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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statement has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Drawings
There are no objections or rejections to the drawings.
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 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 pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sung et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2015/0147825) hereinafter referred to as Sung.
Per Claim 1 Sung discloses a method, comprising
forming a magnetic random access memory (MRAM) cell, wherein the MRAM cell comprises (see figures 5-7):
a bottom electrode (24);
a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) element (32) on the bottom electrode; and
a top electrode (36) on the MTJ element;
forming a spacer (42) on a sidewall of the MRAM cell, wherein a lower portion of a sidewall of the top electrode is covered by the spacer and an upper portion of the sidewall of the top electrode remains exposed after forming the spacer (as shown in figure 5); and
forming a dielectric layer (44) on the spacer and the upper portion of the sidewall of the top electrode
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2017/0018706) hereinafter referred to as Xue.
Per Claim 10 Xue discloses a method, comprising (see figures 4A-J)
forming a bottom electrode layer (405);
forming a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) layer (406/408/410) over the bottom electrode layer;
forming a top electrode layer (412) over the MTJ layer;
patterning the top electrode layer, the MTJ layer, and the bottom electrode layer to form a magnetic random access memory (MRAM) cell (includes 405/406/408/410/412) (as shown in figures 4A-B and described in [0058]);
depositing a passivation layer (414) over the MRAM cell, wherein the passivation layer comprises amorphous carbon [0062]; and
patterning the passivation layer to form a spacer (414) on a sidewall of the MRAM cell, wherein the patterning exposes a top surface and a sidewall of the top electrode layer (shown in figures 4C-E and described in [0062-63])
Per Claim 11 Xue discloses the method of claim 10 (see figures 4A-J) including depositing a dielectric layer (416) over the spacer (414) and the MRAM cell (402), wherein an upper portion of the dielectric layer covers the sidewall of the top electrode layer (412). (as shown in figure 4C-E)
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Houssameddine et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2019/0221732) hereinafter referred to as Houssameddine.
Per Claim 14 Houssameddine discloses a method, comprising (see figures 8)
forming a bottom electrode layer (16) over a semiconductor substrate;
forming a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) film stack (22A) over the bottom electrode layer;
forming a top electrode layer (20) over the MTJ film stack;
patterning the top electrode layer, the MTJ film stack, and the bottom electrode layer to form a magnetic random access memory (MRAM) cell;
depositing a first nitride layer (24) over the MRAM cell [0020];
depositing a metal layer (26A) over the first nitride layer [0022];
depositing a second nitride layer (30) over the metal layer; and
patterning the first nitride layer, the metal layer, and the second nitride layer to form a spacer on a sidewall of the MRAM cell (see figures 4-8), wherein the patterning exposes a top surface and a sidewall of the top electrode layer (see fig. 6). (Specifically, (30) is noted to be a low k material [0024], and silicon oxynitride is listed as a possible low-k material [0042])
Per Claim 16 Houssameddine discloses the method of claim 14 (see figures 4-8) including where the metal layer comprises tantalum [0021], and the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer comprise silicon nitride. [0020] ((Specifically, (30) is noted to be a low k material [0024], and silicon oxynitride is listed as a possible low-k material [0042]))
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2021/0143323) hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Per Claim 8 Sung discloses the method of claim 1 including the spacer (42).
Sung does not teach where the spacer comprises amorphous carbon.
Kim teaches an analogous device including a dielectric spacer that comprises amorphous carbon (see [0066]).
All of the component parts are known in Sung and Kim. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the dielectric spacer material of Kim in the device of Sung. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the dielectric spacer material of Kim in the device of Sung, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue as above.
Per Claim 12 Xue discloses the method of claim 11 (see figures 4A-J) including the dielectric layer.
Xue does not teach where the upper portion of the dielectric layer has a height in a range from 30 Å to 300 Å.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Per Claim 13 Xue discloses the method of claim 10 (see figures 4A-J) including the spacer.
Xue does not teach where the upper portion of the spacer has a thickness in a range from 30 Å to 250 Å.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houssameddine as above.
Per Claim 15 Houssameddine discloses the method of claim 14 (see figure 8) including the second nitride layer.
Houssameddine does not teach where the second nitride layer is recessed to a height in a range from 30 Å to 500 Å below the top surface of the top electrode layer.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Per Claim 20 Houssameddine discloses the method of claim 19 (see figure 8) including the dielectric layer and the top electrode layer.
Houssameddine does not teach where the dielectric layer covers a portion of the top electrode layer having a height in a range from 30 Å to 300 Å
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7 and 9 17-19 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.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Yang (US 2020/0212298) is cited as an example teaching that SiN, SiON and SiC are dielectrics. Huang (US 2022/0310903) teaches most of the features of claim 10 but is not the best prior art. Ahn (US 10,497,858) teaches most of the features of claim 10 except patterning of bottom electrode.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights