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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment 1 (Claims 1-12, 14, 16-20 readable thereon) in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (USPGPUB 20160254296, hereinafter “Liu”) in view of Wang et al (USPGPUB 20200403102, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches a structure (Fig. 8) comprising: a conduction channel (232).
Liu is silent with regards to the structure having multi-dielectric layers, the conduction channel containing aluminum; a sidewall oxide dielectric structure in contact with a side surface of the conduction channel and having a first effective permittivity; and a top oxide dielectric structure in contact with a top surface of the conduction channel and a top surface of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and having a second effective permittivity, wherein the second effective permittivity is greater than the first effective permittivity.
Wang teaches (Fig. 3) a structure having multi-dielectric layers, the conduction channel (3) containing aluminum ([0038], “a second layer 3 of aluminum material”); a sidewall oxide dielectric structure (13) in contact with a side surface of (Fig. 3, the sidewall oxide dielectric structure 13 is in contact with conduction channel 23 at the top side) the conduction channel (23) and having a first effective permittivity; and a top oxide dielectric (12) structure in contact with a top surface of (top oxide dielectric 12 is seen in contact with a top surface of sidewall oxide dielectric 13; [0044], “the second metal layer 12 comprise molybdenum”) the conduction channel (23) and a top surface of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure (13; [0038], “the edge portion of the second layer 3 may be oxidized to form aluminum oxide”) and having a second effective permittivity, wherein the second effective permittivity is greater than (the effective permittivity of molybdenum is less than that of the effective permittivity of alumina) the first effective permittivity.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent unexpected results, before the date of effective filing, to incorporate the dielectric layers of Wang into the structure of Liu in order to arrive at the expected result of creating a device with the known advantages associated with molybdenum and aluminum oxide materials, such as increased device reliability, with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu in view of Wang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein an atomic ratio of aluminum in the conduction channel is greater than 50% (Wang [0010], “material of the conductive layer comprises aluminum”; a primarily aluminum metal material would inherently be understood to be mostly aluminum).
Regarding Claim 3, Liu in view of Wang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein a metal composition of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure (Wang 13) and a metal composition of the top oxide dielectric structure (Wang 12) are different (sidewall oxide dielectric structure 13 is seen containing an aluminum oxide material, and top oxide dielectric structure 12 is a molybdenum oxide).
Regarding Claim 4, Liu in view of Wang teaches (Wang Fig. 3) the structure of claim 1, wherein the sidewall oxide dielectric structure (Wang 13) comprises at least one metal oxide segment (the sidewall oxide dielectric structure is seen comprising 2 side structures, one on the left and one on the right), the top oxide dielectric structure (Wang 12) comprises at least one metal oxide layer (the top metal oxide structure 13 of Wang is seen containing a metal oxide layer on the top of the structure), and a sum of a segment number of the at least one metal oxide segment of the sidewall oxide dielectric structure and a layer number of the at least one metal oxide layer of the top oxide dielectric structure is equal to or greater than three (Wang Fig. 3, 3 segments are seen making up the sidewall and top oxide dielectric layers).
Regarding Claim 8, Liu in view of Wang teaches (Wang Fig. 3) the structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of a combination of the conduction channel (Wang 10) and the top oxide dielectric structure (Wang 12) is smaller than 10 microns (Wang [011], “the second protective layer has a thickness of 5 to 50 nm”; Wang Fig. 3, the thickness of the combination of the conduction channel and the top oxide dielectric structure is seen to be about 5 to 7 times the thickness of the sidewall oxide, which is as large as 50 nm, which would place the combination as large as 350 nm or .35 microns, which is smaller than 10 microns).
Regarding Claim 9, Liu in view of Wang teaches (Wang Figs. 3 and 4) the structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the conduction channel (Wang 10) is equal to or greater than 1/10 of (Wang Fig.’s 3 and 4, the thickness of the conduction channel 10 is seen about 2 to 4 times the thickness of the top oxide dielectric structure 13) a thickness of a combination of the conduction channel and the top oxide dielectric structure (Wang 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10-12, 14, 16-20 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.
Regarding Claim 5, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises rare earth metal”.
Regarding Claim 6, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “a material of the top oxide dielectric structure comprises at least one of hafnium, tantalum, zirconium, titanium, and tungsten”.
Regarding Claim 7, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “the top oxide dielectric structure comprises aluminum”.
Regarding Claim 10, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “a conductive pattern crossing the conduction channel through the top oxide dielectric structure”. Claim 11 is dependent upon Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 12, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “ wherein the top surface of the conduction channel has a covered section covered by the top oxide dielectric structure and at least one uncovered section exposed by the top oxide dielectric structure”.
Regarding Claim 14, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “the anodic oxide segment is right above the conduction channel”.
Regarding Claim 16, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “the conduction channel is a multilayer structure”.
Regarding Claim 17, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “the top oxide dielectric structure comprises a plurality of metal oxide layers, and a layer number of the metal oxide layers is equal to or greater than two”.
Regarding Claim 18, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “a conductor layer covering on the top oxide dielectric structure and forming a capacitor with the conduction channel”.
Regarding Claim 19, the closest available references, that of Liu and Wang, alone or in any reasonable combination, fails to teach the limitation, “the top oxide dielectric structure comprises an amorphous phase layer”. Claim 20 is dependent upon Claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR J LASASSO whose telephone number is (703)756-5668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, 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.
/V.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights