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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (encompassing claims 1-15 and newly added claims 21-25) in the reply filed on 1/29/26 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 9/18/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 2-3, 6, and 14-15 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 claims 2 and 14, the term "approximately" in these claims is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term "approximately" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term approximate is defined as “nearly correct or exact.” The term “approximately” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “approximately” near the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claims are unclear. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the term “reduced” (as in “reduced level of conformity”) in these claims is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “reduced” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, is the “reduced level” of conformity in reference to another measurement or standard?
Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Parent claim 1 states that a remaining portion of the hard mask is formed when etching at least a portion of the second layer of the hard mask and claim 6 states “removing the remaining portion of the hard mask.” Removing the remaining portion of the hard mask, as-written in claim 6, implies that the all of the remaining hard mask is removed due to the use of the article “the”. However, this interpretation appears to contradict the Drawings of the instant invention and associated text from the Specification which illustrate and describe hard mask portions (302, Fig. 3N) remaining in the final device. Therefore, the examiner is unsure if the limitation in claim 6 of “removing the remaining portion of the hard mask” is intended to mean removing all of the remaining portions of the hard mask, as implied by the language as-written but not supported by the Drawings/Specification, or removing “a” remaining portion of the hard mask, as supported by the Drawings/Specification but not specifically stated. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 6-7, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Juengling et al. (U.S. 2010/0062579 A1; “Juengling”).
Regarding claim 1, Juengling discloses a method, comprising:
Depositing a first layer of hard mask (213, Fig. 1) over a first dielectric layer (211, Fig. 1) ([0021], [0024]);
Etching the first layer of the hard mask (213, Fig. 1-2), creating an etched first layer of the hard mask (213, Fig. 2) including an etched portion having a first lateral dimension (F, Fig. 2) ([0026]-[0027]);
Depositing a second layer of the hard mask (“conformally depositing a uniformly thick silicon oxide…”, [0028]) over the first layer of the hard mask ([0028]);
Etching at least a portion of the second layer of the hard mask material (217, Fig. 4), while allowing a remaining portion of the hard mask, creating an exposed portion of the first dielectric layer (211, Fig. 4) that has a second lateral dimension (F/2, Fig. 4) less than the first lateral dimension (L, Fig. 4) ([0028]); and
Etching a trench (300, Fig. 5) into the first dielectric layer (211, Fig. 5) at the exposed portion of the first dielectric layer ([0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Juengling discloses the second lateral dimension (F/2, Fig. 4) is approximately half of the first lateral dimension (F, Fig. 4) ([0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Juengling discloses removing the remaining portion of the hard mask ([0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Juengling discloses a method, comprising:
Depositing a first layer of hard mask over (213, Fig. 1) at least one dielectric layer (211, Fig. 1);
Depositing a photoresist (218, Fig. 1) over the first layer of the hard mask (213, Fig. 1);
Patterning the photoresist (218, Fig. 1) to form a first plurality of voids, each of the first plurality of voids having a first lateral dimension (F, Fig. 1);
Etching the first layer of the hard mask (213, Fig. 2) using the photoresist, the creating an etched first layer of the hard mask including a second plurality of voids, each of the second plurality of voids having the first lateral dimension (F, Fig. 2);
Removing the photoresist (Fig. 1-2);
Depositing a second layer of the hard mask over the first layer of the hard mask material to form:
A barrier (portion of conformally deposited uniformly thick silicon oxide formed adjacent to the interior walls of each of the plurality of second voids prior to etching, [0028]) over the at least one dielectric layer and lining an interior wall of each of the second plurality of voids ([0028]); and
A fill layer (portion of conformally deposited uniformly thick silicon oxide between barriers prior to etching, [0028]) over the at least one dielectric layer within the barrier of each of the second plurality of voids, the fill layer having a second lateral dimension less than the first lateral dimension ([0028]);
Etching at least a portion of the second layer of the hard mask, while allowing a remaining portion of the hard mask, to remove the fill layer to create exposed portions of the at least one dielectric layer within the barrier of each of the second plurality of voids ([0028]); and
Etching a plurality of trenches through the at least one dielectric layer at the exposed portions of the at least one dielectric layer ([0029]).
Regarding claim 12, Juengling discloses the plurality of trenches (300, Fig. 14) are arranged in a plan view as a one-dimensional array.
Regarding claim 13, Juengling discloses each of the plurality of trenches (300, Fig. 14) is rectangular in a plan view.
Regarding claim 14, Juengling discloses the second lateral dimension is approximately half of the first lateral dimension ([0028]).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juengling et al. (U.S. 2010/0062579 A1; “Juengling”) as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 4, Juengling discloses continuing to etch the trench through at least a dielectric layer (210, Fig. 5) over which the first dielectric layer (211, Fig. 5) is disposed ([0029]). Yet, Juengling does not disclose the at least a dielectric layer is a part of a plurality of dielectric layers. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have additional dielectric layers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Juengling et al. (U.S. 2010/0062579 A1; “Juengling”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Chu et al. (U.S. 2022/0238636 A1; “Chu”).
Regarding claim 11, Juengling discloses the trenches (300, Fig. 14) are arranged in at least a one-dimensional array but do not explicitly disclose they are arranged in a two-dimensional array. However, Chu discloses a plurality of structures arranged in at least a two-dimensional array (Fig. 3C-3D; [0044]). This has the advantage of forming additional trenches in an organized and closely packed manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Juengling with the trenches arranged in at least a two-dimensional array, as taught by Chu, so as to form additional trenches in an organized and closely packed manner.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandhu (U.S. 2012/0088348 A1) in view of Juengling et al. (U.S. 2010/0062579 A1; “Juengling”).
Regarding claim 1, Sandu discloses a method, comprising:
Forming a hard mask (110, Fig. 15) over and exposing a first dielectric layer (106, Fig. 14) ([0044]-[0047]); and,
Etching a trench (120, Fig. 17) into the first dielectric layer (106, Fig. 17) at the exposed portion of the first dielectric layer ([0048]-[0049]).
Yet, Sandhu does not disclose the hard mask is formed by the following steps:
Depositing a first layer of hard mask over the first dielectric layer;
Etching the first layer of the hard mask, creating an etched first layer of the hard mask including an etched portion having a first lateral dimension;
Depositing a second layer of the hard mask over the first layer of the hard mask; and,
Etching at least a portion of the second layer of the hard mask material, while allowing a remaining portion of the hard mask, creating an exposed portion of the first dielectric layer that has a second lateral dimension less than the first lateral dimension.
However, Juengling discloses a method of forming a hard mask for subsequently etching a trench comprising:
Depositing a first layer of hard mask (213, Fig. 1) over a first dielectric layer (211, Fig. 1) ([0021], [0024]);
Etching the first layer of the hard mask (213, Fig. 1-2), creating an etched first layer of the hard mask (213, Fig. 2) including an etched portion having a first lateral dimension (F, Fig. 2) ([0026]-[0027]);
Depositing a second layer of the hard mask (“conformally depositing a uniformly thick silicon oxide…”, [0028]) over the first layer of the hard mask ([0028]);
Etching at least a portion of the second layer of the hard mask material (217, Fig. 4), while allowing a remaining portion of the hard mask, creating an exposed portion of the first dielectric layer (211, Fig. 4) that has a second lateral dimension (F/2, Fig. 4) less than the first lateral dimension (L, Fig. 4) ([0028]).
This has the advantage of forming a plurality of trenches with increased device integration and density. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Sandhu with a method of forming a hard mask, as taught by Juengling, so as to form the plurality of trenches with increased device integration and density.
Regarding claim 5, Sandhu and Juengling disclose terminating the etching of the trench (Sandhu: 120, Fig. 17) at a conductive structure (Sandhu: 104, Fig. 17) over which the first dielectric layer (Sandhu: 106, Fig. 17) is disposed (Sandhu: [0049]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 are allowed.
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitations of etching through the horizontal hard mask, creating exposed portions of the top surface of the plurality of dielectric layers; disposing a first conductive layer over the horizontal hard mask and extending into the plurality of columns; disposing an insulating layer over the first conductive layer; disposing a second conductive layer over the insulating layer; forming a capping structure disposed over the second conductive layer; etching the capping structure to create an exposed portion of the second conductive layer; and forming a second electrode over the exposed portion of the second conductive layer and the capping structure in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claims 22-25 depend on claim 21.
Claims 8-10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 4/17/26
Prosecution Insights