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 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 1, 3-10, and 31-34 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 amended claim 1, newly added lines 14-16 recite: performing a second deposition sequence to form a second monolayer of the film, wherein the first monolayer has a first aluminum nitride density different from a second aluminum nitride density of the second monolayer. This recited language used to define the invention 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, it is unclear what type of density this recited language is addressing. Is a first aluminum nitride density referring to how much first aluminum nitride mass is in a given volume of the first monolayer and is a second aluminum nitride density referring to how much second aluminum nitride mass is in a given volume of the second monolayer? If so, then are these masses in a given volume of the first monolayer and the second monolayer for only a portion of these monolayers or for the entire monolayers? As another example, is density instead referring to charge density?1 As an additional example, is density instead referring to aluminum and/or nitrogen vacancies?2 Perhaps Applicant has another intended meaning for density? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 14-16 of amended claim 1 as reciting “performing a second deposition sequence to form a second monolayer of the film” because of this ambiguity. Claims 3-10 and 31-34 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claim 1.
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, 3, 4, 8, 9, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0054196 A1 (Wu) in view of US 2021/0090877 A1 (Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses, A method (FIG. 3, [0021]), comprising:
forming a bottom electrode layer (bottom electrode layer (11); FIG. 2a; [0025]) over a substrate (substrate (10); FIG. 2a; [0025]);
PNG
media_image1.png
585
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performing a first deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021]) over the bottom electrode layer (11), wherein the first deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021]) comprises:
pulsing a first precursor (first precursor (21); FIG. 3; [0030] and [0008]) over the bottom electrode layer (11) such that the first precursor comprises a first plurality of precursor molecules ([0030]) adsorbing on the bottom electrode layer (11);
PNG
media_image2.png
857
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing a first purge after pulsing the first precursor (first purge (22); FIG. 3; [0031]);
performing a first plasma treating step ([0032]) using a first treatment gas (first treatment gas (23); FIG. 3; [0032]), wherein the first treatment gas reacts with the first plurality of precursor molecules to form a first monolayer of a film (first monolayer of a film (14); FIG. 2b; [0034]—meal nitride monolayer of a film);
PNG
media_image3.png
397
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
pulsing the first treatment gas (step (23); [0032] and [0008]);
after pulsing the first treatment gas, performing a second plasma treating step using a second treatment gas (second treatment gas (23); FIG. 3; [0032], [0034] and/or [0035]—steps 21, 22, 23, 24 are repeated); and
performing a second deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021]) to form a second monolayer of the film (second monolayer of film (14); FIG 2b; [0034]), wherein the first monolayer has a first aluminum nitride density different from a second aluminum nitride density of the second monolayer.3
But, Applicant may argue that Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose,
the film has an Al-N bond4 with a first intensity; and
such that the film has an Al-N bond5 with a second intensity.
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 claimed invention that a method (method (100); FIGs. 1 and 2; [0025]) includes performing a first deposition sequence (first deposition sequence (120); FIG. 1; [0026]) that includes pulsing a first precursor (first precursor (130); FIGs. 1 and 2; [0027] and [0028]) such that the first precursor comprises a first plurality of precursor molecules (first plurality of precursor molecules (210); FIG. 2; [0029]) and performing a first purge after pulsing the first precursor (first purge (135); FIG. 1; [0039]). Chen also discloses performing a first plasma treatment (first plasma treatment (150 and 160); FIG. 1; [0045] and [0050]) using a first treatment gas ([0045] and [0050]), wherein the first treatment gas reacts ([0045] and [0050]) with the first plurality of precursor molecules (210) to form a first monolayer of a film (first monolayer of a film (230); FIG. 2; [0050]—nitride monolayer), which can be an aluminum nitride (AlN) film ([0030]) with an Al-N bond. Chen additionally discloses after pulsing the first treatment gas ([0045] and [0050]), performing a second plasma treatment (second plasma treatment (150 and 160); FIG. 1; [0045] and [0050]); using a second treatment gas ([0045] and [0050]).
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 Wu and Chen before him/her that the first monolayer of a film (14) of Wu which is a meal nitride monolayer of a film can be predicably formed to be an aluminum nitride (AlN) monolayer of a film with an Al-N bond, as taught by Chen, because an aluminum nitride (AlN) monolayer of a film is a metal nitride monolayer of a film—Please see, e.g., MPEP 2143(B)—Simple Substitution Of One Known Element For Another To Obtain Predicable Results.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her that the film (14) of Wu in view of Chen has an Al-N bond with a first intensity and an Al-N bond with a second intensity because the intensities of these Al-N bonds are inherent features or properties of such Al-N bonds. Please see, e.g., Paula Y. Bruice; Organic Chemistry, Chapter 13.10, The Intensity of Absorption Bands; 2010; Prentice Hall; 6th Edition; pages 13.10.1-13.10.9 (Year: 2010). Please also see, MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is different from the second intensity of the Al-N bond because one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding the inherent first intensity of the Al-N bond with respect to the inherent second intensity of the Al-N bond—i.e., the first intensity of the Al-N bond can be either: (i) the same as the second intensity of the Al-N bond or (ii) different from the second intensity of the Al-N bond—and, absent unexpected results, it would have obvious to try each of these predicable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success one of which is wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is different from the second intensity of the Al-N bond, as recited in claim 3. Please see, MPEP 2143(E)—“Obvious To Try” – Choosing From A Finite Number Of Identified, Predicable Solutions, With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is less than the second intensity of the Al-N bond because one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding the inherent first intensity of the Al-N bond with respect to the inherent second intensity of the Al-N bond—i.e., the first intensity of the Al-N bond can be: (i) the equal to the second intensity of the Al-N bond, (ii) greater than the second intensity of the Al-N bond, or (iii) less than the second intensity of the Al-N bond—and, absent unexpected results, it would have obvious to try each of these predicable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success one of which is wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is less than the second intensity of the Al-N bond, as recited in claim 4. Please see, MPEP 2143(E), above.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the film (14) is AlN ([0030] of Chen).
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein a composition of the first treatment gas (23) is different from a composition of the second treatment gas (23) ([0032] of Wu—NH3, N2H4, and N2 are different gases).
Regarding claim 33, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the first treatment gas (23) is nitrogen gas, hydrogen gas, or a combination thereof (Wu, [0032]).
Regarding claim 34, Wu in view of Chen discloses , The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the second treatment gas comprises an inert gas (Wu, [0032]).6
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0140197 A1 (Yen).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising:
forming a top electrode layer over the second monolayer of the film, wherein the top electrode layer is TiN.
However, in analogous art, Yen discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an RRAM memory element (memory element (ME); FIGs. 5A and 5B; [0034]) may be predicably fabricated to include a bottom electrode (bottom electrode (E1); FIG. 5B; [0034]), a top electrode (top electrode (E2); FIG. 5B; [0034]), and a resistance variable layer (resistance variable layer (RV); FIG. 5B; [0034]) between and in contact with bottom electrode (E1) and top electrode (E2) (FIG. 5B).
PNG
media_image4.png
742
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yen also that top electrode (E2) may be predicably fabricated of a conductive material such as TiN ([0034]).
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 Wu, Chen, and Yen before him/her to form a top electrode layer over the second monolayer of the film (14) of Wu in view of Chen to form an RRAM memory element, as taught by Yen, and that the top electrode layer is TiN, as also taught by Yen.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Chen and further in view of Yen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 5, wherein the top electrode layer (E2) is in contact with the second monolayer of the film (14).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Chen and further in view of Yen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the bottom electrode (E1) layer is Pt ([0034] of Yen—“top electrode E2 may be made of a conductive material such as Pt” and [0035] of Yen—“In alternative embodiments, materials forming the bottom electrode E1 and the top electrode E2 are exchanged’).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0069204 A1 (Ko).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant may argue that Wu in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the second treatment gas is a mixture of He and Ar.7
However, in analogous art, Ko 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 memory cell may be predicably fabricated to include a bottom electrode layer, a top electrode layer, and a data storage film between the top and bottom electrode layers ([0126]). Ko 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 the method of predicably fabricating the memory cell thereof may include a plasma treating step which includes a treatment gas mixture of He and Ar ([0126]).
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 Wu, Chen, and Ko before him/her that the second treatment gas (23) of Wu in view of Chen is a mixture of He and Ar, as taught by Ko, to predicably fabricate a memory cell, via a plasma treating step, as also taught by Yen. See also, e.g., MPEP 2143(A)—Combining Prior Art Elements According To Known Methods To Yield Predicable Results.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Chen and further in view of US 2013/0017328 A1 (Miyoshi).
Regarding claim 31, Wu in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein forming the bottom electrode layer over the substrate is performed using sputtering.
However, in analogous art, Miyoshi discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sputtering has the advantage of being able to control thickness of films such that thin layers may be fabricated ([0006]).
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 Wu, Chen, and Miyoshi before him/her to form the bottom electrode layer (11) of Wu in view of Chen over the substrate (10) thereof using sputtering, as taught by Miyoshi, to fabricate a thin electrode layer (11) by controlling a thickness thereof, as also taught by Miyoshi.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Chen and further in view of US 2019/0186009 A1 (Tutt).
Regarding claim 32, Applicant may argue that Wu in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first precursor comprises Trimethylaluminum (TMA), Triethylaluminium (TEA), or Tetrakis(dimethylamido) aluminum (TDMAA).8
However, in analogous art, Tutt discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Trimethylaluminum (TMA) is a highly reactive precursor ([0066]).
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 Wu, Chen, and Tutt before him/her that the first precursor (21) of Wu in view of Chen comprises Trimethylaluminum (TMA), Triethylaluminium (TEA), or Tetrakis(dimethylamido) aluminum (TDMAA), as taught by Tutt, because Trimethylaluminum (TMA) is a highly reactive precursor, as also taught by Tutt.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of claim 1 and arguments on pages eight (8)-nine (9) of the “Amendment Under 37 C.F.R. §1.111” filed on June 5, 2026 (hereinafter the “Response”) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Office Action dated March 6, 2026 (hereinafter the “Office Action”) have been fully considered. However, they have necessitated a new ground of rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as detailed above in this Final Office Action. Also, newly added claims 31 and 32 have necessitated new grounds of rejection, as also detailed above in this Final Office Action.
Regarding newly added claims 31-34, the Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant did not indicate if these claims are readable on the originally elected invention of claims 1-10, as required by paragraph ten (10) of the Restriction Requirement dated November 26, 2025. These newly added claims appear to include subject matter that is patentably distinct from and was, therefore, not part of originally elected invention of Group I, claims 1-10. The Examiner also respectfully submits that the amendment to independent claim 1 appears to be adding non-elected subject matter similar to that of withdrawn claim 30 into the elected subject matter recited in claim 1.
As a courtesy to Applicant and to facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner will examine amended independent claim 1 and new claims 31-34. However, the Examine will not rejoin and examine withdrawn non-elected claim 30 or the other withdrawn claims 21-23 and 27-29, as requested by Applicant on page ten (10) of the Response, because elected pending claims 1, 3-10, and 31-34 are not allowable, as additionally detailed above 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 overcome rejection of the currently pending claims prior to submitting a written response to this Final Office Action. The Examiner would welcome such a discussion of these proposed 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.
WO 2023/212598 A1 (Greene)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that density of a monolayer may refer to charge density (page 8, lines 15-18).
US 2020/0308719 A1 (Cao)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that density of a monolayer may refer to vacancies of an element of that monolayer ([0094]).
US 2023/0151398 A1 (Dumon-Seignovert)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that nitrogen is an inert gas ([0123]).
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 Office 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 Office 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 Office 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, WO 2023/212598 A1 (Greene) cited in the Examiner references, below.
2 Please see, US 2020/0308719 A1 (Cao) cited in Examiner references, below.
3 Please see the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how this recited language of claim 1 is being interpreted for purpose of examination.
4 However, Wu does disclose that the first monolayer of a film (14) is a metal nitride film ([0034]) and aluminum (Al) is a metal.
5 However, Wu does disclose that the first monolayer of a film (14) is a metal nitride film ([0034]) and aluminum (Al) is a metal.
6 Please see, US 2023/0151398 A1 (Dumon-Seignovert) cited in Examiner references, below.
7 The Examiner respectfully notes that Wu does, however, disclose the use of helium (He) and argon (Ar) as part of the method of FIG. 3. Please see, e.g., paragraph [0031] of Wu.
8 The Examiner respectfully notes, however, paragraph [0029] of Chen does disclose—“The precursor may be any suitable compound to absorb a layer of the reactive species (210)”.
Prosecution Insights