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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response of 06/08/2026 has been entered in the record and considered. With respect to the rejection claims (1-2 and 4) under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendments. Claims 11-12 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 17-20 are allowed. Claims 1-20 are under consideration. Claims 1-10 and 13-15 are rejected.
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 6 and 9-12 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.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is unclear how the conditional limitations beginning with “the electronic device does not include the titanium nitride (TiN) layer when…” and “the electronic device does not include the capping layer when…” relate to the previously recited optional TiN layer and optional capping layer of claim 1. In particular, the claim does not clearly define the structural relationship between the recited multilayer film and the omission of those layers. Consequently, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2012/0286363 to Ando et al. (Ando) in view of US Pub # 2014/0220733 to Hunks et al. (Hunks).
Regarding independent claim 1, Ando discloses a method of manufacturing an electronic device (Fig. 7), the method comprising:
depositing an interfacial layer (Fig. 7: region 502 of 102) on a top surface of a channel (Although the channel region is not explicitly labeled, in a field-effect transistor structure the channel is the portion of the semiconductor substrate located between the source and drain regions through which current flows under applied bias. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the semiconductor surface region between S and D inherently constitutes the channel region. Accordingly, the top surface of the substrate between the source and drain corresponds to the claimed “top surface of a channel.”) located between a source (S) and a drain (D) on a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 7: 100);
depositing a high-K dielectric layer (104) on the interfacial layer;
optionally depositing a titanium nitride (TiN) layer (106) on the high-K dielectric layer;
depositing a metal film or a metal nitride film (108) on the high-k dielectric layer or the titanium nitride (TiN) layer if present, wherein the metal film comprises germanium (Ge) and the metal nitride film comprises germanium nitride (GeN); and
optionally depositing a capping layer (113) on the metal film or the metal nitride film.
Ando teaches the claimed multilayer structure, including a metal film disposed on a metal nitride layer, but teaches using an aluminum (Al) film and a titanium nitride (TiN) film. Hunks teaches deposition of germanium (Ge) metal films (e.g., ¶143) and further teaches deposition of germanium nitride (GeN) films using an ammonia co-reactant (e.g., ¶¶141–142). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select the known Ge and GeN film materials taught by Hunks for the corresponding metal film and metal nitride film of the Ando because Hunks teaches that these materials are suitable deposited thin films for semiconductor device fabrication.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with MPEP § 2111.04(II), the recitation of “optionally depositing a titanium nitride (TiN) layer” constitutes a contingent method step that is not required to be performed. Likewise, the phrase “on the titanium nitride (TiN) layer if present” indicates that the location of the subsequently deposited metal film depends upon whether the optional TiN layer is included. Accordingly, claim 1 encompasses embodiments in which the TiN layer is omitted, such that the metal film or metal nitride film is deposited directly on the high-k dielectric layer, as well as embodiments in which the TiN layer is present and the metal film or metal nitride film is deposited on the TiN layer. Therefore, the prior art is not required to disclose the optional TiN deposition step or the presence of the TiN layer itself in order to satisfy the contingent limitations of claim 1. See MPEP §2111.04(II).
Regarding claim 2, Ando discloses wherein the interfacial layer (102) comprises silicon oxide (SiOx) (¶0012).
Regarding claim 3, Ando teaches the method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Ando fails to explicitly disclose wherein the interfacial layer has a thickness in a range of from 8 Å to 11Å.
However, Ando teaches that the thickness of the interfacial layer is variable which when changed, allows for different respective stacks, having different electrical properties, while maintaining the same overall thickness (¶0016). This is to improve the scalability and performance of the devices (¶0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, the result effect variable of the thickness of the interfacial layer in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Ando discloses wherein the high-K dielectric layer (104) comprises one or more of hafnium oxide (HfOx), hafnium zirconium oxide (HfZrOx), zirconium oxide (ZrOx), nitrogen-doped hafnium oxide (HfOx), nitrogen-doped hafnium zirconium oxide (HfZrOx), and nitrogen-doped zirconium oxide (ZrOx) (¶0012).
Regarding claim 5, Ando teaches the method of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Ando fails to explicitly disclose wherein the high-K dielectric layer has a thickness in a range of from 10 Å to 20 Å.
However, Ando teaches that the thickness of the high-K dielectric layer is variable which when changed, allows for different respective stacks, having different electrical properties, while maintaining the same overall thickness (¶0016). This is to improve the scalability and performance of the devices (¶0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, the result effect variable of the thickness of the high-K dielectric layer in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Ando teaches depositing the metal film or metal nitride film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (see e.g., ¶0016). However, Ando does not explicitly describe exposing the semiconductor substrate to a pulse of a metal-containing precursor and a pulse of a reactant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the disclosed ALD process using sequential pulses of a metal-containing precursor and a reactant because pulsed, alternating precursor exposure is the conventional and well-understood manner in which ALD processes are performed. ALD is a cyclic deposition technique characterized by sequential, self-limiting surface reactions achieved by temporally separated precursor and reactant pulses. Employing such pulsed exposure represents no more than the predictable use of a known ALD process according to its established operating principles.
Therefore, modifying the ALD deposition of Ando to explicitly include exposure to pulses of a metal-containing precursor and a reactant would have been an obvious implementation of the disclosed ALD technique and would have yielded no unexpected results.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2012/0286363 to Ando et al. (Ando) in view of US Pub # 2014/0220733 to Hunks et al. (Hunks) and further in view of US Pub # 2005/0275035 to Mathew et al. (Mathew).
Regarding claim 6, Ando as previously modified teaches the method of claim 1, including depositing a metal film or a metal nitride film over the high-k dielectric layer (or TiN layer, if present).
However, Ando as previously modified does not expressly teach that one or more of the metal film or the metal nitride film comprises a multilayer film including a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer, as recited in claim 6.
Mathew teaches forming a multilayer gate electrode comprising multiple thin metal and/or metal nitride layers. In particular, Mathew teaches a first thin metal/metal nitride layer and a second thin metal/metal nitride layer disposed on the first layer, thereby forming a multilayer film. Mathew further teaches that such a multilayer structure may include two or more thin layers for obtaining desired electrical characteristics, including work-function tuning (¶0015).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the metal film or metal nitride film of the Ando to comprise the multilayer film taught by Mathew because the Mathew teaches that employing multiple thin metal and/or metal nitride layers provides improved work-function tuning (¶0002) and enables desired electrical characteristics of semiconductor devices. Such a modification would merely substitute one known film architecture for another known film architecture to obtain the predictable benefit of improved work-function control.
Regarding the recited limitations:
“…the electronic device does not include the titanium nitride (TiN) layer when the first layer comprises a metal nitride and the second layer comprises a metal…”
and
”…the electronic device does not include the capping layer when the first layer comprises a metal and the second layer comprises a metal nitride…”
the Examiner interprets these as conditional limitations. The applied prior art does not disclose the specific first-layer/second-layer configurations that would trigger these conditions. Therefore, the conditions under which the TiN layer or capping layer would be absent are not invoked by the applied prior art, and these conditional limitations do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the combination.
Regarding claim 7, Ando discloses wherein the electronic device (Fig. 7) includes the metal film (108) and the metal film further comprises one or more of titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), tantalum (Ta), zirconium (Zr), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), or a lanthanide series metal (¶0013).
Regarding claim 8, Ando discloses wherein the electronic device (Fig. 7) includes the metal nitride film (110) and the metal nitride film further comprises one or more of titanium nitride (TiN), aluminum nitride (AIN), tantalum nitride (TaN), zirconium nitride (ZrN), strontium nitride (SrN), barium nitride (BaN), or a nitride of a lanthanide series metal (¶0013-0014).
Regarding claim 9, Ando as previously modified discloses all of the limitations of claim 6 from which this claim depends. Specifically, Ando the method of claim 1, including formation of a metal film and/or a metal nitride film over a high-k dielectric layer, but does not expressly teach that the metal film or metal nitride film comprises a multilayer film including a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer, as recited in claim 6.
Matthews teaches forming a multilayer metal/metal nitride film including a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer, thereby teaching the multilayer film architecture (see the rejection of claim 6 above) required by claim 6.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film structure of Ando in view of Matthews to provide a multilayer film because Matthews teaches that such multilayer structures are useful for tuning the work function and obtaining desired electrical characteristics of semiconductor devices.
Claim 9 further requires specific material combinations for the multilayer film, including embodiments in which:
the first layer comprises germanium nitride (GeN) and the second layer comprises germanium (Ge);
the first layer comprises germanium (Ge) and the second layer comprises a metal nitride, including germanium nitride (GeN); or
the first layer comprises a metal nitride, including germanium nitride (GeN), and the second layer comprises germanium (Ge).
Hunks teaches deposition of germanium metal films (e.g., ¶143) and further teaches deposition of germanium nitride (GeN) films using an ammonia co-reactant (e.g., ¶¶141–142). Hunks therefore teaches both deposited Ge films and deposited GeN films suitable for semiconductor device fabrication.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the known deposited Ge and GeN films taught by Hunks as the respective first and/or second layers of the multilayer film taught by Matthews and incorporated into the device of Ando because Hunks teaches that Ge and GeN are suitable deposited thin-film materials for semiconductor devices. Modifying the known Ge and GeN film materials in the known multilayer architecture of Matthews represents the predictable substitution of one known film material for another to obtain a semiconductor device having the desired multilayer structure.
Regarding claim 10, Ando as previously modified teaches the method of claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
Ando as previously modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first layer has a thickness in a range of from 5 Å to 12 Å and the second layer has a thickness in a range of from 5 Å to 12 Å.
However, the thickness of the first layer and the second layer affect the thickness of the package. It is known in the art to use thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary, through routine experimentation, the result effect variable of the thickness of the first layer and the second layer in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2012/0286363 to Ando et al. (Ando) in view of US Pub # 2014/0220733 to Hunks et al. (Hunks) and further in view of US Pub # 2022/0254640 to Yang et al. (Yang).
Regarding claim 13, Ando as previously modified disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ando as previously modified fails to explicitly discloses wherein the capping layer comprises amorphous silicon (a-Si).
Yang discloses wherein the capping layer (sacrificial layer 150 currently considered to be the capping layer) comprises amorphous silicon (a-Si) (¶0029).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the material of the capping layer of Ando with the capping layer as taught by Yang so as to provide less diffusion of atoms as compared to polycrystalline silicon which include grain boundaries leading path for diffusion (¶0047).
Regarding claim 14, Ando as previously modified disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Ando as previously modified fails to explicitly discloses wherein the capping layer is deposited in situ.
Yang discloses wherein the capping layer is deposited in situ. It was well known in the art to deposit the capping layer in situ (MPEP §2144.03) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a in situ as a mere selection of an art-recognized deposition technique suitable for the intended use of depositing the capping layer in the combined invention (MPEP §2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 recites:
“wherein the multilayer film reduces a thickness of the interfacial layer by scavenging unbound oxygen from the interfacial layer and the high-K dielectric layer.
Each of the above recitations, interpreted in combination with all other limitations of the claim and all limitations of any claims they depend from, is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record and are indicated as allowable subject matter.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
the prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious the combination of limitations “the multilayer film reducing the thickness of the interfacial layer by scavenging unbound oxygen from the interfacial layer and the high-K dielectric layer and annealing the semiconductor substrate at a temperature of less than or equal to 1050 °C to accelerate the scavenging” taken in combination with all other limitations of each respective independent claim 17.
Dependent claims 18-20 inherit the above allowable subject matter and are similarly allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-10 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S. C. §103.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “optionally depositing a titanium nitride (TiN) layer,” further amended the claim to recite depositing the metal film or the metal nitride film “on the high-k dielectric layer or the titanium nitride (TiN) layer, if present,” and further recites “wherein the metal film comprises germanium (Ge) and the metal nitride film comprises germanium nitride (GeN).”
The Examiner interprets the recitations “optionally” and “if present” according to their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and MPEP § 2111.04(II). Specifically, the phrase “if present” modifies only the optional titanium nitride (TiN) layer and specifies the location on which the subsequently recited metal film or metal nitride film is deposited when the optional TiN layer is included. The contingent language does not require the presence of the TiN layer in every embodiment.
However, the subsequent recitation that “the metal film comprises germanium (Ge) and the metal nitride film comprises germanium nitride (GeN)” is treated as an affirmative claim limitation. Accordingly, the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 relies upon the applied references for teaching or suggesting these affirmative material limitations.
With respect to amended claim 6, the Examiner interprets the recitations beginning with “when the first layer comprises…” as conditional limitations. The conditional absence of the titanium nitride layer or the capping layer applies only when the corresponding first-layer/second-layer configuration is present. The amended language has been fully considered.
Claim 6 is additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the amended conditional language, as set forth in the rejection below, renders the scope of the claim unclear.
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 MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights