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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated March 3, 2026, in which claims 1, 11, and 21 were amended, claim 12 was cancelled, and claim 28 was added, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) [Hereafter “Huang”].
Regarding claim 1, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses a device, comprising:
a first dielectric layer [156];
a second dielectric layer [170] disposed over the first dielectric layer, wherein the second dielectric layer and the first dielectric layer have different material compositions [Paras.22,26];
a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure [160] embedded in the second dielectric layer [170], wherein a bottommost surface of the MIM structure [162] is separated from the first dielectric layer [156] by a portion of the second dielectric layer [158]; and
a third dielectric layer [186] disposed over the second dielectric layer, wherein the third dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer have different material compositions [Para.33].
Regarding claims 2-3, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses a device
wherein: the first dielectric layer [156] or the third dielectric layer [186] contains silicon nitride (SiN) [Paras.22,33]; and
the second dielectric layer [170 (158/167)] contains silicon oxide (SiO2) [Paras.22,26];
wherein: the MIM structure [160] includes a plurality of metal-containing layers [162,166,169] and a plurality of insulator layers [164,168]; and
each of the insulator layers is sandwiched between two respective metal-containing layers [160, Fig.2L].
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) 5-8, 21-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2020/0105862).
Regarding claim 5, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses a conductive structure [175-177] that extends vertically through the first dielectric layer [156] and the second dielectric layer [170], but fails to explicitly disclose the conductive structure that extends vertically through the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer, and the third dielectric layer. However, Wu [Fig.1] discloses a device comprising conductive structure [93/94/1299] that extends vertically through the first dielectric layer [123], the second dielectric layer [124-125], and the third dielectric layer [1287]. It would have been obvious to provide the conductive structure as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 6-8, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses a device,
wherein the conductive structure [175-177] extends vertically through the MIM structure [260];
wherein the conductive structure contains copper but not aluminum [Para.44];
further comprising:
a fourth dielectric layer [150] disposed below the first dielectric layer [156]; and
a metal component [153-155] embedded in the fourth dielectric layer, wherein the conductive structure [175-177] is disposed on, and electrically coupled to, the metal component.
Regarding claim 21, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses a device, comprising:
a first layer [156];
a second layer [170] disposed over the first layer, wherein the second layer and the first layer have different material compositions [Paras.22,26];
a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure [160] embedded in the second layer [170], wherein the MIM structure includes a plurality of metal-containing layers [162,166,169] and a plurality of insulator layers [164,168], and at least one of the insulator layers is sandwiched between two different ones of the metal-containing layers;
a third layer [186] disposed over the second layer, wherein the third layer and the second layer have different material compositions [Para.33]; and
a conductive structure [175-177] that extends vertically through the first layer, the second layer, and the MIM structure.
Huang fails to explicitly disclose the conductive structure that extends vertically through the first layer, the second layer, the MIM structure, and the third layer, wherein an uppermost surface of the conductive structure has a higher vertical elevation than an uppermost surface of the third layer.
However, Wu [Fig.1] discloses a device comprising a conductive structure [93/94/1299] that extends vertically through the first layer [123], the second layer [124-125], the MIM structure, and the third layer [1287], wherein an uppermost surface [1299] of the conductive structure has a higher vertical elevation than an uppermost surface of the third layer [1287].
It would have been obvious to provide the conductive structure as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 22 and 24-25, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses a device
wherein:
the first layer or the third layer [156/186] contains silicon nitride (SiN); and
the second layer [170] contains silicon oxide (SiO2) [Paras.22,26,33];
wherein the conductive structure contains copper but not aluminum [Para.44];
further comprising:
a fourth layer [150] disposed below the first layer [156]; and
a metal component [153-155] located in the fourth layer, wherein the conductive structure [175-177] is electrically coupled to the metal component.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0305078) [Hereafter “Wu ’078”].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2020/0105862), as applied above and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0305078) [Hereafter “Wu ’078”].
Regarding claims 4 and 23, Huang [Para.25] discloses wherein the insulator layers include aluminum oxide and zirconium oxide, but fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein:
each of the metal-containing layers includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer; and
each of the insulator layers includes a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer;
at least one of the metal-containing layers includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer; and
at least one of the insulator layers includes a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer.
However, Wu ’078 [Fig.1J] discloses and makes obvious a device/structure wherein
each of the metal-containing layers [19,25,30] includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer [Para.16]; and
each of the insulator layers [24,29] includes a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer [Paras.23,43];
at least one of the metal-containing layers includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer; and
at least one of the insulator layers includes a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer.
Wu ’078 [Para.23] discloses and makes obvious the insulator layers may comprise various high-k dielectric materials including hafnium oxide, aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and hafnium zirconium oxide. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the metal-containing layers include a titanium nitride (TiN) layer; and the insulator layers include a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 9 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2020/0105862), as applied above and further in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141).
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Huang fails to explicitly disclose the device further comprising a fifth dielectric layer disposed between the first dielectric layer and the fourth dielectric layer, wherein the fifth dielectric layer and the first dielectric layer have different material compositions. However, Wu ’141 [Fig.12] discloses a device further comprising a fifth dielectric layer [215] disposed between the first dielectric layer [214] and the fourth dielectric layer [114], wherein the fifth dielectric layer [215] and the first dielectric layer [214] have different material compositions [Paras.24-26]. It would have been obvious to provide the fifth dielectric layer as claimed for the protection of the underlying metallization layer [Wu ’141; Para.25]. It has also been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2020/0105862), as applied above and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0013269) [Hereafter “Zhang”].
Regarding claim 28, Huang and Wu fail to explicitly disclose wherein the conductive structure extends vertically through at least three metal-containing layers of the MIM structure. However, Zhang [Fig.8] discloses a device wherein the conductive structure [62] extends vertically through at least three metal-containing layers [22,26,30,72] of the MIM structure [32]. It would have been obvious to provide the conductive structure as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s amendments to the claims and/or arguments were persuasive. Reasons for allowance were also provided in the previous Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 10 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
wherein:
the first dielectric layer contains silicon nitride (SiN);
the fifth dielectric layer contains silicon carbon nitride (SiCN); and
the conductive structure extends vertically through the fifth dielectric layer;
wherein:
the first layer contains silicon nitride (SiN);
the fifth layer contains silicon carbon nitride (SiCN); and
the conductive structure extends vertically through the fifth layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejected claims stand rejected and the Action is made Final.
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 BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898