DETAILED ACTION
General Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
For Examiner’s Interview fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html).
Status of claim(s) to be treated in this office action:
Independent: 1.
Pending: 1-20.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE WITH ORIENTED FERROELECTRIC LAYER.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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 of this title, 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) 1-19 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., US Patent 11903217 B2; in view of Fuji et al., US PG pub. 20130242435 A1.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Huang discloses a semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6);
an electrode (630, fig. 6) arranged apart from the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6); and
a ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6) arranged between the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6) and the electrode (630, fig. 6) and comprising a plurality of crystal grains, each of which has a first crystal orientation (616, fig. 6;column 8, lines 4-8) aligned within a first angle range ([111] perpendicular to [110] is about 35.3degree) with respect to a first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]) and a second crystal orientation (612, fig. 6; column 8, lines 4-8) aligned within a second angle ([110] aligned with itself would be 0 degree) range with respect to a second direction (direction of [110]) that is different from the first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]).
Huang is silent regarding: the ferroelectric layer that the materials characteristic has a crystal grain and an angle range.
Fuji discloses ferroelectric material such as hafnium oxide with an crystal orientation [111] can have a material characteristic that has a crystal grain of 21s is 0.253nm or more wherein hafnium set not less than 0.5 % and not more than 50% (¶0290).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the same material characteristic as Fuji that was not taught in Huang since that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re: Claim 2, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]) and the second direction (direction of [110]) are perpendicular to each other.
Re: Claim 3, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]) is parallel (layer 616 is parallel to layer 605 and 630) to a direction from the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6) to the electrode (630, fig. 6).
Re: Claim 4, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the second direction (direction of [110]) is any one of directions parallel to a surface of the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6).
Re: Claim 5, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the first angle range ([111] perpendicular to [110] is about 35.3degree) of the first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]) is within about 30 degrees with respect to the first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]).
Re: Claim 6, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the first crystal orientation (616, fig. 6;column 8, lines 4-8;[111]) is any one of a [111] crystal orientation, a [112] crystal orientation, and a [211] crystal orientation of the plurality of crystal grains.
Re: Claim 7, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the second crystal orientation (612, fig. 6; column 8, lines 4-8;[110]) is any one of a [010] crystal orientation and a [110] crystal orientation of the plurality of crystal grains.
Re: Claim 8, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the plurality of crystal grains further have a third crystal orientation (610, fig. 6; column 2, lines 49-53; orientation [100]) aligned within a third angle range with respect to a third direction (second direction of a crystal orientation [100] Z direction) that is different from the first direction (direction of [111] perpendicular to [110]) and the second direction (direction of [110]).
Re: Claim 9, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein a width of the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6).
Huang is silent regarding: wherein a width of the ferroelectric layer is less than or equal to about 10 nm.
However, thickness range would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re: Claim 10, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein a thickness of the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6).
Huang is silent regarding: wherein a thickness of the ferroelectric layer is less than or equal to about 10 nm.
However, thickness range would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re: Claim 11, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: a paraelectric layer (609, fig. 6; column 13, lines 27-32) between the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6) and the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6).
Re: Claim 12, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the paraelectric layer (609, fig. 6; column 13, lines 27-32) comprises a material having an amorphous phase (insulator 609 is formed by depositing by CVD PVD or ALD process when insulator deposited on an amorphous material will also be amorphous when depositing by CVD PVD or ALD process).
Re: Claim 13, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the paraelectric layer (609, fig. 6; column 13, lines 27-32; for example Hf) comprises an oxide of at least one of Hf, Si, Al, Zr, Y, La, Gd, and Sr.
Re: Claim 14, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6) directly contacts the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6).
Re: Claim 15, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein a percentage of the plurality of crystal grains in the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6) having the first and second crystal orientation (612, fig. 6; column 8, lines 4-8).
Huang is silent regarding: wherein a percentage of the plurality of crystal grains in the ferroelectric layer is equal to or greater than about 20 %.
Fuji discloses ferroelectric material such as hafnium oxide with an crystal orientation [111] can have a material characteristic that has a crystal grain of 21s is 0.253nm or more wherein hafnium set not less than 0.5 % and not more than 50% (¶0290).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the same material characteristic as Fuji that was not taught in Huang since that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re: Claim 16, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6) comprises a material having an orthorhombic crystal structure (column 13, lines 50-55; example of an orthorhombic ferroelectric material would be Hafnia film such as Hfo2 doped with Zr)
Huang is silent regarding: material having an orthorhombic crystal structure of about 40 % or more.
However, percentage range would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2sd 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re: Claim 17, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6) comprises an oxide of at least one of Si, Al, Hf, and Zr (column 13, lines 50-55).
Re: Claim 18, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 17 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the ferroelectric layer (610,612,614,616, fig. 6) comprises the oxide as a base material, and further comprises at least one of Si, Al, Y, La, Gd, Mg, Ca, Sr Ba, Ti, Zr, Hf, or N as a dopant material (column 13, lines 50-55).
Re: Claim 19, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang further discloses: wherein the semiconductor layer (605, fig. 6) comprises a first region (608, fig. 6) and a second region (608, fig. 6) each including dopants of a conductive material and arranged apart from each other.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., US Patent 11903217 B2; in view of Fuji et al., US PG pub. 20130242435 A1; further in view of Lu et al., US PG pub. 20210375934 A1.
Re: Claim 20, Huang and Fuji discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Huang and Fuji are silent regarding: a pillar extending in a first direction, wherein the semiconductor layer surrounds a side of the pillar, the electrode comprises a plurality of sub-electrodes arranged apart from each other in the first direction, and the ferroelectric layer comprises a plurality of sub-ferroelectric layers arranged between each of the plurality of sub-electrodes and the semiconductor layer.
Lu discloses in figure 33 a pillar 98 extending in a first direction (stacking direction) wherein the semiconductor layer 92 surrounds a side of the pillar 98 the electrode 72 comprises a plurality of sub-electrodes (multiple of 72) arranged apart from each other in the first direction (stack direction), and the ferroelectric layer 90 comprises a plurality of sub-ferroelectric layers (multiple of layer 90) arranged between each of the plurality of sub-electrodes (multiple of 72) and the semiconductor layer 92.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to forming a ferroelectric memory device 3D multi-layer stacks since this can dramatically increase in storage density within the same physical footprint and improve greater power efficiency.
Prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to current application disclosure.
* (“Teo et al., US PG pub. 20200303417 A1”) Discloses a transistor device that include a flexible memory cell. The flexible memory cell having a gate stack with sidewalls provided over a substrate. The gate stack including a metal gate layer provided over the substrate. A buffer layer provided over the metal gate layer. A ferroelectric layer provided over the buffer layer. A dielectric layer provided over the ferroelectric layer. Further, a two-dimensional (2D) material layer provided over a portion of a top surface of the dielectric layer. Source and drain regions provided on separate portions of the top surface of the dielectric layer so as to create a cavity that the 2D material layer are located.
* (“Yamazaki US patent 9293544 B2”) discloses a semiconductor device that includes an oxide semiconductor and is suitable for a power device having an ability to allow large current to flow therein. The semiconductor device includes: a first electrode having an opening and a second electrode provided in the opening of the first electrode and separated from the first electrode, over the semiconductor layer; a gate insulating layer over the first electrode, the second electrode, and the semiconductor layer; and a ring-shaped gate electrode over the gate insulating layer. An inner edge portion of the ring-shaped gate electrode overlaps the second electrode, while an outer edge portion of the ring-shaped gate electrode overlaps a part of the oxide semiconductor layer, which is located between the first electrode and the second electrode. An element imparting conductivity to the oxide semiconductor layer is added to the part.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSZ CHIU whose telephone number is 571-272-8656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9:00AM to 5:00PM (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 https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSZ K CHIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 Tsz.Chiu@uspto.gov
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898