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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Applicant’s arguments, see section titled “Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102,” filed 01/15/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-22, and 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the combination of Lee (US20160380044A1) and Jeong et al. (US20040106252A1, hereinafter Jeong), see below rejection for full claims mapping.
Regarding claim 6. While Lee does not explicitly teach the thickness of the second electrode, they do teach in par. 60 that “each of the first and third lower electrodes…[has] a thickness of about 3 Å to about 15 Å.” A person of ordinary skill, being a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, would conclude upon seeing Lee’s teachings of first and third lower electrodes thicknesses and no teaching for the second electrode thickness that it would be obvious to try an embodiment for the second lower electrode is 3 Å which is 0.3 nm and lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I).
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.
Claims 1-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US20160380044A1) in view of Jeong (US20040106252A1). Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a capacitor comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 1 first lower electrode 171);
a dielectric layer over the first electrode (Fig. 1 dielectric layer 180);
a second electrode between the first electrode and the dielectric layer such that a first surface of the second electrode faces the first surface of the dielectric layer and a second surface of the second electrode faces the first surface of the first electrode, the second surface of the second electrode opposite to the first surface of the second electrode (Fig. 1 second lower electrode 175 has top surface in contact with dielectric layer 180 and a bottom surface opposite. That first surface faces dielectric layer 180 and bottom surface faces a top surface of lower electrode 171); and
a third electrode over the dielectric layer and in contact with the dielectric layer such that the dielectric layer is between the second electrode and the third electrode (Fig. 1 upper electrode 190 in contact with dielectric layer 180 and said dielectric layer is located between second lower electrode 175 and upper electrode 190),
wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the first electrode is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer (Par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include…tantalum” and par. 36 teaches that “[t]he dielectric layer 180 may include…hafnium oxide (HfOx).” The thermal expansion coefficient of hafnium oxide is ~5.8 × 10-6/K and the thermal expansion coefficient of tantalum is ~6.5 × 10-6/K), and
a work function of the second electrode is higher than a work function of the first electrode (Par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium…[and] tantalum” and so the second lower electrode can be made from titanium. The work function of titanium is ~4.3 eV and the work function of tantalum is ~4.1 eV).
Lee does not appear to teach
a dielectric layer spaced apart from the first electrode.
Jeong teaches
a dielectric layer spaced apart from the first electrode (Fig. 8 dielectric 224 spaced apart from first electrode 221).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teachings of Jeong because “when a dielectric layer is formed by performing dual deposition and curing processes…the leakage current density is lowered and electrical properties are markedly improved as compared to the results of the single deposit” (Jeong par. 10). For clarity, examiner shall refer to the taught second dielectric as 180-2. Therefore, the combination of Lee and Jeong has a second dielectric 180-2 deposited over dielectric layer 180 as shown in Lee fig. 1 which would be spaced apart from the first electrode such that a first surface of the second dielectric layer faces a first surface of the first electrode. Additionally, as Jeong teaches a duplicated dielectric layer, the above mapped claim limitations for dielectric layer 180 would also apply to this second dielectric 180-2.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 6.0 x 10-6/K and less than or equal to 8.0 x 10-6/K (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include…tantalum” and the thermal expansion coefficient of tantalum is ~6.5 × 10-6/K which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein the work function of the second electrode is greater than or equal to 4.0 eV and less than or equal to 7.0 eV (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium…[and] tantalum” and the work function of titanium is ~4.3 eV which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode (Lee par. 60 “each of the…lower electrodes…[has] a thickness of about 3 Å to about 15 Å” and so Lee teaches an embodiment where the first lower electrode is 15 Å and the second lower electrode is 3 Å resulting in a ratio of 1/5. While Lee does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode, the primary function of second electrode is to provide electrical contact as part of the lower electrode in a capacitor. A change in size of a second lower electrode such that a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of providing electrical contact as part of the lower electrode in a capacitor is maintained. Additionally, as nothing within the disclosure indicates the presence of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were effectively filed to therefore change the size of second lower electrode such that a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein a thickness of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 10 nm (Par. 60 “each of the…lower electrodes…[has] a thickness of about 3 Å to about 15 Å” and so Lee teaches an embodiment where the first lower electrode is 15 Å which is 1.5 nm. While Lee does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 10 nm, the primary function of first lower electrode is to provide electrical contact as part of the lower electrode in a capacitor. A change in size of a first lower electrode such that a thickness of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 10 nm would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of providing electrical contact as part of the lower electrode in a capacitor is maintained. Additionally, as nothing within the disclosure indicates the presence of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were effectively filed to therefore change the size of first lower electrode such that a thickness of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 10 nm, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to 1 nm (Lee par. 60 teaches that “each of the first and third lower electrodes…[has] a thickness of about 3 Å to about 15 Å.” While Lee does not explicitly teach the thickness of the second electrode, a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity and not an automaton, and so upon seeing Lee’s teachings of first and third lower electrodes, it would be obvious to try an embodiment where the second lower electrode is 3 Å which is 0.3 nm and lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein the dielectric layer comprises an oxide of at least one of hafnium (Hf), zirconium (Zr), titanium (Ti), barium (Ba), or strontium (Sr) (Lee par. 36 teaches that “[t]he dielectric layer 180/180-2 may include…hafnium oxide (HfOx)” and so comprises an oxide of hafnium).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein the first electrode comprises at least one of titanium (Ti), nickel (Ni), aluminum (Al), tantalum (Ta), molybdenum (Mo), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), or magnesium (Mg) (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium…[and] tantalum” and so the first electrode comprises tantalum).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 8,
wherein the first electrode comprises at least one of a metal, an oxide, or a nitride (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium…[and] tantalum” and so the first electrode comprises tantalum which is a metal).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein the second electrode comprises at least one of tantalum (Ta), nickel (Ni), tungsten (W), platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), gold (Au), iridium (Ir), or ruthenium (Ru) (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium, tungsten, tantalum” and so can be tungsten).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 10,
wherein the second electrode comprises at least one of a metal, an oxide, or a nitride (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium, tungsten, tantalum” and so can be tungsten which is a metal).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1,
wherein the first electrode is rod-shaped (Lee par. 22 “the lower electrode structure may have a cylindrical shape”),
the second electrode surrounds the first electrode (Lee fig. 1 second lower electrode 175 surrounds first lower electrode 171),
the dielectric layer surrounds the second electrode (Lee fig. 1 dielectric layer 180/180-2 surrounds second lower electrode 175), and
the third electrode surrounds the dielectric layer (Lee fig. 1 upper electrode 190 surrounds dielectric layer 180/180-2).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a transistor (Fig. 1 see transistor represented by gate structure 120); and
a capacitor electrically connected to the transistor (Fig. 1 capacitor 160 connected to transistor by contact plug 134),
wherein the capacitor comprises:
a first electrode (Fig. 1 first lower electrode 171),
a dielectric layer over the first electrode (Fig. 1 dielectric layer 180),
a second electrode between the first electrode and the dielectric layer such that a first surface of the second electrode faces the first surface of the dielectric layer and a second surface of the second electrode faces the first surface of the first electrode, the second surface of the second electrode opposite to the first surface of the second electrode (Fig. 1 second lower electrode 175 has top surface in contact with dielectric layer 180 and a bottom surface opposite. That first surface faces dielectric layer 180 and bottom surface faces a top surface of lower electrode 171), and
a third electrode on the dielectric layer and in contact with the dielectric layer such that the dielectric layer is between the second electrode and the third electrode (Fig. 1 upper electrode 190 in contact with dielectric layer 180 and said dielectric layer is located between second lower electrode 175 and upper electrode 190),
wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the first electrode is greater than a thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer (Par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include…tantalum” and par. 36 teaches that “[t]he dielectric layer 180 may include…hafnium oxide (HfOx).” The thermal expansion coefficient of hafnium oxide is ~5.8 × 10-6/K and the thermal expansion coefficient of tantalum is ~6.5 × 10-6/K), and
a work function of the second electrode is higher than a work function of the first electrode (Par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium…[and] tantalum” and so the second lower electrode can be made from titanium. The work function of titanium is ~4.3 eV and the work function of tantalum is ~4.1 eV).
Lee does not appear to teach
a dielectric layer spaced apart from the first electrode.
Jeong teaches
a dielectric layer spaced apart from the first electrode (Fig. 8 dielectric 224 spaced apart from first electrode 221).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the teachings of Jeong because “when a dielectric layer is formed by performing dual deposition and curing processes…the leakage current density is lowered and electrical properties are markedly improved as compared to the results of the single deposit” (Jeong par. 10). For clarity, examiner shall refer to the taught second dielectric as 180-2. Therefore, the combination of Lee and Jeong has a second dielectric 180-2 deposited over dielectric layer 180 as shown in Lee fig. 1 which would be spaced apart from the first electrode such that a first surface of the second dielectric layer faces a first surface of the first electrode. Additionally, as Jeong teaches a duplicated dielectric layer, the above mapped claim limitations for dielectric layer 180 would also apply to this second dielectric 180-2.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16,
wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the first electrode is greater than or equal to 6.0 x 10-6/K and less than or equal to 8.0 x 10-6/K (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include…tantalum” and the thermal expansion coefficient of tantalum is ~6.5 × 10-6/K which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16,
wherein the work function of the second electrode is greater than or equal to 4.0 eV and less than or equal to 7.0 eV (Lee par. 19 “the first to third lower electrodes may include titanium…[and] tantalum” and the work function of titanium is ~4.3 eV which lies in the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses The semiconductor device of claim 16,
wherein a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode (Lee par. 60 “each of the…lower electrodes…[has] a thickness of about 3 Å to about 15 Å” and so Lee teaches an embodiment where the first lower electrode is 15 Å and the second lower electrode is 3 Å resulting in a ratio of 1/5. While Lee does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode, the primary function of second electrode is to provide electrical contact as part of the lower electrode in a capacitor. A change in size of a second lower electrode such that a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode would not provide any new or unexpected results as the primary function of providing electrical contact as part of the lower electrode in a capacitor is maintained. Additionally, as nothing within the disclosure indicates the presence of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the claims were effectively filed to therefore change the size of second lower electrode such that a thickness of the second electrode is less than or equal to a tenth (1/10) of a thickness of the first electrode, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee and Jeong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al. (US20210142946A1, hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the capacitor of claim 1.
Lee does not appear to teach
wherein the dielectric layer is tensile-strained in a thickness direction of the dielectric layer.
Kang teaches that “tensile stress may promote the crystallization of the tetragonal hafnium oxide layer” in a dielectric used in a capacitor (Par. 63).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Lee and Jeong with the teachings of Kang because a “tetragonal high-k material may have a higher dielectric constant than a non-tetragonal high-k material” (Kang par. 42).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Jeong, and Kang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Baniecki et al. (US20060214205A1, hereinafter Baniecki).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee, Jeong, and Kang teaches the capacitor of claim 12.
The combination of Lee, Jeong, and Kang does not appear to teach
wherein a magnitude of the tensile strain in the dielectric layer is based on a difference between the thermal expansion coefficient of the first electrode and the thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer.
Baniecki teaches that “a large difference of thermal expansion coefficients between the Si (silicon) and polymer substrates and a titanic acid perovskite dielectric substance…[creates] tensile stress.” (Par. 7).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Lee, Jeong, and Kang with the teachings of Baniecki because as both Kang and Baniecki teach a suitable method for creating tensile stress in a dielectric, it would have been obvious to substitute Kang’s thermal source layer with Baniecki’s technique of mismatching thermal expansion coefficients to achieve the predictable result of using mismatching thermal expansion coefficients to create tensile stress in a dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee, Kang, and Baniecki teaches the capacitor of claim 13,
wherein a phase of the dielectric layer is a tetragonal phase (Kang par. 63 teaches that “tensile stress may promote the crystallization of the tetragonal hafnium oxide layer” in a dielectric used in a capacitor, see above rejection to claim 12).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Jeong as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kang (US20210142946A1) and Baniecki (US20060214205A1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lee and Jeong teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16.
The combination of Lee and Jeong does not appear to teach
wherein a magnitude of a tensile strain in the dielectric layer is based on a difference between the thermal expansion coefficient of the first electrode and the thermal expansion coefficient of the dielectric layer.
Kang teaches that “tensile stress may promote the crystallization of the tetragonal hafnium oxide layer” in a dielectric used in a capacitor (Par. 63).
Baniecki teaches that “a large difference of thermal expansion coefficients between the Si (silicon) and polymer substrates and a titanic acid perovskite dielectric substance…[creates] tensile stress.” (Par. 7).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Lee and Jeong with the teachings of Kang because a “tetragonal high-k material may have a higher dielectric constant than a non-tetragonal high-k material” (Kang par. 42).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Lee, Jeong, and Kang with the teachings of Baniecki because as both Kang and Baniecki teach a suitable method for creating tensile stress in a dielectric, it would have been obvious to substitute Kang’s thermal source layer with Baniecki’s technique of mismatching thermal expansion coefficients to achieve the predictable result of using mismatching thermal expansion coefficients to create tensile stress in a dielectric layer.
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 COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812