DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 1/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected apparatus and method of forming a precursor container for use in the apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/22/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9: Claim 9 recites the chemical formula: M(RCp)x(L)y and defines M, R, & L but never defines x or y which renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
For the purpose of examination, x and y are being interpreted to include at least x=0-3 and y=0-3.
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.
Claims 1-5 & 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Clark (US PG Pub 2008/0233288; hereafter ‘288).
Claim 1: ‘288 is directed towards a method of processing a substrate (title), the method comprising:
providing a substrate to a processing chamber (abstract);
executing a plurality of deposition cycles (an ALD process is performed, abstract), wherein a deposition cycle comprises a hafnium precursor pulse, a zirconium precursor pulse, an oxygen reactant pulse, and a first dopant pule (see abstract),
wherein the hafnium precursor pulse comprises exposing the substrate to a hafnium precursor (abstract);
wherein the zirconium precursor pulse comprises exposing the substrate to a zirconium precursor (abstract);
wherein the oxygen reactant pulse comprises exposing the substrate to an oxygen reactant (abstract);
wherein the first dopant pulse comprises exposing the substrate to a first dopant precursor (abstract), the first dopant precursor comprising a first dopant element (abstract);
thereby forming a doped hafnium zirconium oxide layer on the substrate (title & abstract); and
wherein the first dopant precursor is carried out after one of the hafnium precursor pulse and the zirconium precursor pulse without any intervening oxygen reactant pulse (the hafnium and zirconium precursor pulses may be pulsed together and then an oxygen reactant pulse, abstract & ¶s 8-10).
Claim 2: The deposition cycle further comprises a second dopant pulse that comprises exposing the substrate to a second dopant precursor (¶ 128), the second dopant precursor comprises a second dopant element, the second dopant element being different from the first dopant element (¶ 128).
Claim 3: The first or the second dopant comprises cerium (abstract & ¶ 35).
Claim 4: The first dopant element comprises lanthanum (abstract & ¶ 35).
Claim 5: The first dopant element is cerium (abstract & ¶ 35).
Claim 8: The second dopant can be cerium (abstract & ¶ 35).
Claim 9: The first or second dopant can be Cp3Y (¶s 35 & 39).
Claim 10: The dopant can be In and thus the ALD process will form multiple layers of hafnium zirconium oxide doped with indium and therefore each layer will comprise indium oxide (see abstract & ¶ 67)
‘288 teaches that the total layer thickness is at least 5 Å and each layer is about 1 Å (see ¶s 97-98).
Thus, it is apparent that at least 5 layers are formed wherein the first layer can be termed the surface layer which comprises indium oxide and thus ‘288 anticipates claim 10.
Claim 11: The dopant can be In and thus the ALD process will form multiple layers of hafnium zirconium oxide doped with indium and therefore each layer will comprise indium oxide (see abstract & ¶ 67)
‘288 teaches that the total layer thickness is at least 5 Å and each layer is about 1 Å (see ¶s 97-98).
Thus, it is apparent that at least 5 layers are formed wherein the first layer can be termed the surface layer which comprises indium oxide and thus ‘288 anticipates claim 11.
Claim 12: As noted above, ‘288 teaches at least 5 layers of hafnium zirconium oxide doped with indium and thus the top layer can be termed the top conductive oxide comprising layer which comprises the first dopant element.
Claim 13: The surface layer and the top conductive oxide have a substantially identical composition.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 & 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘288 as applied above, and further in view of Liao et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0331113; hereafter ‘113).
Claim 6: ‘288 teaches that the dopant can be In (¶ 67).
‘288 does not teach that the dopant is Ru.
However, ‘113, which is directed towards doped hafnium zirconium oxides (¶ 13) teaches that In and Ru are art recognized alternatives (¶ 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Ru for In because they are art recognized alternative dopants and would have predictably provided the desired results.
Claim 14: As discussed above, ‘288 teaches forming a surface layer and a top layer comprising a conductive oxide (indium oxide).
‘288 does not teach that Ru is the dopant.
However, ‘113, which is directed towards doped hafnium zirconium oxides (¶ 13) teaches that In and Ru are art recognized alternatives (¶ 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Ru for In because they are art recognized alternative dopants and would have predictably provided the desired results.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘288 as applied above, and further in view of More et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0408229; hereafter ‘229).
Claim 7: ‘288 teaches that the dopant can be Al or La (abstract).
‘288 does not teach that the dopant is W or Mo.
However, ‘345, which is directed towards doped hafnium zirconium oxides dielectric layers teaches that W, Mo, Al, and La are art recognized alternatives dopants for HZO dielectric layers (¶ 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute W or Mo for Al or La because they are art recognized alternative dopants and would have predictably provided the desired results.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘288.
Claim 15: ‘288 teaches that the layers can be annealed (¶ 23).
‘288 does not provide any specific order of when annealing occurs.
However, any order of process steps is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C).
Claims 16: ‘288 does not teach that the annealing and deposition is carried out in a first processing chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the deposition and annealing in the same chamber because it would have reduced the complexity of the process and it is prima facie obvious to reduce the number of components in a system. See §2144.04(II)(B).
Claim 17: ‘288 does not teach that the step of forming the top electrode is carried out in a second processing chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to use multiple processing chambers because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(D).
Claim 18: ‘288 does not teach the claimed number of chambers.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use multiple chambers for each individual layer because duplication of parts is prima facie obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(D).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, & 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-29 of copending Application No. 18/898409 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are permutations and combinations of each other.
Claim 1: See claims 1 & 3 of copending.
Claim 2: See claim 1, the dopant can comprise more than one dopant.
Claims 10-13: See claims 1 & 7, the dopant can be Ga and thus three layers comprising GaO.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, & 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-29 of copending Application No. 19/251984 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are permutations and combinations of each other.
Claim 1: See claims 1 & 2 of copending.
Claim 2: See claim 1, the dopant can comprise more than one dopant.
Claims 10-13: See claims 1 & 7, the dopant can be Ga and thus three layers comprising GaO.
Claims 15-18: See claim 3 and as discussed above, it is prima facie to duplicate parts and use multiple chambers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759