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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13,21-27 in the reply filed on 5/8/26 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated by Lin et al., (Lin) US 2016/0307896 in view of Akiyama et al., (Akiyama) US 2011/0272742.
Regarding claim 1, Lin Shows and discloses in FIG. 3, a method of forming a metal nitride layer, comprising: forming an oxygen-trapping layer over a substrate (128a)[0020](layer contains oxygen); and forming a first metal nitride layer (134a) over the oxygen-trapping layer (128a).
Lin differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device a method of performing an electron treatment on the oxygen-trapping layer.
Akiyama shows in FIG. 3B, and discloses a device a method of performing an electron treatment [0099,0259] on the oxygen-trapping layer (33)(Oxygen is used for the electron treatment [0103]).
Akiyama is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Lin. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Akiyama in the device of Lin because it will help reduce contact resistance [0103].
Regarding claim 2, Lin in view of Akiyama discloses a method wherein the oxygen-trapping layer (128a) comprises a silicon nitride layer or a silicon oxide layer [0020].
Regarding claim 3, Lin in view of Akiyama discloses a method wherein the first metal nitride layer (134a) comprises a titanium nitride (TiN) layer or a tantalum nitride (TaN) layer [0029].
Regarding claim 4, Lin in view of Akiyama discloses a method further comprising forming a second metal nitride layer (130a) over the substrate, wherein the oxygen-trapping layer (128a) is formed over the second metal nitride layer (130a).
Regarding claim 5, Lin in view of Akiyama discloses a method wherein the second metal nitride layer (130a) comprises a TiN layer or a TaN layer [0048].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13,21-27 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights