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 § 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) 1 and 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0359644) [Hereafter “Hsiao”] in view of Allman et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0143248) [Hereafter “Allman”].
Regarding claim 1, Hsiao [Figs.5-12] discloses a method, comprising:
forming a first metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor [260] over a substrate, wherein the forming of the first MIM capacitor comprises:
depositing a first conductive material layer [262] over the substrate, the first conductive material layer comprising a first metal element [Para.35] [Fig.5],
patterning the first conductive material layer to form a first conductor plate over the substrate [Para.35] [Fig.5],
conformally depositing a first dielectric layer [ZrO] over the substrate and on the first conductor plate, the first dielectric layer comprising the first metal element,
forming a first high-K dielectric layer [AlO] on the first dielectric layer,
conformally depositing a second dielectric layer [ZrO] over the substrate and on the first high-K dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer comprising a second metal element [Note: Para.36 discloses 264 comprises a triple layer stack of ZrO/AlO/ZrO], and
forming a second conductor plate [269] over the second dielectric layer, the second conductor plate comprises the second metal element [Para.40].
Hsiao [Fig.1] discloses a plurality of MIM capacitors, but fails to explicitly disclose forming a second metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor over the first MIM capacitor. However, Allman [Fig.11] discloses a method comprising forming a second metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor [30] over the first MIM capacitor [30A]. It is obvious to provide the capacitors in a stacked configuration, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Hsiao fails to explicitly disclose the relative thicknesses of the capacitor dielectric layer. Allman [Paras.33,35-37] discloses the thickness of a layer of the layer stack and discloses the thicknesses of the remaining layer is determined by providing the desired capacitance density of the layer stack. It would have been obvious to provide wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first dielectric layer to a thickness of the first high-K dielectric layer is in a range between 1/10 and 1/2 to obtain the desired layer capacitance density, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0359644) in view of Allman et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0143248), as applied above and further in view of Lai et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0278191) [Hereafter “Lai”].
Regarding claims 2-5, Hsiao and Allman fail to explicitly disclose claimed materials. However, Lai [Fig.1] discloses a method forming a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor
wherein the first metal element comprises aluminum, and the first dielectric layer comprises Al₂O₃ [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductor plates [125,127] as well as the capacitor dielectric layers [129], including aluminum and Al₂O₃];
wherein the second metal element comprises titanium, and the first dielectric layer comprises TiO₂ [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductor plates as well as the capacitor dielectric layers, including titanium and TiO₂];
wherein the first high-K dielectric layer comprises hafnium-zirconium oxide (HZO) [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductor plates as well as the capacitor dielectric layers, including hafnium-zirconium oxide (HZO)];
wherein the second metal element is different than the first metal element [Para.41; discloses the conductor plates [125,127] can be the same or different materials].
It would have been obvious to provide the claimed conductor plate and dielectric materials, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Hsiao and Allman [Discussed above] discloses
wherein the forming of the second MIM capacitor [30]/[260] comprises:
forming a third conductor plate [262] comprising a third metal element;
depositing a second high-K dielectric layer on the third conductor plate, the second high-K dielectric layer comprising oxygen [Note: Para.36 discloses 264 comprises a triple layer stack of ZrO/AlO/ZrO];
conformally depositing a third dielectric layer over the substrate and on the second high-K dielectric layer; and
forming a fourth conductor plate [269] on the third dielectric layer.
Hsiao and Allman fail to explicitly disclose wherein the fourth conductor plate and the third dielectric layer comprise a same fourth metal element. However, Lai [Fig.1] discloses a method forming a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor wherein the fourth conductor plate and the third dielectric layer comprise a same fourth metal element. [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductor plates [125,127] as well as the capacitor dielectric layers [129], including aluminum and Al₂O₃ or titanium and TiO₂]. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the fourth conductor plate and the third dielectric layer comprise a same fourth metal element, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0359644) in view of Lai et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0278191).
Regarding claim 10, Hsiao [Figs.5-12] discloses a method, comprising:
forming a first conductive layer [262] over a substrate;
performing a first atomic layer deposition (ALD) process to form a first insulation layer [ZrO] directly on the first conductive layer;
conformally forming a high-K dielectric layer [AlO] on the first insulation layer;
performing a second atomic layer deposition (ALD) process to form a second insulation layer [ZrO] over the high-K dielectric layer [Note: Para.36 discloses 264 comprises a triple layer stack of ZrO/AlO/ZrO]; and
forming a second conductive layer [266] directly on the second insulation layer.
Hsiao fails to explicitly disclose forming the insulation layer by atomic layer deposition (ALD). However, Hsiao [Paras.28-29] discloses suitable deposition processes that can be used including chemical vapor deposition (CVD), physical vapor deposition (PVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), or combinations thereof. It would have been obvious to use atomic layer deposition (ALD), since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hsiao fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first conductive layer comprises aluminum, and the first insulation layer comprises Al₂O₃. However, Lai [Fig.1] discloses a method forming a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor wherein the first conductive layer comprises aluminum, and the first insulation layer comprises Al₂O₃ [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductive layer [125,127] as well as the capacitor insulation layer [129], including aluminum and Al₂O₃].
It would have been obvious to provide the claimed conductive layer and insulation layer materials, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 11-12, Hsiao fails to explicitly disclose claimed materials. However, Lai [Fig.1] discloses a method forming a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor
wherein the second conductive layer comprises aluminum, and the second insulation layer comprises Al₂O₃ [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductive layer [125,127] as well as the capacitor insulation layer [129], including aluminum and Al₂O₃];
wherein the second conductive layer comprises titanium nitride [Hsiao; Para.37], and the second insulation layer comprises TiO₂ [Paras.38,41; discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductive layer as well as the capacitor insulation layer, including TiO₂].
It would have been obvious to provide the claimed conductive layer and insulation layer materials, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0359644) in view of Lai et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0278191), as applied above and further in view of Allman et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0143248).
Regarding claim 13, Hsiao [Fig.1] discloses a plurality of MIM capacitors, but fails to explicitly disclose forming a passivation structure over the second conductive layer, wherein the passivation structure comprises a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor. However, Allman [Fig.11] discloses a method comprising
forming a passivation structure [210] over the second conductive layer [24A], wherein the passivation structure comprises a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor [30]/[260] having a bottom conductor plate [23] and a top conductor plate [24] separated from the bottom conductor plate by a multi-layer dielectric structure [26] [264].
It is obvious to provide the capacitors in a stacked configuration, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Hsiao, Lai, and Allman disclose the method
wherein the multi-layer dielectric [26] [264] structure comprises:
a first metal oxide dielectric layer having a fixed stoichiometric ratio and in direct contact with and disposed on the bottom conductor plate, wherein the first metal oxide dielectric layer and the bottom conductor plate comprise a same metal element; and
a second metal oxide dielectric layer having a fixed stoichiometric ratio and in direct contact with and disposed under the top conductor plate, wherein the second metal oxide dielectric layer and the top conductor plate comprise a same metal element.
[Hsiao discloses the metal oxide dielectric layer having a fixed stoichiometric ratio. Allman discloses the stacked capacitor configuration. Lai discloses various materials that are suitable for the capacitor conductive plates [125,127] as well as the capacitor dielectric layer] [Discussed above].
Regarding claims 15-16, Hsiao [Fig.11] discloses the method
further comprising:
forming a first conductive feature [277] in direct contact with the first conductive layer [262]; and
forming a second conductive feature [276] in direct contact with the second conductive layer [266].
Hsiao fails to explicitly disclose wherein a height of the first conductive feature is different than a height of the second conductive feature. However, Allman [Fig.9] discloses wherein a height of the first conductive feature [28] is different than a height of the second conductive feature [29]. It would have been obvious to include wherein a height of the first conductive feature is different than a height of the second conductive feature, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0359644) in view of Lai et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0278191).
Regarding claims 17-19, Hsiao and Lai [Discussed above in the treatment of claims 10-12] disclose a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a first metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor over a substrate, the first MIM capacitor comprising:
a first conductor plate,
a conformal first metal oxide insulation layer over the substrate and on the first conductor plate,
a conformal second metal oxide insulation layer over the conformal first metal oxide insulation layer, and
a second conductor plate over and in direct contact with the conformal second metal oxide insulation layer and vertically overlapped with the first conductor plate,
wherein the first conductor plate comprises aluminum, and the first metal oxide insulation layer comprises Al₂O₃;
further comprising:
a high-K dielectric layer disposed vertically between the first metal oxide insulation layer and the second metal oxide insulation layer;
wherein the second conductor plate comprises titanium, and the second metal oxide insulation layer comprises TiO₂.
[Discussed above in the treatment of claims 10-12] It would have been obvious to provide the claimed conductive layer and insulation layer materials, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 20 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 does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
wherein the oxygen of the second high-K dielectric layer reacts with the third metal element of the third conductor plate and form a non-stoichiometric metal oxide layer disposed between the second high-K dielectric layer and the third conductor plate;
after the forming of the first MIM capacitor, forming a first passivation layer over the first MIM capacitor;
forming a first conductive feature extending through first passivation layer to electrically connect to the first conductor plate and forming a second conductive feature extending through first passivation layer to electrically connect to the second conductor plate;
forming a second passivation layer over the first conductive feature and the second conductive feature;
after the forming of the second MIM capacitor, forming a third passivation layer over the second MIM capacitor;
forming a third conductive feature extending through the third passivation layer to electrically connect to the third conductor plate and the first conductive feature; and
forming a fourth conductive feature extending through the third passivation layer to electrically connect to the fourth conductor plate and the second conductive feature;
a first passivation layer over the first MIM capacitor and comprising a planar top surface;
a second metal-insulator-metal (MIM) capacitor over the first passivation layer and comprising:
a bottom conductor plate over the first passivation layer,
a conformal metal oxide dielectric layer over the bottom conductor plate and the first passivation layer,
a conformal high-K dielectric layer over the conformal metal oxide dielectric layer, and
a top conductor plate over the conformal high-K dielectric layer and vertically overlapped with the bottom conductor plate, wherein an entirety of a bottom surface of the top conductor plate is spaced apart from the conformal high-K dielectric layer by a non-stoichiometric metal oxide layer, wherein the top conductor plate and the non-stoichiometric metal oxide layer comprise a same metal element; and
a second passivation layer over the second MIM capacitor and in direct contact with a sidewall surface of the bottom conductor plate and a sidewall surface of the non-stoichiometric metal oxide layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention. However, the prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the allowable claimed device/method taken as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 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 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898