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 21-24,26-29, 30,31,32,34,35, & 36 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.
With regards to claim 21, “ the cap layer “ is inconsistent with the specification and it is unclear if the term is referring to the capping structure 122 including first capping layer 318 and second capping layer 320 [0033]or if the capping layer represents the spacer structure 118[0028]. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
With regards to claim 30, “ the capping structure” is inconsistent with the specification and it is unclear if the term is referring to the capping structure 122 including first capping layer 318 and second capping layer 320 [0033]or if the capping structure represents the spacer structure 118[0028]. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
With regards to claim 37, “ the capping structure” is inconsistent with the specification and it is unclear if the term is referring to the capping structure 122 including first capping layer 318 and second capping layer 320 [0033]or if the capping structure represents the spacer structure 118[0028]. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21 & 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rahman (US Pub no 2020/0227104 A1)
Regarding claim 21, Rahman et al discloses A semiconductor device (fig. 5F, comprising: a first conductive interconnect (116)and a second conductive interconnect(118) on a substrate(120)[0080]; a first interconnect dielectric layer(500) around the first conductive interconnect (116)and the second conductive interconnect(118) [0080]; a channel layer (101)on the first interconnect dielectric layer(500), the first conductive interconnect(116), and the second conductive interconnect(118) fig. 5f; a dielectric layer(504) around the channel layer(101) and comprising a material different from that of the channel layer(101)[0085], wherein a top surface of the channel layer(101) is coplanar with a top surface of the dielectric layer(504); a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) (104)on the channel layer(101); a hard mask (114)on the MTJ(520); and a cap layer (530)on the channel layer (101)and adjacent to the MTJ(520).
Regarding claim 26, Rahman et al discloses wherein the channel layer(101/501) comprises a conductive material[0082].
Regarding claim 27, Rahman et al discloses wherein the MTJ (520)comprises a free layer (106/506)on the channel layer(101)[0087], a barrier layer(508/108) on the free layer(106/506)[0088], and a pinned layer (110/510)on the barrier layer(508/108)[0089].
Regarding claim 28, Rahman et al discloses wherein a lower surface of the cap layer (520)on the channel layer (101)is coplanar with a lower surface of the free layer(106/506) fig. 5f.
Regarding claim 29, wherein a horizontal surface of the cap layer(530) over the channel layer (101)is below a top surface of the MTJ(520) fig. 5f.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikegawa (US Pub no 2020/0235288 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Ikegawa et al discloses A method for forming a semiconductor device, comprising: depositing a first interconnect dielectric layer(85) on a substrate(95)[0106]; forming a first conductive interconnect (75)and a second conductive interconnect(75) in the first interconnect dielectric layer(85) [0106]; forming a channel layer(70) on the first interconnect dielectric layer(85) [0107], the first conductive interconnect(75), and the second conductive interconnect(75) [0106-0107]; forming a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ)(321) on the channel layer(70)[0112], wherein the channel layer (70)electrically couples the first conductive interconnect(75) to the MTJ(320);and
forming a hard mask (45)on the MTJ(320): and forming a capping structure(15) on the channel layer(70) and abutting the MTJ(320), wherein a top surface of the capping structure(15) is aligned with a top surface of the hard mask(45) fig. 11F/11G.
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.
Claim(s) 22 & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman (US Pub no 2020/0227104 A1) in view of Yu (US Patent 10,276,784 B1).
Regarding claim 22, Rahman et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 21 but fails to teach further comprising: a second interconnect dielectric layer around the hard mask and the cap layer, wherein the cap layer and the second interconnect dielectric layer comprise different materials.
Yu et al discloses further comprising: a second interconnect dielectric layer (116)around the hard mask(114) and the cap layer(119), wherein the cap layer (119)and the second interconnect dielectric layer (116)comprise different materials (col. 4, lines 25-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rahman et al with the teachings of Yu et al in order to provide electrical isolation.
Regarding claim 24, wherein the cap layer(119) vertically separates the second interconnect dielectric layer(116) from an upper surface of the channel layer(104) fig. 1.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman (US Pub no 2020/0227104 A1) in view of Yu (US Patent 10,276,784 B1) as applied to claim 22 and further in view of Kan (US Patent 10,381,060 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Rahman et al as modified by Yu et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 21. Yu et al teaches further comprising: a third conductive interconnect over the hard mask(114) and electrically coupled to the MTJ (115)and a third interconnect dielectric layer (IMD's)on the second interconnect dielectric layer(116)(col. 3, lines 58-60). but fails to teach wherein a width of a planar bottom surface of the third conductive interconnect is greater than a width of the channel layer; and a third interconnect dielectric layer on the second interconnect dielectric layer.
However, Kan et al discloses wherein a width of a planar bottom surface of the
third conductive interconnect(M5) is greater than a width of the channel layer(840)
(col. 15, lines 42-49) fig. 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Rahman et al & Yu et al with the teachings of Kan et al to provide access to other components.
Claim(s) 30,31,32,34,35,36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman (US Pub no 2020/0227104 A1) in view of Guo (US Pub no. 2014/0252439 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Rahman et al discloses A semiconductor device, comprising: a first conductive interconnect (116)and a second conductive interconnect(118) on a substrate(120)[0080]; a first interconnect dielectric layer(500) around the first conductive interconnect (116)and the second conductive interconnect(118); a channel layer(101) on the first interconnect dielectric layer(500)[0081][0086], the first conductive interconnect(116), and the second conductive interconnect(118) [0081][0086]; a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) (104-506,508,510)on the channel layer(101)[0088-0089]; a dielectric layer (504)abutting the channel layer(101) [0082][0085]; and a capping structure(530) on the channel layer(101) and abutting the MTJ(104-506,508,510), wherein the capping structure (530) comprises a first segment along a sidewall of the MTJ (104-506,508,510)and a second segment (a portion of 530 is on 101) along an upper surface of the channel layer(101) fig. 5f.
Rhaman et al fails to teach a second interconnect dielectric layer on the capping structure and around the MTJ, wherein a horizontal surface of the second interconnect dielectric layer extends along a horizontal surface of the capping structure.
Guo et al discloses an interconnect dielectric layer(119) on a capping structure (118)and around the MTJ(15,16,17)[0053][0056], wherein a horizontal surface of the interconnect dielectric layer (119) extends along a horizontal surface of the capping structure (118) fig. 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention Rhaman et al with the teachings of Guo et al such that a second interconnect dielectric layer on the capping structure and around the MTJ, wherein a horizontal surface of the second interconnect dielectric layer extends along a horizontal surface of the capping structure results to provide electrical isolation between conductive layers.
Regarding claim 31, Rhaman et al discloses wherein the protection dielectric layer laterally wraps around the channel layer and has a bottom surface coplanar with a bottom surface of the channel layer.
Regarding claim 32, Rhaman et al discloses wherein the
dielectric layer(504) comprises a dielectric and the channel layer(101/501) comprises a conductive material[0082].
Regarding claim 34, Rhaman et al discloses wherein a thickness of the dielectric layer (504)is equal to a thickness of the channel layer(101) fig. 5f.
Regarding claim 35, Rhaman et al discloses wherein the channel layer (101)electrically couples the MTJ(104) to the first and second conductive interconnects(116/118), wherein the channel layer and the first conductive interconnect comprise different materials[0080][0082].
Regarding claim 36, Rhaman et al discloses wherein the
capping structure(530) wraps around the MTJ(104) and covers the upper surface of the channel layer(101) fig. 5f.
Claim(s) 38-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikegawa (US Pub no 2020/0235288 A1) in view of Rahman (US Pub no 2020/0227104 A1)
Regarding claim 38, Ikegawa et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 37, but fails to teach further comprising: forming a dielectric layer on the first interconnect dielectric layer, wherein the dielectric layer is disposed around the channel layer and comprises a material different from that of the first interconnect dielectric layer
that is coplanar with a top surface of the channel layer.
Rahman et al discloses forming a dielectric layer (504)on the first interconnect dielectric layer(500), wherein the dielectric layer(504) is disposed around the channel layer (101)and comprises a material different from that of the first interconnect dielectric layer (500)
that is coplanar with a top surface of the channel layer[0085]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ikegawa et al with the teachings of Rahman et al to provide a planarization layer for subsequent processing steps.
Regarding claim 39, Ikegawa et al discloses further comprising: depositing a second interconnect dielectric layer(85’) around the hard mask (45)and on the capping structure(15) fig. 11Hbut fails to teach and the dielectric layer.
However, Rahman et al discloses the dielectric layer (504)[0085]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ikegawa et al with the teachings of Rahman et al to provide a planarization layer for subsequent processing steps.
Regarding claim 40, Ikegawa et al discloses wherein the top surface of the hard mask(45) is coplanar with a top surface of the second interconnect dielectric layer(85’) fig. 11H.
Regarding claim 41, Rahman et al discloses wherein a top surface of the dielectric layer (504) is under a bottom surface of the capping structure(530) fig. 5F
Regarding claim 42, Ikegawa et al discloses wherein a height of the first conductive interconnect(75) has a height of the hard mask(45) fig .11G but fails to teach greater than the hard mask. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claim height through routine experimentation "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In Re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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 B 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights