DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/232686, attorney docket AD9667-US, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to GlobalFoundries Singapore Pte. Ltd., and has an effective filing date of 8/11/2023 based on application filing date. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for the metals listed in paragraph, does not reasonably provide enablement for all metals that lack nitrogen as required by claim 5 or a second metal has a stronger affinity to bond with oxygen than the first metal.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains (a semiconductor device design engineer), or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The specification provides several examples of compatible metals, but does not provide a comprehensive list of metal that exist or alloys that may be invented in the future, or an explanation of how all metals will work with the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The metal is required to be embedded in claim 1 and embedded is the same limitation as “inside” in claim 7 without more explanation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 102a2 as being anticipated by Trinh et al. (U.S. 2018/0301626).
As for claim 1 and claim 20
Trinh teaches in figure 3 a structure for a random-access resistive memory device [0001] and in figures 1 and3, the method of claim 20, comprising:
a resistive memory element including a first electrode (28E), a second electrode,(26) and a switching layer (36) between the first electrode and the second electrode,
the first electrode including a first metal feature (28) and a second metal feature (20)0 inside the first metal feature,
the first metal feature comprising a first metal, the second metal feature comprising a second metal with a different composition than the first metal ([0016-0017]),
the first metal feature adjoining a first portion of the switching layer,
and the second metal feature adjoining a second portion of the switching layer. (both top surfaces contact the switching layer).
As for claim 2,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 wherein the first metal comprises tantalum nitride, and the second metal comprises titanium. (Trinh lists in table 1, metals for the outer and inner layer, stipulating that the inner layer has a higher work function, higher conductivity or higher nitrogen concentration than the inner layer and lists TaN and TiN as candidates for the the outer layer and inner layer respectively. Examiner notes that the paragraph [0017] refers to the deposited layers 16 and 18 of the intermediate product illustrated in figure 2B that become the outer (28) and inner metal layer (20) of the final product. Paragraph [0017] creates a genus of functional equivalent materials, and table 1 lists a non-exclusive list of examples.)
As for claim 7,
Thinh teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3 the second metal feature is embedded in the first metal feature.
As for claim 8,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 7 and teaches in figure 3 that the second metal feature is centered in the first metal feature.
As for claim 9.
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 7 and teaches in figure 3 that the second metal feature extends partially through the first metal feature.
As for claim 10,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3 that the first metal feature includes a first portion having a first width that increases with decreasing distance from the switching layer, and the second metal feature has a second width that is less than the first width.
As for claim 11,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 10 and teaches in figure 3 that the first metal feature includes a second portion that is coterminous with the switching layer.
As for claim 12,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 11 and teaches in figure 3 that the second portion of the first metal feature has a top surface, and the second metal feature has a top surface that is coplanar with the top surface of the first metal feature.
As for claim 16,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3, the first metal feature has a top surface, and the second metal feature has a top surface that is coplanar with the top surface of the first metal feature.
As for claim 17,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 16 and teaches in figure 3, the top surface of the first metal feature adjoins the first portion of the switching layer, and the top surface of the second metal feature adjoins the second portion of the switching layer.
As for claim 18,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 17 and teaches in figure 3, the top surface of the first metal feature borders the top surface of the second metal feature.
As for claim 19,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3 the second metal feature has a top surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface, the top surface adjoins the switching layer, the side surface adjoins the first metal feature, and the bottom surface adjoins the first metal feature.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinh.
As for claim 3,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches that the first metal comprises tantalum nitride, but does not teach that the second metal feature comprises zirconium.
However, Zirconium has a lower nitrogen, higher work function and higher conductivity than TaN, so would be comprehended in Thinh as a functional equivalent to the list of table 1 for metals that will work as an inner metal. (Trinh [0017]). It would be obvious to substitute functional equivalent metals as one of ordinary skill in the art would know to try functional equivalents. See MPEP §803.02.
As for claim 4,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches that the first metal comprises tantalum nitride ,but does not teach that the second metal comprises hafnium.
However, Hafnium has a lower nitrogen, higher work function and higher conductivity than TaN, so would be comprehended in Thinh as a functional equivalent to the list of table 1 for metals that will work as an inner metal. (Trinh [0017]). It would be obvious to substitute functional equivalent metals as one of ordinary skill in the art would know to try functional equivalents. See MPEP §803.02.
As for claim 5,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 wherein the first metal comprises tantalum nitride, but does not teach that the second metal comprises tantalum and lacks nitrogen.
However, tantalum without nitrogen has a lower nitrogen, higher work function and higher conductivity than TaN, so would be comprehended in Thinh as a functional equivalent to the list of table 1 for metals that will work as an inner metal. (Trinh [0017]). It would be obvious to substitute functional equivalent metals as one of ordinary skill in the art would know to try functional equivalents. See MPEP §803.02.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinh in view of Teng et al. (U.S. 2020/0006653).
As for claim 13,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 10 and teaches in figure 3 the first portion of the first metal feature is a first via (it acts as a via to the lower metal, 121), and
a second via, (121) wherein the first via is disposed over the second via.
Trinh does not teach that the second via comprises the first metal.
However, Tseng teaches in figure 3 using TaN for a lower via (202) .
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use TaN as the lower via material because it reduces the complexity of manufacture by limiting the number of deposition metals. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 14,
Trinh in view of Tseng makes obvious the structure of claim 13 and in the combination, Trinh teaches that a portion of the first via is disposed between the second metal feature and the second via.(fig. 3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinh in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2016/0035975).
As for claim 15,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 but does not teach a field-effect transistor including a drain coupled to the first electrode.
However, Chen teaches a field-effect transistor (333) including a drain (339) coupled to the first electrode (307d).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application connect the memory storage cell to a transistor to create a functional memory cell. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893