets (para 0081, 0188, 0191). Ramesh teaches the perovskite layer may be deposited by pulsed laser deposition or other methods (para 0030, 0059). 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 substitute the pulsed laser deposition method of Ramesh with a multi-cathode sputtering operation, as described by Schloss and Mercs, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, or in addition, in the case where the second perovskite layer is bismuth ferrite, Ouyang (US 20230183853 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering perovskites, teaches a bismuth ferrite film having improved ferroelectric (ferromagnetic) performance may be deposited by sputtering a bismuth ferrite ceramic target (para 0058, 0068). Furthermore, Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches co-sputtering two or more targets of the same material (para 0062). Because Ouyang and Tsunekawa teach that such sputtering arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the bismuth ferrite film of Ramesh using co-sputtering with at least two of the same bismuth ferrite target with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Furthermore, Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches co-sputtering multiple targets in a process chamber 100 comprising a plurality of cathodes 102 (two or more cathodes) each having a respective target 114 (two or more targets each coupled to a respective cathode) for performing co-sputtering on a substrate 108 disposed on a substrate support (para 0018-0021, 0029; Fig. 1). Because Subramani teaches that such process chambers were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the co-sputtering of Mercs in a processing chamber having a plurality of targets and cathodes and a substrate support for holding the substrate, as described by Subramani, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, and Subramani fails to explicitly teach the heating and degassing are performed in the processing chamber comprising two or more targets. However, Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), in the analogous art of film deposition, teaches that a preheating/degas process and sputtering process may be performed in a same PVD chamber instead of in a separate chamber to reduce apparatus volume and cost (Abstract, para 0003-0007). 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 perform the heating and degassing of the substrate, as taught by Choi, within the PVD chamber and on the substrate support of Subramani in order to reduce apparatus volume and cost.
The combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, and Zhang teaches that the working pressure for depositing a thermoregulated layer that is a perovskite is preferably between 0.1 and 0.5 Pa, or 0.75 to 3.75 mTorr (0.1 to 5 mTorr) (Mercs para 0081-0083, 0195). Therefore, because Mercs teaches that such deposition pressures were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the deposition of each of the perovskite layers of Ramesh in view of Schloss and Mercs at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.5 Pa with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)). Alternatively, or in addition, Mercs teaches that the morphology, density, and structure of the perovskite layer depends on the working pressure (para 0194), thus recognizing the total/working pressure of sputtering as a result-effective variable influencing the film properties. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of total pressure during each multi-cathode sputtering by routine optimization, which can include a pressure of 0.1 to 5 mTorr. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Alternatively, or in addition, in the case where the second perovskite layer is bismuth ferrite, Ouyang teaches that the bismuth ferrite film may be sputtered at a pressure of 0.3 to 2 Pa (2.25 to 15 mTorr) (para 0032). Because Ouyang teaches that such deposition pressures were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the deposition of the BFO second perovskite layer of Ramesh at a pressure of 0.3 to 2 Pa with a reasonable expectation of success. Though Ouyang fails to explicitly teach a pressure of 0.1 to 5 mTorr, one would have expected the use of any value within the Ouyang range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.3 to 2 Pa (2.25 to 15 mTorr), including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach annealing the substrate with the first perovskite film layer and second perovskite film layer disposed thereon. However, Ramesh teaches annealing after depositing electrode layers (para 0030-0031), wherein the electrode structure may be used in a memory cell (para 0010, 0035-0038). Additionally, Perino (US 5426075 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a memory element including perovskite layers (col 1 line 6-33), wherein the deposited layers 60 are annealed along with the substrate 50 after all layers are deposited (col 11 line 31-50; Fig. 8A-8B). Because Perino teaches that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the film annealing of Ramesh with the substrate after all layers have been deposited with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, and Perino fails to explicitly teach applying a bias to the substrate support to create a potential difference between the substrate support and the two or more cathodes during each deposition step. However, Yu (US 20200044152 A1), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches forming metal oxide layers by co-sputtering, wherein a substrate bias is applied to the substrate support 534 via a bias electrode 540 to promote more energetic ions during deposition and control the bonding characteristics of the film (Abstract, para 0018, 0028, 0041-0042, 0051; Fig. 5). Because Yu teaches that such bias methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a bias to the substrate during each deposition step, which necessarily creates a potential difference between the substrate support and the two or more cathodes, to further control the deposition process with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, and Yu teaches a plurality of targets (two or more targets include first and second targets made of a first material and second material) (Mercs para 0188, 0191), wherein the shield exposes the first and second target corresponding to first and second cathodes during the multi-cathode sputtering operation (Subramani para 0018-0021, 0029). The previous combination fails to explicitly teach the second material is different from the first material and the first material is one of strontium, ruthenium, lanthanum, or manganese and the second material is one of lanthanum, bismuth, or iron. However, Ramesh teaches that the SrRuO3 bottom electrode layer may be replaced with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (LSMO) perovskite layer (para 0060). Additionally, Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches lanthanum strontium manganite, which is the same as lanthanum strontium manganese oxide, perovskites may be deposited by reactive sputtering using separate targets of lanthanum, strontium, and manganese in oxygen (para 0012, 0019), thus resulting in one of the targets (first target) being made of strontium (first material is strontium) and one of the targets (second target) being made of lanthanum (second material is lanthanum and where the second material is different from the first material). Furthermore, Subramani teaches that more than two targets may be exposed at once for co-sputtering (para 0021). 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 substitute the sputtering of SrRuO3 of Ramesh in view of Mercs with sputtering of LSMO (LaSrMnO3), as described by Nguyen, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen teaches the second perovskite material 18 is bismuth ferrite and the first perovskite material 16 is lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (Ramesh para 0060; Nguyen para 0012, 0019) and therefore the first and second perovskite materials are different.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen teaches the first perovskite material may be lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (Ramesh para 0060; Nguyen para 0012, 0019) but fails to explicitly teach the second perovskite material is lanthanum bismuth iron oxide. However, Ramesh teaches the second perovskite material is bismuth ferrite, or bismuth iron oxide (para 0029), and that the perovskite bismuth ferrite may be substituted with lanthanum to improve polarization characteristics and ferroelectric performance (para 0013, 0026, 0034, 0047; Fig. 9), thus forming lanthanum bismuth iron oxide. 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 substitute the bismuth ferrite electrode layer with a lanthanum-doped bismuth ferrite electrode layer because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 13, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen teaches the electrode layer 16 (first perovskite film layer) is made of SRO (first perovskite material) and the top electrode 20 (second perovskite film layer) is also made of SRO (second perovskite material), where the electrode layers may be substituted with lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (Ramesh para 0028-0032, 0037-0038, 0042, 0060). 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 substitute the SRO top electrode (second perovskite film layer) with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide electrode, along with the LSMO bottom electrode as described above, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Therefore, the first and second perovskite materials are both the same.
Regarding claim 14, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen teaches depositing a third/top electrode layer 20 of SRO (third perovskite film comprising a third perovskite material) over the BFO film 18 (second perovskite layer) (Ramesh para 0032, 0038, 0042; Fig. 1, 5). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the third perovskite film is deposited by multi-cathode sputtering deposition. However, Mercs describes depositing perovskite films by co-sputtering from multiple targets (multi-cathode sputtering) (para 0188, 0191). Because Mercs teaches that such perovskite deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the SRO third electrode layer of Ramesh by multi-cathode sputtering with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen teaches the SrRuO3 bottom electrode layer (first perovskite material) is replaced with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (LSMO) perovskite layer (Ramesh para 0060), resulting in a first layer of LSMO (first perovskite material), second layer of BFO (second perovskite material), and a third layer of SRO (third perovskite material different from both the first perovskite material and the second perovskite material).
