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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0038: top electrode is mistakenly labeled as 15 instead of 19.
Paragraph 0057: bottom and top electrodes 15 and 19 are referred to as “layers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al. (US 20020072223 A1) in view of Beecher et al. (US 20140084352 A1).
Regarding claim 1, FIG. 1 of Gilbert teaches a method of fabricating a capacitor (125; FIG. 1; paragraph 0037), comprising the following successive steps of:
a) forming a stack including, in order from the top face of a first conductive layer (122; FIG. 1; paragraph 0037), a first electrode (124; FIG. 1; paragraph 0038), a dielectric layer (126; FIG. 1; paragraph 0039), a second electrode (128; 130; FIG. 1; paragraph 0040), and a second conductive layer (132; FIG. 1; paragraph 0041); and
d) etching by a fluorinated physicochemical plasma etching, through said masking layer, a bottom part of the stack, said fluorinated physicochemical plasma etching being stopped on the top face of the first conductive layer (paragraph 0072).
e) cleaning the etched sides by a cleaning method.
Gilbert et al. does not teach
b) forming by photolithography, a masking layer on a face of the second conductive layer opposite to the second electrode;
c) etching by a chlorinated physicochemical plasma etching, through said masking layer, a top part of the stack, said chlorinated physicochemical plasma etching being stopped within the dielectric layer;
e) removing the masking layer by a stripping method
Beecher et al. teaches during a photolithography process, a photoresist layer (42; FIG.1 paragraph 0022) is formed on an upper surface (40a; FIG. 1; paragraph 0022) of a metallic layer (40; FIG. 1; paragraph 0016) and may function as an etch mask during a subsequent etch, the etch chemistry of the plasma for removing the exposed portions of the layers down to the insulator layer (38; FIG. 1; paragraph 0017) during patterning is a chlorine-based chemistry (paragraph 0023), and the photoresist layer is removed by, for example, solvent stripping (paragraph 0024).
Gilbert et al. and Beecher et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve capacitor stacks that are modified with etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to have a photolithographed masking layer that is stripped off and using chlorinated plasma etching down to the dielectric layer. Photolithography is known to form photoresist etch masks (paragraph 0022), which can be used with chlorine-based plasma etching to selectively etch layers (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Glibert et al. and Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 1. FIG. 1 of Gilbert et al. further teaches the first conductive layer (122; FIG. 1; paragraph 0037) is an aluminum-based layer.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 1. FIG. 1 of Gilbert et al. further teaches the second conductive layer is an aluminum-based layer.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 1. FIG. 1 of Gilbert et al. further teaches wherein in step e), the cleaning method (paragraph 0045) comprises the cleaning of the top face and of the sides of the second conductive layer (132; FIG. 1; paragraph 0041), of the sides of the second electrode (128; 130; FIG. 1; paragraph 0040), of the dielectric layer (126; FIG. 1; paragraph 0039), of the first electrode (124; FIG. 1; paragraph 0038), and of the top face of the first conductive layer (122; FIG. 1; paragraph 0037).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamogawa et al. (US 20230142791 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Glibert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach yhe method according to claim 1. Gilbert et al. and Beecher et al. do not teach in step c), chlorine and boron trichloride are injected in the plasma source.
Kamogawa et al. teaches using a process gas that was a gas mixture of boron trichloride (BCl.sub.3), chlorine (Cl.sub.2), and argon (Ar) (paragraph 0180).
Gilbert et al., Beecher et al., and Kamogawa et al. are analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve plasma etching treatments for layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to use both chlorine and boron trichloride for etching. These are preferred chemicals for usage in dry etching (paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Glibert et al. in view of Beecher et al. and in further view of Kamogawa et al. teach the method according to claim 4. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in step c), the chlorine is injected at a rate comprised between 50 sccm and 120 sccm, for example in the order of 80 sccm, and the boron trichloride is injected at a rate comprised between 20 sccm and 100 sccm, for example in the order of 50 sccm.
Kamagowa et al. teaches that the chlorine and boron trichloride mixture has a gas flow rate of 55 sccm (paragraph 0180).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. so the chlorine is injected at a rate comprised between 50 sccm and 120 sccm and the boron trichloride is injected at a rate comprised between 20 sccm and 100 sccm. These are preferred parameters for dry etching (paragraph 0102, paragraph 0180).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gilbert et al. and Beecher et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Isa (US 20110204364 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in step c), the plasma pressure is comprised between 1.33 Pa and 6.67 Pa, for example in the order of 2 Pa, the source power is comprised between 150 W and 800 W, for example in the order of 400 W, and the biasing power is comprised between 50 W and 500 W, for example comprised between 150 W and 300 W.
Isa teaches performing etchings where the inductively coupled plasma (ICP) power was 500 W, the bias power was 50 W, the pressure was 2.0 Pa (paragraph 0177).
Gilbert et al., Beecher et al., and Isa are analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve plasma etching treatments for layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to have wherein in step c), the plasma pressure is comprised between 1.33 Pa and 6.67 Pa, the source power is comprised between 150 W and 800 W, and the biasing power is comprised between 50 W and 500 W. This is a known etching condition used for these layers (paragraph 0177).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in step c), the plasma pressure is comprised between 0.67 Pa and 6.67 Pa, for example in the order of 1.33 Pa, the source power is comprised between 150 W and 800 W, for example in the order of 400 W, and the biasing power is comprised between 20 W and 500 W, for example in the order of 50 W.
Isa teaches performing etchings where the inductively coupled plasma (ICP) power was 500 W, the bias power was 50 W, the pressure was 2.0 Pa (paragraph 0177).
Gilbert et al., Beecher et al., and Isa are analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve plasma etching treatments for layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to have wherein in step c), the plasma pressure is comprised between 0.67 Pa and 6.67 Pa, the source power is comprised between 150 W and 800 W, and the biasing power is comprised between 20 W and 500 W. This is a known etching condition used for these layers (paragraph 0177).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 4855247 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 1. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in step d), sulfur hexafluoride and argon are injected in the plasma source.
Ma et al. teaches an etch process including a gas flow of 10 sccm of argon and 60 sccm of sulfur hexafluoride (column 4, lines 64-67).
Gilbert et al., Beecher et al., and Ma et al. are all analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve etching compounds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to have sulfur hexafluoride and argon injected in the plasma source. This gives the etch a low oxide rate (column 4, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. and in further view of Ma et al. teach the method according to claim 7. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in step d), the sulfur hexafluoride is injected at a rate comprised between 20 sccm and 80 sccm, for example in the order of 50 sccm, and argon is injected at a rate comprised between 10 sccm and 100 sccm, for example in the order of 20 sccm.
Ma et al. teaches an etch process including a gas flow of 10 sccm of argon and 60 sccm of sulfur hexafluoride (column 4, lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to have the aforementioned injection rates. These are known flow rates for the gasses (column 4, line 67).
Claim(s) 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Komatsu et al. (US 20120052637 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 10. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein the step of stripping is performed by a physicochemical plasma etching.
Komatsu et al. teaches he resist recedes by plasma irradiation, so that a resist mask (115a; FIG. 7B; paragraph 0127) which is smaller than the resist mask (115; FIG. 7A; paragraph 0159) is formed.
Gilbert et al, Beecher et al., and Komatsu et al. are analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve methods of etching layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. so that the step of stripping is performed by a physicochemical plasma etching. This is a known method of stripping masking (paragraph 0159).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 10. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein the step of stripping is performed by a physicochemical plasma etching.
Komatsu et al. teaches the resist recedes by plasma irradiation, so that a resist mask (115a; FIG. 7B; paragraph 0159) having a smaller top surface than the resist mask (115; FIG. 7A; paragraph 0159) is formed.
Gilbert et al, Beecher et al., and Komatsu et al. are analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve methods of etching layers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. so that the step of stripping is performed by a physicochemical plasma etching. This is a known method of stripping masking (paragraph 0159).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in the step of stripping, dioxygen and water vapor are injected in the plasma source.
Komatsu et al. teaches when oxygen or water vapor are used as the plasma, the resist recedes by plasma irradiation, so that a resist mask (115a; FIG. 7B; paragraph 0159) which is smaller than the resist mask (115; FIG. 7A; paragraph 0159) is formed.
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. so that dioxygen and water vapor are injected in the plasma source in the step of stripping. This is a known method of stripping masking (paragraph 0159).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. and in further view of Komatsu et al. teach the method according to claim 12. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in the step of stripping, the dioxygen is injected at a rate comprised between 700 sccm and 1000 sccm, for example in the order of 810 sccm, and the water vapour is injected at a rate comprised between 50 sccm and 700 sccm, for example in the order of 90 sccm or in the order of 630 sccm.
Komatsu et al. teaches water vapor being introduced at a flow rate of 300 sccm (paragraph 0281) and oxygen being introduced at a flow rate of 100 sccm (paragraph 0263).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. to have dioxygen injected at a rate comprised between 700 sccm and 1000 sccm and the water vapour injected at a rate comprised between 50 sccm and 700 sccm. The ordinary artisan would have recognized the oxygen flow rate to be a result effective variable affecting stripping of the mask layer (paragraph 0159). Thus, it would have been obvious to set the flow rate within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. and in further view of Komatsu et al. teach the method according to claim 11. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein in the step of stripping, the plasma pressure is comprised between 80 Pa and 133.32 Pa, for example comprised between 100 Pa and 120 Pa and the RF power is comprised between 800 W and 1500 W, for example in the order of 1100 W.
Komatsu et al. teaches that the pressure and source power for the oxygen injection are .67 Pa and 2000 W respectively while the pressure and source for the water vapor injection are 66.6 Pa and 1800 W respectively. However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the power and plasma pressure to be result effective variables affecting the stripping of the masking layer (paragraph 0159). Thus, it would have been obvious to have the plasma pressure and RF power of the masking layer stripping within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20100043823 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. teach the method according to claim 10. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach, wherein the step of cleaning is performed using a solvent based on 2-(2- aminoethoxy)ethanol and on hydroxylamine.
Lee et al. teaches making a cleaning solution out of compounds in including 2-(2- aminoethoxy)ethanol and hydrogylamine (paragraph 0031, paragraph 0032).
Gilbert et al., Beecher et al., and Lee et al. are analogous to the claimed invention in that they involve chemical solutions meant to clean etchings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gilbert et al. so that the step of cleaning is performed using a solvent based on 2-(2- aminoethoxy)ethanol and on hydroxylamine. Alkanolamine and ammonium components are known to be part of cleaning solutions (paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gilbert et al. in view of Beecher et al. and in further view of Lee et al. teach the method according to claim 15. Neither Gilbert et al. nor Beecher et al. teach wherein the content of 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol in the solvent is comprised between 55% and 65% and the content of hydroxylamine is comprised between 10% and 20%, wherein each % is % weight.
Lee et al. teaches a hydroxylamine derivative present in an amount from about 0.3% to about 45% by weight (paragraph 0031) while 2-(2-aminoethoxy)ethanol can be from about 0.3% to about 65% by weight (paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gilbert et al. to have the corresponding percentage weights of the compounds. These are known percentages when constructing the solution (paragraph 0031; paragraph 0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 6144060 A) concerns an integrated circuit device of stacked layers, including a dielectric layer. Guhabiswas et al. (US 11832451 B1) concerns methods for fabricating non lead-based perovskite capacitors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A VLCEK whose telephone number is (571)272-9665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/J.A.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817