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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 7, 2025 is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of claim 10, “the lanthanide series” should be “a lanthanide series”;
On line 1 of claim 12, “the formation energy of the first material” should be “a formation energy of the first material”;
On line 2 of claim 12, “the formation energy of a silicon oxide” should be “a formation energy of a silicon oxide”; and
On line 2 of claim 16, “the first material comprises the first material comprises” should be “the first material comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0083115 A1 (Clifton).
Regarding claim 8, Clifton discloses, A method of forming an electrical contact, comprising:
depositing a non-stoichiometric layer (non-stoichiometric layer (26); FIG. 2; [0018]) that comprises a first material ([0018]—e.g., TiSixOy) on a contact surface (contact surface (28); FIG. 2; [0018]), wherein the contact surface (28) comprises silicon (Si) ([0018]), and the first material comprises oxygen ([0018]) and the first material is non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen ([0018]-- TiSixOy can be non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen depending on the value of y). See also, [0004]—Although examples of materials that may comprise the interfacial dielectric layer are specified herein, persons of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that such materials may not have the precise stoichiometry of the examples. For instance, TiO2 may more preferably be described as TiOx, with x less than or equal to 2 but greater than 1.5).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Clifton discloses, The method of claim 8, wherein the first material comprises yttrium oxide (claims 1 and 10—interfacial dielectric layer comprises at least one of Y2O3 or any of their non-stochiometric variants).
Regarding claim 11, Clifton discloses, The method of claim 8, wherein the first material comprises an element selected from a group of Hf, La, Y, Ta, Si, Eu, Sc, Gd, Eu, Mg, V, Mn, Al, Bi, Zn, In, and As ([0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Clifton discloses, The method of claim 8, wherein the first material does not comprise titanium (Ti) ([0018], claims 1 and 10—e.g., Y2O3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0076571 A1 (Mukherjee) in view of US 2023/0245003 A1 (Hummelshøj).
Regarding claim 1 Mukherjee discloses, A method of forming an electrical contact, comprising:
depositing an insulating layer (insulating layer (114); FIG. 1; [0020] and [0030]) that comprises a first material on a contact surface (contact surface (102); FIG. 1; [0022]); and
PNG
media_image2.png
777
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
depositing a conductive layer (conductive layer (116); FIG. 1; [0020] and [0031]) that comprises a second material over a surface of the insulating layer (114).
But, Mukherjee does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first material has a first formation energy; and
wherein the second material has a second formation energy, and the second formation energy is less than the first formation energy.
However, Hummelshøj discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that formation energies of a particular material are a property of the material that is either already known or that can be obtained via simulation and/or experimentation ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee and Hummelshøj before him/her that the first material of insulating layer (114) of Mukherjee having a first formation energy was an already known value or a value that could be obtained via simulation and/or experimentation, as taught by Hummelshøj, and that the second material of conductive layer (116) of Mukherjee having a second formation energy was an already known value or a value that could be obtained via simulation and/or experimentation, as also taught by Hummelshøj. Please see, MPEP 2144.03.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee and Hummelshøj before him/her to have the second formation energy of conductive layer (116) be less than the first formation energy of insulating layer (114) because the lower formation energy of conductive layer (116) will require less energy input during manufacturing, thereby saving production cost. Please see, MPEP 2143(G).
Regarding claim 3, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein the first material is deposited using atomic layer deposition (Mukherjee, [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises at least one of HfO2, ZrO2, La2O3, Y2O3, Ta2O5, SiO2, Eu2O3, Sc2O3, and Gd2O3 (Mukherjee, [0030]), and the second material comprises a metal selected from a group of Eu, Mg, V, Mn, Al, Bi, Zn, In, W, and As (Mukherjee, [0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein the contact surface (102) comprises silicon (Si) (Mukherjee, [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein neither the first material nor the second material comprises titanium (Ti) (Mukherjee, [0030] and [0032]—titanium is not listed for the first material of insulating layer (114) or for the second material of conductive layer (116)).1
Regarding claim 14, Mukherjee discloses, A semiconductor structure, comprising:
an insulating layer (insulating layer (114); FIG. 1; [0020]) that comprises a first material on a contact surface (contact surface (102); FIG. 1; [0022]); and
a conductive layer (conductive layer (116); FIG. 1; [0020]) that comprises a second material over a surface of the insulating layer (114).
But, Mukherjee does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first material has a first formation energy; and
wherein the second material has a second formation energy, and the second formation energy is less than the first formation energy.
However, Hummelshøj discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that formation energies of a particular material are a property of the material that is either already known or that can be obtained via simulation and/or experimentation ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee and Hummelshøj before him/her that the first material of insulating layer (114) of Mukherjee having a first formation energy was an already known value or a value that could be obtained via simulation and/or experimentation, as taught by Hummelshøj, and that the second material of conductive layer (116) of Mukherjee having a second formation energy was an already known value or a value that could be obtained via simulation and/or experimentation, as also taught by Hummelshøj. Please see, MPEP 2144.03.
It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee and Hummelshøj before him/her to have the second formation energy of conductive layer (116) be less than the first formation energy of insulating layer (114) because the lower formation energy of conductive layer (116) will require less energy input during manufacturing, thereby saving production cost. Please see, MPEP 2143(G).
Regarding claim 16, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The semiconductor structure of claim 14, wherein:
the first material comprises the first material comprises at least one of HfO2, ZrO2, La2O3, Y2O3, Ta2O5, SiO2, Eu2O3, Sc2O3, and Gd2O3 (Mukherjee, [0030]).
Regarding claim 17, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The semiconductor structure of claim 16, wherein:
the second material comprises a metal selected from a group of Eu, Mg, V, Mn, Al, Bi, Zn, In, W, and As (Mukherjee, [0032]).
Claims 2, 15, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and further in view of Alex N. Krasnov, Selection of Dielectrics for Alternating-Current Thin-Film Electroluminescent Device, 1999, Thin Solid Films, 347, Pages 1-13 (Krasnov).
Regarding claim 2, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein the first material of insulating layer (114) comprises a dielectric material (Mukherjee, [0030]), and the second material of conductive layer (116) comprises aluminum (Mukherjee, [0032]).
But, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj does not appear to explicitly disclose, the first material comprises yttrium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Krasnov discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that yttrium oxide may be predicably utilized as a most suitable dielectric material (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee, Hummelshøj, and Krasnov before him/her that, the first material of insulating layer (114) may predicably comprise yttrium oxide because yttrium oxide is a most suitable dielectric material, as disclosed by Krasnov. Please see, MPEP 2143(B) or 2143(G).
Regarding claim 15, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses The semiconductor structure of claim 14, wherein the first material of insulating layer (114) comprises a dielectric material (Mukherjee, [0030]), and the second material of conductive layer (116) comprises aluminum (Mukherjee, [0032]).
But, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj does not appear to explicitly disclose, the first material comprises yttrium oxide.
However, in analogous art, Krasnov discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that yttrium oxide may be predicably utilized as a most suitable dielectric material (page 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee, Hummelshøj, and Krasnov before him/her that, the first material of insulating layer (114) may predicably comprises yttrium oxide because yttrium oxide is a most suitable dielectric material, as disclosed by Krasnov. Please see, MPEP 2143(B) or 2143(G).
Regarding claim 18, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and further in view of Krasnov discloses, The semiconductor structure of claim 15, wherein the contact surface (102) comprises silicon (Si) (Mukherjee, [0022]).
Regarding claim 19, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and further in view of Krasnov discloses, The semiconductor structure of claim 15, wherein neither the first material nor the second material comprises titanium (Ti) (Mukherjee, [0030] and [0032]—titanium is not listed for the first material of insulating layer (114) or for the second material of conductive layer (116)).2
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and further in view of US 2018/0182870 A1 (Hosaka).
Regarding claim 5, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj discloses, The method of claim 1, wherein the as deposited insulating layer (114) comprises a stoichiometric oxide material (Mukherjee, [0030]—e.g., SiO2).
But, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj does not appear to explicitly disclose, the stoichiometric oxide material becomes a non-stoichiometric material after the second material of the conductive layer is deposited on the insulating layer.
However, Hosaka discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when an oxide insulating material is in contact with a conductive material, oxygen in the oxide insulating material is diffused into the conductive material ([0515]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee, Hummelshøj, and Hosaka before him/her that the stoichiometric oxide material (Mukherjee, [0030]) of insulating layer (114) of Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj becomes a non-stoichiometric material after the second material (Mukherjee, [0032]) of the conductive layer (116) of Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj is deposited on the insulating layer (114) because it was already well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that oxygen in insulating layer (114) diffuses into conductive layer (116), as disclosed by Hosaka, thereby becoming non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen. Please see, MPEP 2144.03.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifton in view of US 2012/0032279 A1 (Chang).
Regarding claim 10, Chang does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the first material comprises an element selected from the lanthanide series.
However, in analogous art, Chang discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that lanthanum oxide has a high dielectric constant ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings Clifton and Chang before him/her that the first material of Clifton comprises an element selected from the lanthanide series so that the first material has a high dielectric constant, as taught by Chang.3
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clifton in view of Ellingham H. J. T., J Soc Chem Ind (London) 63 125 (1944). University of Cambridge, "The Ellingham diagram", University of Cambridge [online], pages 1-3. [Retrieved 2026-06-17]. Retrieved from the internet https://www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/ellingham_diagrams/ellingham.php (Ellingham).
Regarding claim 12, Clifton does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the formation energy of the first material to form a metal oxide is greater than the formation energy of a silicon oxide.
However, Ellingham discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a metal oxide such as 2NiO can be predicably fabricated to have a formation energy greater than the formation energy of silicon oxide (please annotated page two (2) of Ellingham, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
742
737
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Clifton and Ellingham before him/her that it was well-known that the formation energy to form the first material of Clifton as a metal oxide (e.g., 2NiO) is greater than the formation energy of a silicon oxide, as taught by Ellingham. Please see, MPEP 2144.03.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and Krasnov and further in view of Hosaka.
Regarding claim 20, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and Krasnov discloses, The semiconductor structure of claim 15, wherein the first material comprises oxygen (yttrium oxide; Krasnov, page 2).
But, Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and Krasnov does not appear to explicitly disclose, the first material is non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen.
However, Hosaka discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when an oxide insulating material is in contact with a conductive material, oxygen in the oxide insulating material is diffused into the conductive material ([0515]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Mukherjee, Hummelshøj, Krasnov, and Hosaka before him/her that the first material of Mukherjee in view of Hummelshøj and Krasnov is non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen because it was already well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that oxygen in insulating layer (114) diffuses into conductive layer (116), as disclosed by Hosaka, thereby becoming non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen. Please see, MPEP 2144.03.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0081772 A1 (Daubinger)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that titanium metal has poor conductivity ([0009]).
US 2007/0048926 A1 (Ahn)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a material of an insulating layer may comprise an element selected from the lanthanide series and that the material may be non-stoichiometrically deficient in oxygen ([0068]—i.e., LaOx).
US 2023/0382756 A1 (Van Setten)—Discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that formation energy values were well-known and readily available ([0104]--e.g., Table A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Also, please see, US 2017/0081772 A1 (Daubinger) in the Examiner’s cited references. Please also see, MPEP 2144.03.
2 Also, please see, US 2017/0081772 A1 (Daubinger) in the Examiner’s cited references. Please also see, MPEP 2144.03.
3 Also, please see, US 2007/0048926 A1 (Ahn) in the Examiner’s cited references. Please also see, MPEP 2144.03.
Prosecution Insights