Regarding claim 16, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen teaches the first perovskite material is SRO, or strontium ruthenium oxide, and the third perovskite material is also SRO, where the electrode layers may be substituted with lanthanum strontium manganese oxide (Ramesh para 0028-0032, 0037-0038, 0042, 0060). 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 substitute the SRO top electrode (second perovskite film layer) with a lanthanum strontium manganese oxide electrode, along with the LSMO bottom electrode as described above, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). Therefore, the third perovskite material is the same as the first perovskite material.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Choi (US 20100328997 A1), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Ouyang (US 20230183853 A1), Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), Zhang (US 20180247799 A1), Perino (US 5426075 A), Yu (US 20200044152 A1), and Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Iliopoulos (US 20150219565 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of Ramesh, Choi, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, Zhang, Perino, Yu, and Nguyen fails to explicitly teach measuring a thickness and one or more material properties of the first and second perovskite film layers at an on-board metrology station within the processing system. However, Iliopoulos (US 20150219565 A1), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a metrology chamber 122 (on-board metrology station) in a substrate processing system 100 for measuring multiple properties of a film after deposition including film thickness, film content, film uniformity, sheet resistance, and film stress in order to identify problems with the deposition process and ensure consistent film quality (para 0022, 0026; Fig. 1A). The previous combination teaches a processing system with multiple chambers for different purposes (Choi para 0078; Fig. 10). 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 include a metrology chamber within the processing system to measure film thickness and other properties of the deposited perovskite film in order to improve the consistency and quality of the deposited films.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) in view of Perino (US 5426075 A), Jiang (US 5773314 A), Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), Ouyang (US 20230183853 A1), Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1), Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), and Yu (US 20200044152 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ramesh (US 20070029593 A1) teaches depositing a titanium layer 84 (seed layer) to provide bonding onto a substrate 12 of a memory cell, depositing a strontium ruthenate (first perovskite) layer 16 over the seed layer, depositing a bismuth ferrite (second perovskite) layer 18 over the first perovskite layer, and depositing a SRO (third perovskite) top electrode layer 20 over the second perovskite layer (Abstract, para 0035, 0037-0038, 0042; Fig. 5). Ramesh also teaches etching the first SRO layer to form a bottom electrode (para 0037) and etching the structure formed after depositing the top SRO layer to form a ferroelectric capacitor stack having a BFO capacitor (capacitor dielectric layer) and top electrode (para 0038-0039).
Ramesh fails to explicitly teach annealing the substrate and all three perovskite film layers. However, Ramesh teaches annealing the films after deposition of electrode layers (para 0030-0031) wherein the electrode structure may be used in a memory cell (para 0010, 0035-0038). Additionally, Perino (US 5426075 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a memory element including perovskite layers (col 1 line 6-33), wherein the deposited layers 60 are annealed along with the substrate 50 (col 11 line 31-50; Fig. 8A-8B). Because Perino teaches that such methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform annealing of the substrate and electrode layers after all layers have been deposited with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh and Perino fails to explicitly teach lithographing and etching the second perovskite film layer and the third perovskite film layer to form a top electrode and capacitor dielectric layer and lithographing and etching the first perovskite film layer to form a bottom electrode. However, Jiang (US 5773314 A), in the analogous art of substrate processing, teaches a method of forming a memory structure having a bottom capacitor electrode, capacitor dielectric, which may be a bismuth layered perovskite, and top electrode, wherein the layers are all lithographically patterned and etched in a single lithographic and etching step (Abstract, col 6 line 28-67, col 7 line 1-26). Ramesh also teaches etching the first SRO layer to form a bottom electrode and etching the structure formed after depositing the top SRO layer to form a ferroelectric capacitor stack having a top electrode or SRO, wherein the bottom SRO layer serves as one of the capacitor plates of a BFO capacitor, thus indicating that BFO is a capacitor dielectric (para 0028, 0037-0039).
Because Jiang teaches that such etching methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the memory/capacitor structure of Ramesh by using lithography combined with etching to shape/pattern the first SRO layer (bottom electrode), BFO layer (capacitor dielectric), and second SRO layer (top electrode) with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
The combination of Ramesh, Perino, and Jiang fails to explicitly teach depositing the first, second, and third perovskite film layers by multi-cathode sputtering at a pressure of about 0.1 mTorr to about 5 mTorr. However, Schloss (US 20090225582 A1), in the analogous art of perovskites, teaches that perovskites may be deposited by sputtering as an alternative to pulsed laser deposition (para 0037). Additionally, Mercs (US 20200011572 A1), in the analogous art of perovskite deposition, teaches that layers with the formula ABO3 (perovskite) may be deposited by vacuum co-sputtering (multi-cathode sputtering) in the presence of a reactive plasma of argon and oxygen, wherein the composition of the layer is defined by the ratio of power applied to the targets (para 0081, 0188, 0191). Ramesh teaches the perovskite layer may be deposited by pulsed laser deposition (para 0030). 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 substitute the pulsed laser deposition method of Ramesh with a multi-cathode sputtering operation, as described by Schloss and Mercs, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Alternatively, or in addition, Ouyang (US 20230183853 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering perovskites, teaches a bismuth ferrite film having improved ferroelectric (ferromagnetic) performance may be deposited by sputtering a bismuth ferrite ceramic target (para 0058, 0068). Furthermore, Tsunekawa (US 20130277207 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches co-sputtering two or more targets of the same material (para 0062). Because Ouyang and Tsunekawa teach that such sputtering arrangements were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to deposit the bismuth ferrite film of Ramesh using co-sputtering with at least two of the same bismuth ferrite target with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Additionally, Mercs teaches that the working pressure for depositing a thermoregulated layer that is a perovskite is preferably between 0.1 and 0.5 Pa, or 0.75 to 3.75 mTorr (0.1 to 5 mTorr) (para 0081-0083, 0195). Therefore, because Mercs teaches that such deposition pressures were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the deposition of each of the perovskite layers of Ramesh in view of Schloss and Mercs at a pressure of 0.1 to 0.5 Pa with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)). Alternatively, or in addition, Mercs teaches that the morphology, density, and structure of the perovskite layer depends on the working pressure (para 0194), thus recognizing the total/working pressure of sputtering as a result-effective variable influencing the film properties. 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 determine the optimum or workable ranges of total pressure during each multi-cathode sputtering by routine optimization, which can include a pressure of 0.1 to 5 mTorr. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Alternatively, or in addition, Ouyang teaches that the bismuth ferrite film may be sputtered at a pressure of 0.3 to 2 Pa (2.25 to 15 mTorr) (para 0032). Because Ouyang teaches that such deposition pressures were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the deposition of the BFO second perovskite layer of Ramesh at a pressure of 0.3 to 2 Pa with a reasonable expectation of success. Though Ouyang fails to explicitly teach a pressure of 0.1 to 5 mTorr, one would have expected the use of any value within the Ouyang range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 0.3 to 2 Pa (2.25 to 15 mTorr), including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
The combination of Ramesh, Perino, Jiang, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, and Tsunekawa fails to explicitly teach the layers are deposited in a processing chamber having a substrate support that the substrate is disposed upon and comprising two or more targets, each target coupled to a respective cathode of two or more cathodes, and wherein each layer is deposited while applying a bias to the substrate support to create a potential difference between the substrate support and a first, second, and third cathode. However, Subramani (US 20170053784 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches co-sputtering multiple targets in a process chamber 100 comprising a plurality of cathodes 102 (two or more cathodes) each having a respective target 114 (two or more targets each coupled to a respective cathode) for performing co-sputtering on a substrate 108 disposed on a substrate support, wherein five or more targets may be included (first, second, and third targets) (para 0018-0021, 0029; Fig. 1, 1A). Additionally, Yu (US 20200044152 A1), in the analogous art of sputtering oxides, teaches a chamber including a plurality of cathodes and targets for co-sputtering, wherein a seed layer may be deposited before depositing a first metal oxide layer, depositing a second metal oxide layer, and depositing a third metal oxide layer, wherein each layer may be deposited in the same chamber, wherein a substrate bias may be applied to the substrate during deposition via a bias electrode to promote more energetic ions during deposition and control the bonding characteristics of the film, and wherein four or more targets (first, second, and third targets) may be included in the chamber (para 0018, 0028, 0034-0042, 0048-0049, 0051). Because Subramani and Yu teach that such process chambers and deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the deposition of the seed layer and multi-cathode sputtering of the three perovskite layers of Ramesh in view of Mercs in a single processing chamber having a plurality of targets and cathodes and a substrate support for holding the substrate while applying a bias to the substrate support during each deposition, as described by Subramani and Yu, with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)). Because a bias is applied to the substrate support in the chamber containing a first, second, and third target corresponding to a first, second, and third cathode, a potential difference is necessarily created between the substrate support and the first, second, and third cathode during each deposition.
Regarding claim 18, the previous combination of Ramesh, Perino, Jiang, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, and Yu teaches the first perovskite film layer 16 and the third perovskite film layer 20 each comprise strontium ruthenium oxide (SRO) (Ramesh para 0037-0038, 0042; Fig. 5). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach that the second perovskite film layer comprises lanthanum bismuth iron oxide. However, Ramesh teaches the second perovskite film layer 18 is bismuth ferrite, or bismuth iron oxide (para 0029, 0038, 0042; Fig. 5), and that the perovskite bismuth ferrite may be substituted with lanthanum to improve polarization characteristics and ferroelectric performance (para 0013, 0026, 0034, 0047; Fig. 9), thus forming lanthanum bismuth iron oxide. 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 substitute the bismuth iron oxide electrode layer with a lanthanum bismuth iron oxide electrode layer because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, the previous combination of Ramesh, Perino, Jiang, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, and Yu teaches the first and third perovskite layers, which are both the same SRO material, are deposited by co-sputtering from a first and second target (Ramesh para 0037-0038, 0042; Mercs para 0081, 0188, 0191). Additionally, because the first and third perovskite layers of Ramesh are both SRO (Ramesh para 0037-0038, 0042), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same targets for depositing both the first and third perovskite layers in order to reduce operating costs.
Regarding claim 20, the previous combination of Ramesh, Perino, Jiang, Schloss, Mercs, Ouyang, Tsunekawa, Subramani, and Yu teaches the first and second target are made of materials “A” and “B” of the perovskite structure “ABO3” (Mercs para 0188, 0191) and 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 form the SRO (SrRuO3) layers of Ramesh using an Sr (“A”) target (first target is strontium) and an Ru (“B”) target (second target is ruthenium).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of references fails to teach the method of fabricating a memory cell of independent claim 1. This argument is not persuasive because Ramesh teaches the perovskite film layers are used in a memory cell and the secondary references teach that similar layers may be deposited by multi-cathode sputtering while applying bias and at the claimed pressure. It should be noted that the fact that the perovskite layers of Mercs are not used for memory cells is not sufficient to render the claims non-obvious because Ramesh teaches a memory cell perovskite film and Mercs in combination with Schloss indicates that multi-cathode sputtering at a specific pressure in combination with annealing may be used to deposit the same material used in the memory cell of Ramesh.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 9 that the combination fails to teach the claimed target materials is persuasive; however, this deficiency is overcome in view of Nguyen (US 20100129693 A1), which was previously cited in the rejection of claims 5-7. Nguyen teaches that co-sputtering a LSMO material using targets of the individual components separately (i.e., a lanthanum target, a strontium target, and a manganese target).
Applicant argues the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 17 fails to teach lithographing and etching the second perovskite film layer to form a capacitor dielectric layer of the memory cell, lithographing and etching the third perovskite layer to form a top electrode, and lithographing the first perovskite film layer for form a bottom electrode. This argument is not persuasive because Jiang teaches lithographing and etching the layers to form a bottom electrode, capacitor dielectric, and top electrode.
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights