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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: on lines 6-7, “wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide” should be “and wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: on lines 9-10, “wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide” should be “and wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 8, “wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide” should be “and wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 8, and 9-13 are 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.
Regarding claim 4, lines 1-2 recite: “and the memory cell is disposed on the bottom electrode via.” This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the recitation of “is disposed on the bottom electrode via” is indefinite because “disposed” is a process step, whereas claim 4 is directed to a product. See, MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)—Product and Process in the Same Claim. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-2 of claim 4 as reciting: “and the memory cell is on the bottom electrode via“ because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 8, lines 1-3 recite: “wherein the first capping layer is arranged to cover a top of the memory cell and has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms.” This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the recitation of “arranged to cover a top of the memory cell” is indefinite because “arranged” is a process step, whereas claim 8 is directed to a product. See, MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), above. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-3 of claim 8 as reciting: “wherein the first capping layer covers a top of the memory cell and has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms“ because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 9, line 3 recites: “a bottom electrode via disposed in the interlayer dielectric layers” This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the recitation of “disposed in the interlayer dielectric layers” is indefinite because “disposed” is a process step, whereas claim 9 is directed to a product. See, MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), above. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting line 3 of claim 9 as reciting: “a bottom electrode via in the interlayer dielectric layers“ because of this ambiguity. Claims 10-13 are also indefinite by virtue of dependency on independent claim 9.
Also regarding claim 9, lines 4-5 recite: “disposed on the bottom electrode via”. This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the recitation of “disposed on the bottom electrode via” is indefinite because “disposed” is a process step, whereas claim 9 is directed to a product. See, MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), above. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 4-5 of claim 9 as reciting: “on the bottom electrode via“ because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 13, lines 3-5 recite: “and the second capping layer is arranged to cover a top of the memory cell and has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms.” This recited language is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, the recitation of “arranged to cover a top of the memory cell” is indefinite because “arranged” is a process step, whereas claim 13 is directed to a product. See, MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), above. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 3-5 of claim 13 as reciting: “and the second capping layer covers a top of the memory cell and has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms“ because of this ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0165258 A1 (Peng) in view of US 2019/0043795 A1 (Chen) and US 2016/0175805 A1 (Catchpole).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses, A semiconductor device (FIG. 18), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
447
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of interlayer dielectric layers (plurality of interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290); FIG.18; [0010], [0011], [0037], [0043]);
a memory cell (memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’); FIG. 18; [0029], [0024], and [0018]) embedded in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290); and
a first capping layer (first capping layer (232’); FIG. 18; [0032]) covers the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) and surrounds sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
But Peng does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first capping layer comprises a hydrogen absorbing material, and the hydrogen absorbing material prevents hydrogen gas from entering the memory cell, wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Chen discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a hydrogen absorbing material (hydrogen absorbing material (120l1); FIG. 2B; [0030]) may be predicably used in a semiconductor device (FIG. 2B) having a memory cell (memory cell (102); FIG. 2B; [0015]) (which may comprise a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) data storage element (data storage element (110); FIG. 2B; [0017])) to absorb errant matter, such as hydrogen gas, that may damage (e.g., oxidize) and negatively affect (e.g., increase contact resistance of) the top electrode (top electrode (112); FIG. 2B; [0015]) of memory cell (102) ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng and Chen before him/her that the first capping layer (232’) of Peng comprises a hydrogen absorbing material, as taught by Chen, and the hydrogen absorbing material prevents hydrogen gas from entering the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng, as also taught by Chen, by absorbing the errant hydrogen gas to prevent damage (e.g., oxidation) from negatively affecting (e.g., increasing contact resistance of) memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng, as additionally taught by Chen.
But Peng in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Catchpole discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a hydrogen absorbing material may be predicably fabricated to comprise a metal oxide which may include magnesium oxide ([0005]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, and Catchpole before him/her that the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen, may comprise a metal oxide, as taught by Catchpole, because metal oxides are a well-known material that may be predicably used in gettering hydrogen, as also taught by Catchpole. See, MPEP 2144(I)—Rational May Be In A Reference, Or Reasoned From Common Knowledge In The Art, Scientific Principles, Art-Recognized Equivalents, Or Legal Precedent—The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, and Catchpole before him/her that the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen, may comprise a metal oxide, as taught by Catchpole, because the metal oxide hydrogen absorbing material of Catchpole can be predicably substituted for the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen because a metal oxide still absorbs hydrogen, as also taught by Catchpole. See, MPEP 2143(B)—Simple Substitution Of One Known Element For Another To Obtain Predicable Results.
Regarding claim 2, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 1, wherein the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) comprises a magnetic tunnel junction memory cell ([0018] of Peng).
Regarding claim 3, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 2, further comprising a multilayer interconnection structure (multilayer interconnection structure (150, 160’, 200’, and 210’); FIG. 18; [0014], [0024], [0028], and [0029], all of Peng) formed in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290), wherein the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) is located in the multilayer interconnection structure (150, 160’, and 210’).
Regarding claim 4, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 3, wherein the multilayer interconnection structure (150, 160’, 200’, and 210’) comprises a bottom electrode via (bottom electrode via (150); FIG. 18; [0014], all of Peng), and the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) is disposed on the bottom electrode via (150).1
Regarding claim 5, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 3, wherein the multilayer interconnection structure (150, 160’, 200’, and 210’) comprises a metal contact (metal contact (200’); FIG. 18; [0028] and [0024], all of Peng), and the metal contact (200’) passes through the first capping layer (232’) and is electrically connected to a top (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
Regarding claim 7, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 1, wherein the metal oxide comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), titanium oxide (TiO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or aluminum oxide (A1203) ([0007] of Catchpole).
Regarding claim 9, Peng discloses, A semiconductor device (FIG. 18), comprising:
a plurality of interlayer dielectric layers (plurality of interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290); FIG.18; [0010], [0011], [0037], [0043]);
a bottom electrode via (bottom electrode via (150); FIG. 18; [0014]) disposed in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 250, and 290)2;
a memory cell (memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’); FIG. 18; [0029], [0024], and [0018]) embedded in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) and disposed on the bottom electrode via (150); and
a first capping layer (first capping layer (232’); FIG. 18; [0032]) and a second capping layer (second capping layer (234’); FIG. 18; [0034]), covering the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) and surrounding side walls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
But Peng does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first capping layer and the second capping layer respectively comprise a hydrogen absorbing material, and the hydrogen absorbing material prevents hydrogen gas from entering the memory cell, wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Chen discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a hydrogen absorbing material (hydrogen absorbing material (120l1); FIG. 2B; [0030]) may be predicably used in a semiconductor device (FIG. 2B) having a memory cell (memory cell (102); FIG. 2B; [0015]) (which may comprise a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) data storage element (data storage element (110); FIG. 2B; [0017])) to absorb errant matter, such as hydrogen gas, that may damage (e.g., oxidize) and negatively affect (e.g., increase contact resistance of) the top electrode (top electrode (112); FIG. 2B; [0015]) of memory cell (102) ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng and Chen before him/her that the first capping layer (232’) and the second capping layer (234’) of Peng respectively comprise a hydrogen absorbing material, as taught by Chen, and the hydrogen absorbing material prevents hydrogen gas from entering the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng, as also taught by Chen, by absorbing the errant hydrogen gas to prevent damage (e.g., oxidation) from negatively affecting (e.g., increasing contact resistance of) memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng, as additionally taught by Chen.
But Peng in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Catchpole discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a hydrogen absorbing material may be predicably fabricated to comprise a metal oxide which may include magnesium oxide ([0005]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, and Catchpole before him/her that the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen, may comprise a metal oxide, as taught by Catchpole, because metal oxides are a well-known material that may be predicably used in gettering hydrogen, as also taught by Catchpole. See, MPEP 2144(I), above.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, and Catchpole before him/her that the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen, may comprise a metal oxide, as taught by Catchpole, because the metal oxide hydrogen absorbing material of Catchpole can be predicably substituted for the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen because a metal oxide still absorbs hydrogen, as also taught by Catchpole. See, MPEP 2143(B), above.
Regarding claim 11, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 9, further comprising a metal contact (metal contact (200’ and 210’); FIG. 18; [0028] and [0024]; [0029], [0025], and [0028], all of Peng), wherein the metal contact (200’ and 210’) passes through the first capping layer (232’) and the second capping layer (234’) and is electrically connected to a top (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
Regarding claim 12, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 9, wherein the metal oxide comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), titanium oxide (TiO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or aluminum oxide (A1203) ([0007] of Catchpole).
Regarding claim 14, Peng discloses, A method (Title of the invention) for manufacturing a semiconductor device (FIG. 18), comprising:
forming a plurality of interlayer dielectric layers (plurality of interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290); FIG.18; [0010], [0011], [0037], [0043]);
forming a memory cell (memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’); FIG. 18; [0029], [0024], and [0018]) embedded in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290); and
forming a first capping layer (first capping layer (232’); FIG. 18; [0032]), wherein the first capping layer (232’) covers the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) and surrounds sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
But Peng does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first capping layer comprises a hydrogen absorbing material, and the hydrogen absorbing material prevents hydrogen gas from entering the memory cell, wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Chen discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a hydrogen absorbing material (hydrogen absorbing material (120l1); FIG. 2B; [0030]) may be predicably used in a semiconductor device (FIG. 2B) having a memory cell (memory cell (102); FIG. 2B; [0015]) (which may comprise a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) data storage element (data storage element (110); FIG. 2B; [0017])) to absorb errant matter, such as hydrogen gas, that may damage (e.g., oxidize) and negatively affect (e.g., increase contact resistance of) the top electrode (top electrode (112); FIG. 2B; [0015]) of memory cell (102) ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng and Chen before him/her that the first capping layer (232’) of Peng comprises a hydrogen absorbing material, as taught by Chen, and the hydrogen absorbing material prevents hydrogen gas from entering the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng, as also taught by Chen, by absorbing the errant hydrogen gas to prevent damage (e.g., oxidation) from negatively affecting (e.g., increasing contact resistance of) memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng, as additionally taught by Chen.
But Peng in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide.
However, in analogous art, Catchpole discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a hydrogen absorbing material may be predicably fabricated to comprise a metal oxide which may include magnesium oxide ([0005]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, and Catchpole before him/her that the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen, may comprise a metal oxide, as taught by Catchpole, because metal oxides are a well-known material that may be predicably used in gettering hydrogen, as also taught by Catchpole. See, MPEP 2144(I), above.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, and Catchpole before him/her that the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen, may comprise a metal oxide, as taught by Catchpole, because the metal oxide hydrogen absorbing material of Catchpole can be predicably substituted for the hydrogen absorbing material of Peng in view of Chen because a metal oxide still absorbs hydrogen, as also taught by Catchpole. See, MPEP 2143(B), above.
Regarding claim 15, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The method (Title of the invention) according to claim 14, wherein the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) comprises a magnetic tunnel junction memory cell ([0018] of Peng).
Regarding claim 16, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The method (Title of the invention) according to claim 14, further comprising forming a bottom electrode via (bottom electrode via (150); FIG. 18; [0014], all of Peng) in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290), wherein the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) is disposed on the bottom electrode via (150).
Regarding claim 17, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The method (Title of the invention) according to claim 14, further comprising forming a metal contact (metal contact (200’); FIG. 18; [0028] and [0024], all of Peng), wherein the metal contact (200’) passes through the first capping layer (232’) and is electrically connected (annotated FIG. 18, above) to a top of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
Regarding claim 19, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The method (Title of the invention) according to claim 14, wherein the metal oxide comprises magnesium oxide (MgO), titanium oxide (TiO2), zirconium dioxide (ZrO2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), or aluminum oxide (A1203) ([0007] of Catchpole).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of US 2018/0040817 A1 (Chuang).
Regarding claim 6, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 1, the first capping layer (232’) extending in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) and covering a top surface (annotated FIG. 18, above) and the sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
But, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising a passivation layer and a dielectric protection layer, the passivation layer [and] the dielectric protection layer extending in the interlayer dielectric layers and covering a top surface and the sidewalls of the memory cell.
However, in analogous art, Chuang discloses, that it is well-known that a semiconductor device (FIG. 10) having a memory cell (memory cell (130); FIG. 10; [0012]) which may include a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (134); FIG. 7; [0014]) may predicably formed to include a passivation layer (passivation layer (120); FIG. 10; [0014]) and a dielectric protection layer (dielectric protection layer (118); FIG. 10; [0014]).
PNG
media_image2.png
527
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chuang also discloses that it is well-known that the passivation layer (120) and the dielectric protection layer (118) may be predicably formed to extend in interlayer dielectric layers (interlayer dielectric layers (104, 110, and 138; FIG. 10; [0013] and [0014]) and to cover a top surface (annotated FIG. 10, above) and sidewalls (annotated FIG. 10, above) of memory cell (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, Catchpole and Chuang before him/her that it was well-known that the semiconductor device (FIG. 18) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole could be predicably formed to further comprise a passivation layer and a dielectric protection layer, as taught by Chuang, and that the passivation layer and the dielectric protection layer could also be predicably formed to extend in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as also taught by Chuang, covering a top surface (annotated FIG. 18, above) and the sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as additionally taught by Chuang, with no change in the respective functions of memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’), the first capping layer (232’), the passivation layer (120) or the dielectric protection layer (118) because they would continue to operate in the same manner. See, MPEP 2143(A)—Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predicable Results.
Claims 8, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole and further in view of US 2022/0102629 A1 (Kuo).
Regarding claim 8, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 1, wherein the first capping layer (232’) is arranged to cover a top of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).3
But, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole does not appear to explicitly disclose, the first capping layer has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms.
However, in analogous art, Kuo discloses that a random access memory (random access memory (100); FIG. 3; [0013]) may be predicably fabricated to include a capping layer (capping layer (124); FIG. 3; [0025]) having a thickness greater than 20 nm ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, Catchpole, and Kuo before him/her that the first capping layer (232’) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms, as taught by Kuo, because the claimed range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms lies inside the range of greater than 20 nm disclosed by Kuo. See, MPEP 2144.05(I)—Overlapping, Approaching, And Similar Ranges, Amounts, And Proportions—In In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 13, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The semiconductor device (FIG. 18) according to claim 9, wherein the first capping layer (232’) extends in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) and covers a top surface (annotated FIG. 18, above) and the sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’), and the second capping layer (234’) covers the first capping layer (232’), and the second capping layer (234’) is arranged to cover a top of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).4
But, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole does not appear to explicitly disclose, the second capping layer has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms.
However, in analogous art, Kuo discloses that a random access memory (random access memory (100); FIG. 3; [0013]) may be predicably fabricated to include a capping layer (capping layer (124); FIG. 3; [0025]) having a thickness greater than 20 nm ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, Catchpole, and Kuo before him/her that the second capping layer (234’) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms, as taught by Kuo, because the claimed range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms lies inside the range of greater than 20 nm disclosed by Kuo. See, MPEP 2144.05(I), above.
Regarding claim 20, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The method (Title of the invention) according to claim 14, wherein the first capping layer (232’) is arranged to cover a top of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).5
But, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole does not appear to explicitly disclose, the first capping layer has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms.
However, in analogous art, Kuo discloses that a random access memory (random access memory (100); FIG. 3; [0013]) may be predicably fabricated to include a capping layer (capping layer (124); FIG. 3; [0025]) having a thickness greater than 20 nm ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, Catchpole, and Kuo before him/her that the first capping layer (232’) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole has a thickness in a range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms, as taught by Kuo, because the claimed range of 300 angstroms to 3000 angstroms lies inside the range of greater than 20 nm disclosed by Kuo. See, MPEP 2144.05(I), above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Chuang.
Regarding claim 10, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising a passivation layer and a dielectric protection layer, wherein the passivation layer and the dielectric protection layer are located between the first capping layer and the second capping layer and extend in the interlayer dielectric layers and cover a top surface and the sidewalls of the memory cell.
However, in analogous art, Chuang discloses, that it is well-known that a semiconductor device (FIG. 10) having a memory cell (memory cell (130); FIG. 10; [0012]) which may include a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (134); FIG. 7; [0014]) may predicably formed to include a passivation layer (passivation layer (120); FIG. 10; [0014]) and a dielectric protection layer (dielectric protection layer (118); FIG. 10; [0014]). Chuang also discloses that it is well-known that the passivation layer (120) and the dielectric protection layer (118) may be predicably formed to extend in interlayer dielectric layers (interlayer dielectric layers (104, 110, and 138; FIG. 10; [0013] and [0014]) and to cover a top surface (annotated FIG. 10, above) and sidewalls (annotated FIG. 10, above) of memory cell (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, Catchpole, and Chuang before him/her that it was well-known that the semiconductor device (FIG. 18) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole could be predicably formed to further comprise a passivation layer and a dielectric protection layer, as taught by Chuang, and that the passivation layer and the dielectric protection layer could also be predicably formed to be located between the first capping layer (232’) and the second capping layer (234’) and extend in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as also taught by Chuang, and cover a top surface (annotated FIG. 18, above) and the sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as additionally taught by Chuang, with no change in the respective functions of memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’), the passivation layer (120), the first and second capping layers (232’ and 234’) or the dielectric protection layer (118) because they would continue to operate in the same manner. See, MPEP 2143(A), above.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as applied to claim 14, above, and further in view of Chuang.
Regarding claim 18, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole discloses, The method (Title of the invention) according to claim 14, wherein the first capping layer (232’) extend[s] in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) and cover[s] a top surface (annotated FIG. 18, above) and the sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’).
But, Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole does not appear to explicitly disclose, The semiconductor device according to claim 14, further comprising forming a passivation layer and a dielectric protection layer, wherein the passivation layer [and] the dielectric protection layer extend in the interlayer dielectric layers and cover a top surface and the sidewalls of the memory cell.
However, in analogous art, Chuang discloses, that it is well-known that a semiconductor device (FIG. 10) having a memory cell (memory cell (130); FIG. 10; [0012]) which may include a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (134); FIG. 7; [0014]) may predicably formed to include a passivation layer (passivation layer (120); FIG. 10; [0014]) and a dielectric protection layer (dielectric protection layer (118); FIG. 10; [0014]).
Chuang also discloses that it is well-known that the passivation layer (120) and the dielectric protection layer (118) may be predicably formed to extend in interlayer dielectric layers (interlayer dielectric layers (104, 110, and 138; FIG. 10; [0013] and [0014]) and to cover a top surface (annotated FIG. 10, above) and sidewalls (annotated FIG. 10, above) of memory cell (130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Peng, Chen, Catchpole and Chuang before him/her that it was well-known that the semiconductor device (FIG. 18) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole could be predicably further comprise forming a passivation layer and a dielectric protection layer, as taught by Chuang, and that the passivation layer and the dielectric protection layer could also be predicably formed to extend in the interlayer dielectric layers (112, 140, 240, and 290) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as also taught by Chuang, to cover a top surface (annotated FIG. 18, above) and the sidewalls (annotated FIG. 18, above) of the memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’) of Peng in view of Chen and Catchpole, as additionally taught by Chuang, with no change in the respective functions of memory cell (170’, 180’, and 190’), the first capping layer (232’), the passivation layer (120) or the dielectric protection layer (118) because they would continue to operate in the same manner. See, MPEP 2143(A), above.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of dependent claim 6, amendment of independent claim 9, and remarks with respect thereto on page seven (7) of the “Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111” filed on March 25, 2026 (hereinafter the “Reply”) have overcome the objection to dependent claim 6 and independent claim 9 in the Office Action dated December 29, 2025 (hereinafter the “Office Action”).6 Also, Applicant’s amendment of dependent claims 8 and 13 and remarks on pages seven (7)-eight (8) of the Reply regarding the rejection of dependent claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Office Action have been considered, but are not deemed persuasive, as detailed above in this Final Office Action.
Additionally, Applicant’s amendment of dependent claim 20 and remarks on pages seven (7)-eight (8) of the Reply regarding the rejection of dependent claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have overcome the rejection thereof in the Office Action. Furthermore, Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 and remarks on pages eight (8)-nine (9) of the Reply regarding overcoming the rejection of claims 1, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action have been fully considered, but they are deemed moot based on the new grounds of rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 in this Final Office Action.
For clarity of the written record, the Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant’s Reply has failed to specifically address any of the rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action. Page nine (9) of the Reply merely alleges that dependent claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are patentable because of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 14.
Also for clarity of the written record, the Examiner respectfully submits that Applicant’s remarks on page nine (9) of the Reply that “the Examiner has not provided any evidence showing where and how Chen and/or any other references teach ‘the hydrogen absorbing material comprises a metal oxide’ as recited in amended claims 1, 9, 14” are premature. The Examiner respectfully submits that he could not, a priori, anticipate how Applicant would amend independent claims 1, 9, and 14 to provide such evidence. However, such evidence is now provided in this Final Office Action.
Notwithstanding the above, to advance prosecution, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please consider a telephone interview with the Examiner to discuss proposed claim amendments to at least independent claims 1, 9, and 14 to overcome the objection thereto, independent claim 9 and dependent claims 4, 8 and 13 to overcome rejection thereof under 35 USC 112(b), and independent claims 1, 9, and 14 to overcome the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 prior to submitting a written response to this Final Office Action. The Examiner would welcome such a proposed discussion of these claim amendments and is available at the number provided below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2008/0272333 A1 (Blanco-Garcia)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a metal oxide may be utilized to absorb hydrogen ([0004]).
US 2022/0163168 A1 (Gustafson)—Also discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a metal oxide may be utilized to absorb hydrogen ([0012]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 4 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
2 Please see the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 9 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
3 Please see the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 8 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Please also see paragraph [0010] of Applicant’s specification regarding the limitation of “top” in claim 8.
4 Please see the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 13 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Please also see paragraph [0010] of Applicant’s specification regarding the limitation of “top” in claim 13.
5 Please see paragraph [0010] of Applicant’s specification regarding the limitation of “top” in claim 20.
6 However, please see the new objection to independent claim 9 in this Final Office Action because of Applicant’s additional amendment thereof.
Prosecution Insights