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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection or indication of allowable subject matter as necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments as detailed below.
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.
Claim 8 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 8 recites wherein the capacitor further includes a dielectric layer, but claim 8 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 has been amended to recite a dielectric layer. Therefore, additionally reciting a dielectric layer in claim 8 is indefinite as it is unclear whether the dielectric layer of claim 8 is the same or different from the dielectric layer of amended claim 1, i.e. double inclusion MPEP 2173.05(o). Since Applicant’s drawings disclose a single capacitor dielectric layer, claim 8’s “a dielectric layer” is interpreted as “[[a]] the dielectric layer”.
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 1,3-6,8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0012989 A1 to LEE et al., “Lee”, as evidenced by Wikipedia’s table on Work function of elements (previously relied upon), in view of US 2014/0138794 A1 to YANG et al., “Yang”.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a semiconductor device (e.g. FIG. 7J), comprising:
a lower structure (23, ¶ [0062]);
a capacitor (101,102,103,104, ¶ [0073]-[0085],[0091]) on the lower structure, the capacitor including a first bottom electrode (101, from FIG. 2A electrode 15A), which is extended in a direction perpendicular to a bottom surface of the lower structure, and
a second bottom electrode (102, from FIG. 2A electrode 15B) on the first bottom electrode;
wherein the first bottom electrode (15A) includes a first material (e.g. “The pillar type storage nodes 15A and 15B include one of a metallic nitride layer, a metal layer, and a combination thereof. For instance, the pillar type storage nodes 15A and 15B include one of TiN, Ru, TaN, WN, Pt, Ir, and a combination thereof.” ¶ [0036]) having a first work function (the disclosed materials inherently have a work function), the first bottom electrode (15A/101) being directly coupled with a first region of a dielectric layer (FIG. 7J lower portion of dielectric 103),
the second bottom electrode (15B/102) includes a second material having a second work function, the second bottom electrode (15B/102) being directly coupled with a second region of the dielectric layer (upper portion of capacitor dielectric layer 103).
Lee fails to clearly state in sufficient detail for anticipation wherein the second work function (of the second material of the second bottom electrode) is greater than the first work function of the first material (of the first bottom electrode).
However, Lee teaches wherein the first material and second material may be selected from a metallic nitride layer, a metal layer, or a combination thereof, for instance one of TiN, Ru, TaN, WN, Pt, Ir, and a combination thereof (¶ [0039], [0049], [0055], [0070], [0083], [0103], [0113], [0133], [0148], [0168], [0180]) and Wikipedia’s entry on work function teaches wherein the work function of the materials include values where one is greater than another (e.g. Pt = 5.12-5.93 is higher than Ru = 4.71).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device of Lee with the selection of first and second materials with for example the first material being a material (e.g. Pt) which inherently has a greater work function than a second material (e.g. Ru) since it has been held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2141, that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention,
wherein in the instant case one having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of and would have found it “Obvious to try” any of the finite list of identified materials taught by Lee for the first and second materials with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success in forming suitable bottom electrodes.
Lee fails to clearly teach a bottom supporting pattern configured to support the first bottom electrode and a top supporting pattern on the bottom supporting pattern configured to support the first bottom electrode.
Yang teaches (e.g. FIG. 1) a semiconductor device including:
a bottom supporting pattern (layer 51, ¶ [0055],[0061],[0063]-[0066]) configured to support the first bottom electrode (71 in FIG. 1, 71A in FIG. 7C) and a top supporting pattern (layer 61, ¶ [0055],[0061],[0063]-[0066]) on the bottom supporting pattern and configured to support the first bottom electrode (71 or 71A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device of Lee with bottom and top supporting patterns as taught by Yang in order to support the vertical bottom electrode from collapsing while achieving excellent insulating properties and suppressing leakage currents between the bottom electrodes (Yang ¶ [0164],[0071],[0063],[0066],[0074]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Lee further teaches wherein the second bottom electrode (102 from 15B) has a width, in a direction parallel to the bottom surface of the lower structure, that is larger at a top surface thereof than at a bottom surface thereof (both electrodes are formed with sloped sidewalls having a greater width at the top ¶ [0082],[0084]).
Regarding claim 4, although Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 1, Lee fails to clearly anticipate wherein the work function of the second material ranges from 4.5 eV to 5.5 eV.
However, Lee teaches wherein the second material may be Pt which has a work function of 5.12-5.93 (according to Wikipedia) or Ir which has a work function of 5.00-5.67 (according to Wikipedia).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device of Lee in view of Yang with the second material having a work function within the claimed range as taught by the materials with overlapping work function ranges of Lee since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Lee further teaches wherein the second material includes tantalum nitride (Lee ¶ [0039], [0049], [0055], [0070], [0083], [0103], [0113], [0133], [0148], [0168], [0180]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 5, and Lee further teaches wherein the first material includes titanium nitride or tungsten (WN) (Lee ¶ [0039], [0049], [0055], [0070], [0083], [0103], [0113], [0133], [0148], [0168], [0180]).
Regarding claim 8 insofar as definite, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Lee further teaches (FIG. 7J) wherein the capacitor further includes [[a]] the dielectric layer (103), which is on at least a portion of the first bottom electrode (101) and at least a portion of the second bottom electrode (102).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 8, and Lee further teaches wherein the capacitor further includes a top electrode (104, ¶ [0091]) on a surface of the dielectric layer (103), and the top electrode (104) is spaced apart from the first (101) and second (102) bottom electrodes with the dielectric layer (103) interposed therebetween.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 1, and Yang further teaches (e.g. FIG. 7F) wherein the bottom supporting pattern (51) includes a same material (e.g. both include silicon nitride ¶ [0061]) as a top supporting pattern (52, ¶ [0082]-[0086]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0012989 A1 to LEE et al., “Lee”, in view of US 2014/0138794 A1 to YANG et al., “Yang”.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses a semiconductor device (e.g. FIG. 7J), comprising:
a substrate (21, ¶ [0062]);
a landing pad (23, ¶ [0062]);
a capacitor (101,102,103,104, ¶ [0073]-[0085],[0091]) on the landing pad (23), the capacitor including a first bottom electrode (101, ¶ [0073]-[0075]) connected to the landing pad (23) and a second bottom electrode (102, ¶ [0083]-[0086]) disposed on the first bottom electrode (101);
wherein the second bottom electrode (102) is connected to the first bottom electrode (101) by an interface (see Examiner-annotated figure below) disposed between the first bottom electrode (101) and the second bottom electrode (102); and
PNG
media_image1.png
362
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second bottom electrode (102) is configured such that a width of an upper surface thereof, in a direction parallel to a top surface of the substrate (21), is larger than a width of a lower surface thereof, the lower surface being directly coupled to the interface (with 101, as pictured and since both 101 and 102 are formed within openings having a slope with a wider opening at the top ¶ [0082],[0084]).
Lee fails to clearly teach:
the substrate (21) including active patterns;
word lines disposed on the substrate to traverse the active patterns;
bit lines disposed on the substrate to traverse the word lines;
a bit line contact disposed on a center portion of one of the active patterns and connected to one of the bit lines;
storage node contacts disposed on opposite ends of each of the active patterns;
the landing pad (23) on one of the storage node contacts; and
both a bottom supporting pattern configured to support the first bottom electrode together with a top supporting pattern on the bottom supporting pattern and configured to support the first bottom electrode.
Yang teaches (e.g. FIG. 1, FIG. 7C, 7F) a semiconductor device including:
a substrate (21) which includes active patterns (22, ¶ [0054]);
word lines (29) disposed on the substrate (21) to traverse the active patterns (22);
bit lines (36, ¶ [0054]) disposed on the substrate (21) to traverse the word lines (29);
a bit line contact (35, ¶ [0059]) disposed on a center portion of one of the active patterns (22) and connected to one of the bit lines (36);
storage node contacts (37, ¶ [0054],[0055]) disposed on opposite ends of each of the active patterns;
a landing pad (e.g. interface between 37 and 71 in FIG. 1, or alternately FIG. 7F landing pad 71P1, ¶ [0103]) on one of the storage node contacts (37); and
a bottom supporting pattern (layer 51, ¶ [0055],[0061],[0063]-[0066]) configured to support the first bottom electrode (71 in FIG. 1, 71A in FIG. 7C) and a top supporting pattern (layer 61, ¶ [0055],[0061],[0063]-[0066]) on the bottom supporting pattern and configured to support the first bottom electrode (71 or 71A).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device of Lee with bottom and top supporting patterns as taught by Yang in order to support the vertical bottom electrode from collapsing while achieving excellent insulating properties and suppressing leakage currents between the bottom electrodes (Yang ¶ [0164],[0071],[0063],[0066],[0074]-[0079]) and with active regions and connecting circuitry in the substrate in order to form a functioning device.
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 11, and Lee further teaches (e.g. FIG. 2B) wherein a portion of the second bottom electrode (15B) has a rounded side surface (rounded circular prism as pictured has rounded sidewalls).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0012989 A1 to LEE et al., “Lee”, as evidenced by Wikipedia’s table on Work function of elements (previously relied upon), in view of US 2014/0138794 A1 to YANG et al., “Yang”.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Yang yields the semiconductor device of claim 11, and although Lee teaches wherein the first bottom electrode comprises a first material and the second bottom electrode comprises a second material, Lee fails to clearly anticipate wherein a work function of the second material is greater than a work function of the first material by a range of 0.1 eV to 1 eV.
However, Lee teaches wherein the first material and second material may be selected from a metallic nitride layer, a metal layer, or a combination thereof, for instance one of TiN, Ru, TaN, WN, Pt, Ir, and a combination thereof (¶ [0039], [0049], [0055], [0070], [0083], [0103], [0113], [0133], [0148], [0168], [0180]) and Wikipedia’s entry on work function teaches wherein the work function of the materials include values where one is greater than another within the range of 0.1-1 eV (e.g. Pt = 5.12-5.93 is higher than Ru = 4.71).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to have formed the device of Lee with the selection of first and second materials with for example the first material being a material (e.g. Pt) which inherently has a greater work function in a range of 0.1-1 eV than a second material (e.g. Ru) since it has been held in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007), MPEP 2141, that exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention,
wherein in the instant case one having ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of and would have found it “Obvious to try” any of the finite list of identified materials taught by Lee for the first and second materials with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success in forming suitable bottom electrodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art e.g. Lee teaches semiconductor devices with first and second bottom electrodes as discussed above and Yang teaches bottom and top supporting patterns as discussed above.
Prior art e.g. US 2020/0395438 A1 to Kang et al. discloses a semiconductor device (FIG. 4), comprising:
a lower structure (e.g. 150 and 152, ¶ [0042]);
a capacitor (e.g. CS1A) on the lower structure, the capacitor including a first bottom electrode (172A, ¶ [0063]), which is extended in a direction perpendicular to a bottom surface of the lower structure, and
a second bottom electrode (topmost 174A, ¶ [0064],[0065]) on the first bottom electrode (172A);
a bottom supporting pattern (192, ¶ [0051]) configured to support the first bottom electrode (172A); and
a top supporting pattern (194, ¶ [0051]) on the bottom supporting pattern configured to support the first bottom electrode (172A),
wherein the first bottom electrode includes a first material (e.g. titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), ¶ [0063]), and
the second bottom electrode (174A) includes a second material (e.g. niobium nitride ¶ [0065]), as discussed previously.
Prior art e.g. US 2023/0215910 A1 to Song et al. discloses a semiconductor device (FIG. 2), comprising:
a lower structure (103, ¶ [0046]);
a capacitor on the lower structure, the capacitor including a first bottom electrode (105, ¶ [0049]), which is extended in a direction perpendicular to a bottom surface of the lower structure (103), and
a second bottom electrode (108 may be niobium nitride (NbN) ¶ [0054]) on the first bottom electrode (105);
a bottom supporting pattern (106S, ¶ [0048]) configured to support the first bottom electrode (105); and
a top supporting pattern (107S) on the bottom supporting pattern (106S) configured to support the first bottom electrode (105),
wherein the first bottom electrode (105) includes a first material (e.g. titanium or tungsten ¶ [0049]),
the second bottom electrode (108) includes a second material (e.g. niobium nitride (NbN) ¶ [0054]), as discussed previously.
Wikipedia’s table on Work function of elements and “Measurement of work function of transition metal nitride and carbide thin films” Y. Gotoh, H. Tsuji, J. Ishikawa in J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B Microelectron. Nanometer Struct. Process. Meas. Phenom., 21 (2003), pp. 1607-1611, evidences wherein niobium nitride (NbN) has a work function of 4.7-4.9 eV (e.g. page 1609 left column and FIG. 1(b)) and evidences that the work function of a second material (niobium nitride (NbN)) is greater than a work function of the first material (titanium (Ti) or tungsten (W)), as discussed previously.
However, prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein a top surface of the first bottom electrode is at a level, relative to the bottom surface of the lower structure, which is equal to or lower than a top surface of the top supporting pattern, and a top surface of the second bottom electrode is located at a level, relative to the bottom surface of the lower structure, which is higher than the top surface of the top supporting pattern, as claimed in claim 2 together with all of the other limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Additionally, prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest wherein a cross-sectional thickness of the second bottom electrode is smaller than half of a cross-sectional thickness of the first bottom electrode as claimed in claim 7 together with all of the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
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 ERIC A WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3406. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)272-1731. 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.
/Eric A. Ward/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights