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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 10 and 18 cancelled
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11-12, 15 amended
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19-20 pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended to states “the second precursor comprising a functional group selected from the group consisting of
PNG
media_image1.png
215
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the n is an integer in a range of from 1 to 20.”
However, the newly amended claims, require the repeated portion of the functional group that is within the parenthesis, is a repeating three carbon a time. Where for example, when n=20, the total number of carbon would be 60 carbons. Therefore, there is no support for such claimed structure.
However, in the specification as originally filed has the repeated portion of the functional group that is within the parenthesis, is a repeating one carbon a time.
PNG
media_image2.png
219
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
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) 1-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes (PG Pub 2014/0322923 A1).
Consider Claims 1-8, Forbes teaches the process of forming semiconductors structures [0022], by forming a metal layer on a substrate such as Tantalum oxide (Ta2O3) and then forming a protection capping layer such as Aluminium nitride (AlN), forming Ta2O5/AlN Tantalum Aluminium oxynitride layer [0034]. Forbes teaches the metal layer/Tantalum oxide is formed by exposing a metal precursor/tantalum pentachloride with reactant such as H2O [0047], and where the Aluminium nitride (AlN) is formed using second metal precursor such as trimethyl-aluminum and second precursor such as tert-butylamine (CH3CH2CH2CH2–NH2) [0070], where the second precursor consist of primary amine as functional group (–NH2) and a carbon chain with four carbon atoms. Although, Forbes does not explicitly teach process of the forming in a single embodiments, however, it would be obvious to an ordinary skilled person in the art to form the Ta2O5/AlN as a Tantalum Aluminium oxynitride layer that is tough in [0034], using an embodiment that teaches the formation of Ta2O3 layer with another embodiment that teaches the formation of AlN layer, resulting in the claimed Ta2O5/AlN Tantalum Aluminium oxynitride layer, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 9, Forbes teaches forming dielectric layer, such as Ta2O3 (metal layer) and AlN (protecting capping layer) [0034], where the dielectric layer having a thickness from 1 nm – 100 nm [0029].
Consider Claims 11-16, and 19-20, Forbes teaches the previously taught in claim 1. Additionally, the forming of the tantalum aluminum oxynitride layer repeating a selected number of ALD cycles [0064]. Where it would be obvious for ordinary skilled person in the art, that the process of forming metal layer would be formed using first process cycle for forming Ta2O3 using ALD cycles of tantalum-precursor/oxygen-precursor sequences [0066], and the process of forming protection capping layer would be formed using second process cycle forming AlN using aluminum-precursor/nitrogen-precursor sequence [0059]. Where the number of processing cycles (as a first and a second) is repeated a number of cycles [0064], including at least two cycles. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 17, Forbes teaches forming dielectric layer, such as Ta2O3 (metal layer) and AlN (protecting capping layer) [0034], where the dielectric layer having a thickness from 1-100 nm [0029].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11-17 and 19-20 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Forbes.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn. However, in light of the currently amended claims, new 112 claim rejection are now applied.
The applicant argued against the prior art of Forbes, on the ground that amended claims require the “subsequently forming a protective capping layer directly on the metal layer by exposing the metal layer to the metal precursor and a second precursor in the absence of ammonia (NH3) and water (H2O)”. Additionally, the applicant argued that “Forbes does not disclose, teach, or suggest that the second precursor, i.e., trimethyl aluminum (TMA) serves as the reactant for formation of the capping layer. Forbes discloses at least two distinct metal precursors to form the tantalum aluminum oxynitride film”.
However, Forbes discloses the subsequent of forming an AlN layer (as protective layer) on top of Ta2O5 layer forming Ta2O5/AlN [0034], using Tert-Butylamine [0070], having primary amine (-NH2) as functional group.
Moreover, although the second precursor restrict the used material to one of the listed groups, however, neither the process nor the metal precursor restrict the additional materials, such as water and/or ammonia.
Furthermore, although the final formed layer is Tantalum Aluminium oxynitride, this still include the forming of a second layer (AlN) directly on top of the already formed metal layer (Ta2O5), regardless of the side reaction which occur at the interface layer. Additionally, the claims does not restrict the second precursor to only TMA (trimethyl aluminum), where Tert-Butylamine in [0070] having primary amine (-NH2) as functional group, which reads on the claimed second precursor. Where both second metal precursor and second precursor are Trimethyl Aluminum and Tert-Butylamine, respectively, used to form the capping layer of AlN, on top of the metal layer of Ta2O5.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights