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
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“potion” should read “portion” (claim 3, line 1);
“phase change material layer” should read “phase change material structure” (claim 14, line 2).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the passivation layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that claim 5 recites “a passivation layer” in line 2. Therefore, it is suggested that Applicant change the dependency of claim 6 from claim 1 to claim 5. Claim 6 will be examined herein as depending from claim 5 instead of from claim 1. Correction is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0213431 A1 (hereinafter “Yeh”).
Regarding claim 7, Yeh discloses in Fig. 5 and related text a semiconductor device ([0002]), comprising:
a phase change material switch comprising:
a phase change material structure (210; [0027]);
a nitrogen-containing layer (212; [0028]-[0029]) disposed on the phase change material structure;
a first conductive structure (120; [0025]) physically and electrically connected to a first end of the phase change material structure; and
a second conductive structure (122; [0025]) physically and electrically connected to a second end of the phase change material structure opposite to the first end of the phase change material structure.
Regarding claim 8, Yeh discloses the nitrogen-containing layer comprises germanium-containing chalcogenide, nitrogen and oxygen (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, Yeh discloses an amount of nitrogen in the nitrogen-containing layer is larger than an amount of oxygen in the nitrogen-containing layer (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Yeh discloses the phase change material switch further comprising:
a capping layer (310; Fig. 5; [0030]) disposed on the nitrogen-containing layer, wherein a nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen-containing layer is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the capping layer (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Yeh discloses a ratio of the nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen-containing layer to the nitrogen concentration of the capping layer is larger than 1.1 (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Yeh discloses a material of the capping layer comprises silicon nitride, silicon carbide or silicon carbonitride ([0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0151634 A1 (hereinafter “Schmidbauer”) in view of US 2007/0215853 A1 (hereinafter “Park-2007”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidbauer discloses in Figs. 1, 2 and related text a semiconductor device (100; [0008]), comprising:
a phase change material element (128; [0010]) over a substrate (102; [0008]);
a first conductive structure (129; [0012]) physically and electrically connected to the phase change material element;
a second conductive structure (131; [0012]) physically and electrically connected to the phase change material element, wherein the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure are laterally spaced apart;
a heating structure (130; [0011]) configured to heat the phase change material element; and
a first capping layer (145; [0017]) disposed on a top surface of the phase change material element.
Schmidbauer does not disclose the phase change material element comprises: a body portion; and a surface portion on a top surface of the body portion, wherein a nitrogen concentration of the surface portion is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the body portion.
Park-2007 teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the phase change material element (21; [0037]) comprises:
a body portion (23; [0037]); and
a surface portion (25; [0037]) on a top surface of the body portion, wherein a nitrogen concentration of the surface portion is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the body portion ([0037]).
Schmidbauer and Park-2007 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer with the specified features of Park-2007 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the phase change material element to comprise: a body portion; and a surface portion on a top surface of the body portion, wherein a nitrogen concentration of the surface portion is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the body portion, as taught by Park-2007, in order to obtain one or more of the following benefits: (1) the surface portion may function as a diffusion barrier to prevent atoms of the first capping layer (e.g., an adhesive layer) from diffusing into the body portion (Park-2007: [0009], [0047] and [0050]); (2) the surface portion may have a higher resistance than the body portion, which may reduce the reset current of the semiconductor device (Park-2007: [0045]); (3) the surface portion may have an excellent thermal insulation effect, which may thereby enhance the program efficiency for the body portion (Park-2007: [0048]); and (4) a relatively high degree of integration may be achieved (Park-2007: [0053] and [0072]).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1.
Schmidbauer does not disclose the nitrogen concentration of the surface portion of the phase change material element is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the first capping layer.
Park-2007 teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the nitrogen concentration of the surface portion (25; [0037]) of the phase change material element (21; [0037]) is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the first capping layer (31; if the first capping layer is formed of an elemental metal such as tantalum (Ta) or aluminum (Al), as disclosed in [0038], the first capping layer will be substantially free of nitrogen).
Schmidbauer and Park-2007 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer with the specified features of Park-2007 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the nitrogen concentration of the surface portion of the phase change material element to be larger than a nitrogen concentration of the first capping layer, as taught by Park-2007, in order to configure the surface portion to function as a diffusion barrier to prevent atoms of the first capping layer from diffusing into the body portion (Park-2007: [0009], [0047] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 1.
Schmidbauer does not disclose the body portion and the surface portion of the phase change material element comprise a germanium-containing chalcogenide.
Park-2007 teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the body portion (23; [0037]) and the surface portion (25; [0037]) of the phase change material element (21; [0037]) comprise a germanium-containing chalcogenide ([0042] and Park’s claim 15).
Schmidbauer and Park-2007 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer with the specified features of Park-2007 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the body portion and the surface portion of the phase change material element to comprise a germanium-containing chalcogenide, as taught by Park-2007, because of the technological maturity of GeSbTe as a phase change material.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 5, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 disclose a passivation layer (Schmidbauer: 137; Fig. 2; [0014]) disposed over the first capping layer and covering sidewalls of the phase change material element and a top surface and sidewalls of the first capping layer.
Regarding claim 6, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 disclose a second capping layer (Schmidbauer: 149; Fig. 2; [0017]) disposed between the first capping layer and the passivation layer, wherein a material of the second capping layer is different from a material of the first capping layer (one may be formed of silicon dioxide, and the other may be formed of silicon nitride; Schmidbauer: [0014] and [0017]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view ofJ. Appl. Phys. 132, 205102 (2022) (hereinafter “Prazakova”).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 disclose the semiconductor device according to claim 3.
Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 do not explicitly disclose the surface portion of the phase change material element comprises Ge-N bonds.
Prazakova teaches nitrogen-doped GeSbTe comprises Ge-N bonds (Abstract and Conclusions).
Schmidbauer, Park-2007 and Prazakova are analogous art because they each are directed to phase change chalcogenide materials (e.g., GeSbTe) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer in view of Park-2007 with the specified features of Prazakova because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form nitrogen-doped GeSbTe comprising Ge-N bonds, as taught by Prazakova, in order to ensure the chemical stability of the nitrogen-doped GeSbTe material.
Therefore, Park-2007 and Prazakova in combination teach the surface portion of the phase change material element comprises Ge-N bonds.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh in view of Prazakova.
Regarding claim 13, Yeh discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7.
Yeh does not explicitly disclose the nitrogen-containing layer is bonded to the phase change material structure by Ge-N bonds or Ge-Te bonds.
Prazakova teaches nitrogen-doped GeSbTe comprises Ge-N bonds (Abstract and Conclusions).
Yeh and Prazakova are analogous art because they each are directed to phase change chalcogenide materials (e.g., GeSbTe) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yeh with the specified features of Prazakova because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form nitrogen-doped GeSbTe comprising Ge-N bonds, as taught by Prazakova, in order to ensure the chemical stability of the nitrogen-doped GeSbTe material.
Therefore, Yeh and Prazakova in combination teach the nitrogen-containing layer is bonded to the phase change material structure by Ge-N bonds or Ge-Te bonds.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeh.
Regarding claim 14, Yeh discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7.
Yeh does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a thickness of the nitrogen-containing layer to a thickness of the phase change material layer is between 0.005 and 0.1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a ratio of a thickness of the nitrogen-containing layer to a thickness of the phase change material layer to be between 0.005 and 0.1 in order to impart a hydrophobic characteristic to the nitrogen-containing layer, thereby improving the adhesion of an overlying protective layer (Yeh: [0028]-[0030]).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1980). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Yeh discloses the semiconductor device according to claim 7.
Yeh does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the nitrogen-containing layer is between 10 angstroms and 50 angstroms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a thickness of the nitrogen-containing layer to be between 10 angstroms and 50 angstroms in order to impart a hydrophobic characteristic to the nitrogen-containing layer, thereby improving the adhesion of an overlying protective layer (Yeh: [0028]-[0030]).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1980). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer in view of US 2013/0017663 A1 (hereinafter “Park-2013”).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidbauer discloses in Figs. 1, 2 and related text a method of forming a semiconductor device (100; [0008]), comprising:
depositing a conductive material layer (“a common layer of metal”; [0014]) over a substrate (102; [0014]);
patterning the conductive material layer to form a heating structure (130; [0014]), a first conductive structure (129; [0014]) and a second conductive structure (131; [0014]), wherein the heating structure is disposed between the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure;
depositing a phase change material layer (“a layer of phase change material”; [0014]) over the heating structure, the first conductive structure and the second conductive structure; and
depositing a capping material layer (“layers of a capping structure 135”; [0014]) on the phase change material layer.
Schmidbauer does not disclose performing a surface treatment on a surface of the phase change material layer to remove an oxide layer on the phase change material layer.
Park-2013 teaches in Figs. 4-6 and related text performing a surface treatment on a surface of the phase change material layer (160; [0043]) to remove an oxide layer (165; [0043]) on the phase change material layer ([0044]-[0045]).
Schmidbauer and Park-2013 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer with the specified features of Park-2013 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform a surface treatment on a surface of the phase change material layer to remove an oxide layer on the phase change material layer, as taught by Park-2013, in order to undo the effect of the substrate being exposed to a low vacuum state or to the ambient after depositing the phase change material layer, thereby restoring the original physical and electrical characteristics of the phase change material layer (Park-2013: [0043]).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 disclose the method according to claim 16.
Schmidbauer does not disclose the surface treatment comprises a nitridation treatment.
Park-2013 teaches the surface treatment comprises a nitridation treatment ([0045]).
Schmidbauer and Park-2013 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer with the specified features of Park-2013 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform a nitridation treatment as part of the surface treatment, as taught by Park-2013, in order to render the phase change material layer substantially free of voids or seams (Park-2013: [0045]).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Yeh.
Regarding claim 18, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 disclose the method according to claim 17.
Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 do not disclose the nitridation treatment comprises exposing the surface of the phase change material layer to a nitrogen plasma to form a nitrogen-containing layer on the phase change material layer.
Yeh teaches in Fig. 2 and related text the nitridation treatment comprises exposing the surface of the phase change material layer (210) to a nitrogen (N2) plasma to form a nitrogen-containing layer (212) on the phase change material layer ([0028] and [0029]).
Schmidbauer, Park-2013 and Yeh are analogous art because they each are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 with the specified features of Yeh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the nitridation treatment to comprise exposing the surface of the phase change material layer to a nitrogen plasma to form a nitrogen-containing layer on the phase change material layer, as taught by Yeh, in order to impart a hydrophobic characteristic to the surface of the phase change material layer, thereby improving the adhesion of an overlying protective layer (Yeh: [0028]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 19, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013, and further in view of Yeh, disclose the method according to claim 18.
Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 do not disclose a nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen-containing layer is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the capping material layer.
Yeh teaches in Figs. 3, 6 and related text a nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen-containing layer (212; [0028]-[0029]) is larger than a nitrogen concentration of the capping material layer (310; [0030]).
Schmidbauer, Park-2013 and Yeh are analogous art because they each are directed to semiconductor devices utilizing phase change materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 with the specified features of Yeh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form a nitrogen concentration of the nitrogen-containing layer to be larger than a nitrogen concentration of the capping material layer, as taught by Yeh, in order to impart a hydrophobic characteristic to the surface of the phase change material layer, thereby improving the adhesion of an overlying protective layer (i.e., the capping material layer as claimed) (Yeh: [0028]-[0030]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Prazakova.
Regarding claim 20, Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 disclose the method according to claim 16.
Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 do not explicitly disclose after performing the surface treatment, Ge-N bonds are formed on the surface of the phase change material layer.
Prazakova teaches nitrogen-doped GeSbTe comprises Ge-N bonds (Abstract and Conclusions).
Schmidbauer, Park-2013 and Prazakova are analogous art because they each are directed to phase change chalcogenide materials (e.g., GeSbTe) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Schmidbauer in view of Park-2013 with the specified features of Prazakova because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form nitrogen-doped GeSbTe comprising Ge-N bonds, as taught by Prazakova, in order to ensure the chemical stability of the nitrogen-doped GeSbTe material.
Therefore, Park-2013 and Prazakova in combination teach after performing the surface treatment, Ge-N bonds are formed on the surface of the phase change material layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT).
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/PETER M ALBRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811