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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 04/13/2023. However, an attempt by the office to electronically retrieve the foreign application 2023-065681 failed on 09/13/2024. A certified copy of the application is required by 37 CFR 1.55 in order to obtain foreign priority.
For assistance regarding this issue, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 1-866-217-9197.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on June 17th 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore claims 10-19 are hereby withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-5 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 2022/0102558 A1) in view of Mueller et al. (US 9,269,785 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a gate insulating film formed on a semiconductor substrate (Fig 2. Paragraph 0049 describes the Insulating film, IF, formed on the substrate);
a gate electrode formed on the gate insulating film (Fig 2 shows PLG2, a plug formed on the insulating film, IF. It is common knowledge in the art that a plug is a type of electrode as it is made of tungsten paragraph 0072); and
a ferroelectric film and a first metal film formed between the gate insulating film and the gate electrode (Fig 2 shows a ferroelectric film, FEF, and a first conductive metal film, CF1, between IF and PLG2, note that CF1 may be a titanium nitride – paragraph 0051),
wherein a thickness of the first metal film is smaller than a thickness of the ferroelectric film (Fig 2. Paragraph 0051 states that the metal film, CF1, is between 1-5 nm while paragraph 58 states that the ferroelectric film, FEF, is between 10-20 nm).
Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach the first metal film being amorphous.
Mueller et al. teaches a metal film being amorphous (Claim 15 states that the titanium nitride film is amorphous, noting that CF1 of Yamaguchi is made of titanium nitride).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi to make the metal film amorphous, as taught by Mueller, because amorphous titanium nitride layers can maintain stable structures at much thinner thicknesses than crystalline titanium nitride layers, allowing for a thinner semiconductor structure without the threat of stress-induced cracking.
Regarding claim 2, Yamaguchi, as modified, teaches the thickness of the first metal film being equal to or larger 1 nm and equal to or smaller than 4 nm (Paragraph 0051 states that the thickness of CF1 is greater than or equal to 1 nm and 5 nm or less which the range of 1-4 nm fits into).
As cited from MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yamaguchi to choose the lower end of the range, between 1-4 nm, because it allows for a smaller form factor, which enables manufacturers to reduce costs and materials while maintaining the same amount of power and performance.
Regarding claim 3, Yamaguchi, as modified, teaches the thickness of the first metal film is equal to or smaller than 2 nm (Paragraph 0051 states that the thickness of CF1 is greater than or equal to 1 nm and 5 nm or less which the lower half of this range fits within the parameters of being equal to or less than 2 nm).
As cited from MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yamaguchi to choose the lower end of the range, less than 2 nm, because it allows for a smaller form factor, which enables manufacturers to reduce costs and materials while maintaining the same amount of power and performance.
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi, as modified, teaches the first metal film being made of amorphous titanium nitride (Paragraph 0051 shows the metal film, CF1, being titanium nitride, which as seen in claim 1 is amorphous is modified by Mueller et al).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi et al, as modified, teaches the ferroelectric film containing hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium (Paragraph 0059 describes the ferroelectric film being a hafnium oxide film that further contains zirconium).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi et al, as modified, teaches the first metal film being formed between the gate insulating film and the ferroelectric film (Fig 2 shows the metal film, CF1, between the insulating film, IF, and the ferroelectric film, FEF).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 2022/0102558 A1) in view of Mueller et al. (US 9,269,785 B2) applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Maruyama (US 2022/0149206 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamaguchi, as modified, teaches the first metal film being amorphous and the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first metal film is amorphous, and wherein the thickness of the films or equal to or smaller than 2 nm (See explanations for claim 1 and 3 above).
Yamaguchi does not teach:
wherein the first metal film is a stacked film including a plurality of amorphous films; and
wherein the thickness of each of the plurality of amorphous films is equal to or smaller than 2 nm (Noting that paragraph 0051 states that the thickness of CF1 is greater than or equal to 1 nm and 5 nm or less which the lower half of this range fits within the parameters of being equal to or less than 2 nm).
Maruyama teaches the metal film being a stacked film including a plurality of films. (Paragraph 0120 describes three thin metal films: MF1, MF3, and MF4. These plurality of metal films are stacked upon each other. Paragraph 0082 describes that these metal layers are titanium nitride. Fig 10 shows the metal layer between an insulating layer, IF4, and a gate electrode, CG).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi to add expand the first metal film to be a stacked structure that are the same as the previously claimed metal film, as taught by Maruyama, because stacking thin, equal-thickness metal layers can help distribute stress more evenly, which improves long term reliability of the semiconductor.
Yamaguchi as modified still lacks specifically wherein the thickness of each of the plurality of amorphous films is equal to or smaller than 2 nm (Noting that paragraph 0051 states that the thickness of CF1 is greater than or equal to 1 nm and 5 nm or less which the lower half of this range fits within the parameters of being equal to or less than 2 nm).
As cited from MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yamaguchi to choose the lower end of the range, less than 2 nm, because it allows for a smaller form factor, which enables manufacturers to reduce costs and materials while maintaining the same amount of power and performance.
Claims 1 & 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (US 2022/0102558 A1) in view of Mueller et al. (US 9,269,785 B2) – note this is using a different interpretation of Yamaguchi.
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a gate insulating film formed on a semiconductor substrate (Fig 2. Paragraph 0049 describes the Insulating film, IF, formed on the substrate);
a gate electrode formed on the gate insulating film (Fig 2 shows PLG2, a plug formed on the insulating film, IF. It is common knowledge in the art that a plug is a type of electrode as it is made of tungsten paragraph 0072); and
a ferroelectric film and a first metal film formed between the gate insulating film and the gate electrode (Fig 2 shows a ferroelectric film, FEF, and a first conductive metal film, CF2, between IF and PLG2, note that CF2 may be a titanium nitride – paragraph 0064),
wherein a thickness of the first metal film is smaller than a thickness of the ferroelectric film (Fig 2. Shows that the metal film, CF2, is smaller than the ferroelectric film, FEF).
Yamaguchi does not explicitly teach the first metal film being amorphous.
Mueller et al. teaches a metal film being amorphous (Claim 15 states that the titanium nitride film is amorphous, which is the same material that is used for the metal film in Yamaguchi, as described in paragraph 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi to make the metal film amorphous, as taught by Mueller, because amorphous titanium nitride layers can maintain stable structures at much thinner thicknesses than crystalline titanium nitride layers, allowing for a thinner semiconductor structure without the threat of stress-induced cracking.
Regarding claim 7, Yamaguchi et al, as modified, teaches the first metal being formed between the ferroelectric film and the gate electrode (Paragraph 0061 states the first metal - conductive film, CF2, is between the ferroelectric film, FEF, and the plug, PLG2).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamaguchi et al, as modified, teaches, a second metal film formed between the gate insulating film and the ferroelectric film (Paragraph 0051 describes another conductive film, CF1, that is also a metal film, as described in paragraph 0051. Fig 2 shows CF1 between the insulating film, IF, and the ferroelectric film, FEF),
Wherein a thickness of the second metal film is smaller than the thickness of the ferroelectric film (Paragraph 51 describes the thickness of the metal film, CF1, being between 1-5 nm. Paragraph 0058 describes the ferroelectric film as being between 10-20 nm. Therefore, the ferroelectric film has a greater thickness than the second metal film.), and
Yamaguchi et al. does not explicitly teach the second film being amorphous.
Mueller et al. teaches the second metal film being amorphous (Claim 15 states that the titanium nitride film is amorphous, which is the same material that is used for the second metal film, CF1, in Yamaguchi, as described in paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamaguchi to make the metal film amorphous, as taught by Mueller et al., because amorphous titanium nitride layers can maintain stable structures at much thinner thicknesses than crystalline titanium nitride layers, allowing for a thinner semiconductor structure without the threat of stress-induced cracking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2022/0367493 A1) contains amorphous layers within 1nm to 3nm with one of them being between a ferroelectric layer and a gate electrode, another being between the ferroelectric film and an insulating structure. The amorphous layers and the ferroelectric film are between an insulating structure and a gate electrode. The ferroelectric film is made out of hafnium zirconium oxide.
Kang (US 6392917 B1) has a semiconductor with an insulating layer on top of the substrate with a gate electrode above it. Then in between the two of them is a metal layer and a ferroelectric film.
van Bentum et al. (US 9,293,556) has two metal films and a ferroelectric film between an insulating film and a gate electrode with the metal films being thinner than the ferroelectric film. One metal layer is between the ferroelectric film and the insulating layer while the other is between the ferroelectric layer and the gate electrode. The metal films are made out of titanium nitride, and the ferroelectric layer having hafnium, oxygen, and zirconium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLOTTE ELIZABETH HARBOTTLE whose telephone number is (571)270-0644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/C.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights