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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 10, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated June 10, 2026, in which claims 1, 9-10, 21, and 26-27 were amended, has been entered.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) [Hereafter “Huang”] in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0013269) [Hereafter “Zhang”]
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 the MIM structure includes a plurality of metal-containing layers [162,166,169] and a plurality of insulator layers [164,168], 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].
Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second dielectric layer extends to a side surface of at least a bottommost one of the metal-containing layers or a side surface of at least one of the insulator layers. However, Zhang [Fig.8] discloses a device wherein the second dielectric layer [36] extends to a side surface of at least a bottommost one of the metal-containing layers [22,26,30] or a side surface of at least one of the insulator layers [24,28].
It would have been obvious to provide the second dielectric layer extending to a side surface of the MIM 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 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(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0013269), as applied above in claim 1 and further 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.
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 Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0013269), as applied above in claim 3 and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0305078) [Hereafter “Wu ’078”].
Regarding claim 4, 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.
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].
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006183) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0013269) and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2020/0105862), as applied above in claim 8 and further in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141).
Regarding claim 9, 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, and wherein the conductive structure extends vertically into the fifth dielectric layer. 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], and wherein the conductive structure [322] extends vertically into the fifth dielectric layer 215]. 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], and wherein the conductive structure extends vertically into the fifth dielectric layer. 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).
Regarding claim 10, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses wherein: the first dielectric layer [156] contains silicon nitride (SiN) [Para.22]. Wu ’141 [Fig.12] discloses the fifth dielectric layer [215]. Huang and Wu ’141 fail to explicitly disclose the fifth dielectric layer contains silicon carbon nitride (SiCN). However, Huang [Para.22] discloses and makes obvious suitable alternatives between silicon nitride (SiN) and silicon carbon nitride (SiCN). Wu ’141 [Para.24] discloses the fifth dielectric layer [215] may comprise various dielectric materials including silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxynitride, or the like. It would be obvious to provide wherein the fifth dielectric layer contains silicon carbon nitride (SiCN), 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) 11 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) further in view of Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141).
Regarding claim 11, Huang [Fig.2R], Wu ’862 [Fig.1], and Wu ’141 [Fig.12] disclose a structure, comprising:
a first silicon nitride layer;
a silicon oxide layer located over the first silicon nitride layer;
a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) structure embedded in the silicon oxide layer, wherein the MIM structure includes a plurality of metal-containing layers and insulator layers, and wherein each of the insulator layers is located between two adjacent ones of the metal-containing layers;
a second silicon nitride layer located over the silicon oxide layer [Discussed above in claims 1-3];
a conductive structure that extends vertically through the second silicon nitride layer, the silicon oxide layer, the MIM structure, and the first silicon nitride layer in a cross-sectional side view, wherein the conductive structure contains copper but not aluminum [Discussed above in claims 5-8];
a dielectric layer located below the first silicon nitride layer;
a metal component embedded in the dielectric layer [Discussed above in claims 5-8];
a silicon carbon nitride layer located between the dielectric layer and the first silicon nitride layer, wherein the conductive structure extends vertically through the silicon carbon nitride layer and is electrically coupled to the metal component that is embedded in the dielectric layer [Discussed above in claims 9-10]; and
a passivation layer [188] located over the second silicon nitride layer [186], wherein the conductive structure [176/190] extends at least partially through the passivation layer in the cross-sectional side view [Huang; Fig.2T].
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings above, 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) 13 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) and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141), as applied above in claim 11, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0305078) [Hereafter “Wu ’078”].
Regarding claim 13, 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 of the MIM structure includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer; and
each of the insulator layers of the MIM structure 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] of the MIM structure includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer [Para.16]; and
each of the insulator layers [24,29] of the MIM structure includes a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer [Paras.23,43].
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) 21-22, and 24-27 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) and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141).
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 ’862 [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).
Huang fails to explicitly disclose wherein a bottommost surface of the conductive structure has a lower vertical elevation than a bottommost surface of the first layer. However, Wu ’141 [Fig.12] discloses a device wherein a bottommost surface of the conductive structure [322] has a lower vertical elevation than a bottommost surface of the first layer [214]. It would have been obvious to vertical elevation of 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.
Regarding claim 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, and wherein the conductive structure protrudes at least partially into the fifth layer. 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], and wherein the conductive structure [322] protrudes at least partially into the fifth layer [215]. 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], and wherein the conductive structure protrudes at least partially into the fifth layer. 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).
Regarding claim 27, Huang [Fig.2R] discloses wherein: the first dielectric layer [156] contains silicon nitride (SiN) [Para.22]. Wu ’141 [Fig.12] discloses the fifth dielectric layer [215]. Huang and Wu ’141 fail to explicitly disclose the fifth dielectric layer contains silicon carbon nitride (SiCN). However, Huang [Para.22] discloses and makes obvious suitable alternatives between silicon nitride (SiN) and silicon carbon nitride (SiCN). Wu ’141 [Para.24] discloses the fifth dielectric layer [215] may comprise various dielectric materials including silicon nitride, silicon oxide, silicon carbide, silicon oxynitride, or the like. It would be obvious to provide wherein the fifth dielectric layer contains silicon carbon nitride (SiCN), 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) 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) and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141), as applied above and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0305078) [Hereafter “Wu ’078”].
Regarding claim 23, Huang [Para.25] discloses wherein the insulator layers include aluminum oxide and zirconium oxide, but fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein:
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
at least one of the metal-containing layers [19,25,30] includes a titanium nitride (TiN) layer [Para.16]; and
at least one of the insulator layers [24,29] includes a hafnium zirconium oxide (HZO) layer [Paras.23,43].
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) 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) and Wu (U.S. Pub. 2022/0216141), 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights