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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 6/4/2026 in which claim 1 was amended.
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 1-7 presented for examination and claims 8-14 remaining withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, "a sidewall of the MTJ is less than the thickness" should be amended to read -the sidewall of the MTJ is less than a thickness-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al (US 2019/0088863 and Lu hereinafter) in view of Jacob et al (US 2020/0098976 and Jacob hereinafter) in view of Bak et al (US 2017/0054070 and Bak hereinafter).
As to claims 1-7: Lu discloses [claim 1] a semiconductor device (Fig. 1M; [0030]), comprising: a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) (130; [0014]) on a substrate (100; [0012]); a first liner (142; [0017]) adjacent to the MTJ (130); a second liner (154; [0026]) on and directly contacting the first liner (142), wherein sidewalls of the first liner (sidewalls of 142 that contact 130), the second liner (sidewalls of 154 that contact 142 and 134), and the MTJ (sidewalls of 130 that contact 142 and 154) are aligned (the sidewalls noted previously interface along a plane that extends along the sidewalls of 130 and are thus aligned) to a top surface of the substrate (100) and the first liner (142) comprises an uneven thickness (142 is narrower at the top and bottom compared to the center along the sidewall of 130) while the second liner (154) comprises an even thickness (154 along the top surface of 126 and along the sidewalls of 130 and 134 are the same constant thickness); and a first metal interconnection (190; [0030]) on the MTJ (130), wherein the first metal interconnection (190) comprises a barrier layer (barrier layer; [0030]) contacting the second liner (154); [claim 2] further comprising: a first inter-metal dielectric (IMD) layer (180; [0028]) around the second liner (154); a second metal interconnection under the MTJ (Fig. 1A; 112; [0012]); and a second IMD layer (Fig. 1A; 110; [0012]) around the second metal interconnection (112); [claim 3] wherein a thickness (Fig. 1M; thickness of 142 at the interface of 132 and 134 of 130) of the first liner (142) on a sidewall of the MTJ (130) is less than the thickness (thickness of 142 closest to 110, which is the thickness of 142 directly on 126) of the first liner (142) on a top surface of the second IMD layer (110); [claim 4] wherein a top surface (top of 134) of the MTJ (130) comprises a planar surface (flat surface); [claim 7] wherein the first liner (142) and the second liner (154) are made of different materials (142 can be silicon nitride and 154 can be a metal oxide; [0017]-[0018] and [0027]).
Lu fails to expressly disclose [claim 1] where the sidewalls are perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate; [claim 5] wherein a first sidewall of the first metal interconnection is aligned with a first sidewall of the MTJ; [claim 6] wherein a second sidewall of the first metal interconnection is aligned with a second sidewall of the MTJ.
Lu discloses in Fig. 1M an MTJ device 130 with slanted/angled sidewalls where the sidewalls of the first metal interconnection 190 are slanted/angled as well.
Jacob discloses in Fig. 13 and [0028] an MTJ device 60 with sidewalls perpendicular to the substrate such [claim 1] that the sidewalls of the liner layer(s) 70 ([0029]) formed on the MTJ with perpendicular sidewalls will be perpendicular; [claim 5] wherein a first sidewall (Fig. 13; left sidewall) of the first metal interconnection (131; [0041]) is aligned (sidewalls of 131 and 60 are coplanar and are thus aligned) with a first sidewall (left sidewall) of the MTJ (60); [claim 6] wherein a second sidewall (right sidewall) of the first metal interconnection (131) is aligned (sidewalls of 131 and 60 are coplanar and are thus aligned) with a second sidewall (right sidewall) of the MTJ (60).
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing the sidewalls of the MTJ to be perpendicular to the substrate top surface and the sidewalls of the first interconnection are perpendicular to the substrate top surface such that they are coplanar with the MTJ as in Jacob instead of angled sidewalls of the MTJ and first interconnection as in Lu; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case a device that can store information, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
Lu in view of Jacob fail to expressly disclose [claim 1] where the barrier layer directly contacts the second liner.
Bak discloses an MTJ device in Fig. 16 [claim 1] where the barrier layer (240; [0126]) of the first metal interconnection (260; [0125]) directly contacts the second liner (205; [0115]).
Given the teachings of Bak, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Lu in view of Jacob by employing the well-known or conventional features of MTJ fabrication, such as displayed by Bak, by employing a barrier layer between the liner layers and IMD and the metal interconnections in order to reduce contamination between the metal interconnections and the surrounding layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights