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 prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on 07/18/2024 and 12/03/2024 have been considered and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 should recite: The method of claim 14, wherein the magnetoresistive structure is above a via, and a width of the magnetoresistive structure is less than a width of the via. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 14 each recite the limitation: “removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and the bottom electrode using a second etch”. The limitation can be interpreted as removing a portion of the bottom electrode or removing the entire bottom electrode. Removing the entire bottom electrode would render the magnetoresistive device inoperable, therefore the claim is indefinite. As described in the written description and the figures of the application, only a portion of the bottom electrode is removed by a second etch. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as “removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a second etch”.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1. Claims 8-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 7. Claims 15-20 are rejected as being dependent on claim 14.
Claim 12 recites the limitation: “The method of claim 11, wherein a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component to the reactive component of the second gas is different than the molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component to the carrier gas of the first gas”. The term “hydrocarbon component” can refer to either the first gas or the second gas. The limitation is unclear as to hydrocarbon component is used. For the purpose of examination, claim 12 will be interpreted as: The method of claim 11, wherein a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component comprised in the second gas to the reactive component of the second gas is different than the molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component included in the first gas to the carrier gas of the first gas.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al., (United States Patent Number, US 12,048,250 B2), hereinafter referenced as Yang.
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a magnetoresistive device, the method comprising: forming a bottom electrode (Fig.2, element #120), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.2, element #122), and a top electrode (Fig.2, element #124) above a via (Fig.2, element #108); removing at least a portion of the top electrode using a first etch (Fig.4 portions of element #124 are removed using an etch); and removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a second etch (Fig.7, step S07), wherein the second etch is performed in the presence of a gas comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond (column 5, rows 46-53).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the method of claim 7 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first etch is a reactive ion etch (column 5, rows 13-15).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches the method of claims 7 and 8 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gas is first gas (any hydrocarbon from column 5, rows 51), and the first etch is performed in the presence of a second gas (first etch is a RIE, therefore is performed in the presence of reactant gas).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the method of claim 7 as set forth in the anticipation rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising depositing an encapsulation layer above the top electrode (Fig.6, element #138).
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding claim 1 Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a magnetoresistive device, the method comprising: forming a bottom electrode(Fig.2, element #120), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.2, element #122), and a top electrode (Fig.2, element #124) above a via(Fig.2, element #108); removing at least a portion of the top electrode using a first etch, wherein the first etch is performed in the presence of a gas mixture (Fig.4, portions of element #124 are removed using an reactive ion etch, column 5, rows 13-15, therefore is performed in the presence of reactant gas) and removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and the bottom electrode using a second etch (Fig.7, step S07).
Yang does not directly teach that first etch comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. However, Yang teaches the top electrode is made of the same material as the bottom electrode (column 3, rows 47-53 and rows 58-64). Therefore, the top electrode can be etched using one of the gas mixtures used for etching the bottom electrode, and these mixtures contain a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond (column 5, rows 50-51). Therefore, Yang teaches the first etch comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Yang and disclose the first etch comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. Using same or similar gas mixtures for the first and second etch allows one to perform both processes using the same etch tool or etch chamber, which simplifies the device manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, after forming the bottom electrode, the magnetoresistive stack, and the top electrode, and prior to the first etch, depositing a hardmask above the top electrode, wherein the hardmask comprises silicon dioxide, carbon doped silicon dioxide, spin on glass, SiCOH, SiCNH, tetraethyl orthosilicate, spin on carbon, or a combination thereof (Fig.3, mask is element #126, made of silicon dioxide, column 4, rows 59-62).
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over disclosed prior art, Joubert et al., (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2012/0276657 A1) hereinafter referenced as Joubert, in view of disclosed prior art Nagel et al, (United States Patent Number, US 10,700,268 B2) hereinafter referenced as Nagel.
Regarding claim 1, Joubert teaches a method of manufacturing a magnetoresistive device, the method comprising: forming a bottom electrode (Fig.2A, element #214), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.2A, elements #206, #208 and #210), and a top electrode (Fig.2A, element #204). Joubert does not teach forming the bottom electrode, the magnetoresistive stack and the top electrode above a via. Nagel teaches forming a bottom electrode (Fig.10, element #80), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.10, elements #30-70) and a top electrode (Fig.10, element #18) above a via (Fig.10, element #92). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagel and disclose forming the bottom electrode, the magnetoresistive stack and the top electrode above a via. As disclosed by Nagel, the via provides electrical contact to IC circuits of the device (column 6, rows 34-37).
Joubert further teaches removing at least a portion of the top electrode using a first etch (Fig.2C, element #204 is removed by etching). Joubert does not directly teach wherein the first etch is performed in the presence of a gas mixture comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. However, Joubert teaches the top electrode may be ruthenium (paragraph [0056], rows 1-5) and the magnetoresistive stack contains ruthenium layers (paragraph [0056], rows 16-18) that are removed by a gas that includes a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond paragraph [0066]). Therefore, Joubert teaches wherein the first etch can be performed in the presence of a gas mixture comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Joubert and disclose the first etch comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. Using the same of similar gasses for the first and second etch allows one to perform both processes using the same etch tool or etch chamber, which simplifies the device manufacturing process.
Joubert further teaches removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a second etch (Fig.2D and Fig.2E, elements #206, #208, #210 and #214 are removed by etching. Note that an etch may not necessarily involve a single etch step). Nevertheless, Joubert does not directly teaches removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a single second etch step. However, Joubert teaches the bottom electrode may be ruthenium (paragraph [0056], rows 4-5) and the magnetoresistive stack contains ruthenium layers (paragraph [0056], rows 16-18). Therefore, the magnetoresistive stack and the bottom electrode can be removed in a single etch step using the same etchant, which would simplify the etch process.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, after forming the bottom electrode, the magnetoresistive stack, and the top electrode, and prior to the first etch, depositing a hardmask above the top electrode, wherein the hardmask comprises silicon dioxide, carbon doped silicon dioxide, spin on glass, SiCOH, SiCNH, tetraethyl orthosilicate, spin on carbon, or a combination thereof (Fig.2B, element #222, paragraph [0058], rows 1-2 and paragraph [0059], rows 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. As noted in claim 1, Joubert further teaches the top electrode can be etched using a gas mixture comprising a hydrocarbon as described in paragraph [0063], which includes ethylene. Therefore, Joubert teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the hydrocarbon comprises ethylene, ethyne, propylene, propyne, butene, butyne, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gas mixture further comprises a carrier gas (paragraph [0063] rows 9-11).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claims 1 and 4 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon to the carrier gas is approximately 1:1 to approximately 1:10 (paragraph [0063], the rate for the hydrogen containing gas is 5-1000 sccm and the rate for argon is 0-1000 sccm , so the molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component to the carrier gas is approximately 1:1).
Regarding claim 7, Joubert teaches a method of manufacturing a magnetoresistive device, the method comprising: forming a bottom electrode (Fig.2A, element #214), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.2A, elements #206, #208 and #210), and a top electrode (Fig.2A, element #204). Joubert does not teach forming the bottom electrode, the magnetoresistive stack and the top electrode above a via. Nagel teaches forming a bottom electrode (Fig.10, element #80), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.10, elements #30-70) and a top electrode (Fig.10, element #18) above a via (Fig.10, element #92). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagel and disclose forming the bottom electrode, the magnetoresistive stack and the top electrode above a via. As disclosed by Nagel, the via provides electrical contact to IC circuits of the device (column 6, rows 34-37)
Joubert further teaches removing at least a portion of the top electrode using a first etch (Fig.2C, a portion of element #204 is removed by etching); and removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a second etch (Fig.2D and Fig.2E, elements #206, #208, #210 and #214 are removed by etching. Note that an etch may not necessarily involve a single etch step). Nevertheless, Joubert does not directly teaches removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a single second etch step. However, Joubert teaches the bottom electrode may be ruthenium (paragraph [0056], rows 4-5) and the magnetoresistive stack contains ruthenium layers (paragraph [0056], rows 16-18). Therefore, the magnetoresistive stack and the bottom electrode can be removed in a single etch step, which would simplify the etch process.
Joubert further teaches wherein the second etch is performed in the presence of a gas comprising a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond (paragraph [0063], rows 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claim 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first etch is a plasma etch. Nagel teaches the first etch, the etch of the top electrode, can be a reactive ion etch (column 7, rows 47-51). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagel and disclose wherein the first etch is a reactive ion etch. As compared to an isotropic plasma etching, where etching occurs in all directions, the reactive ion etching allows one to optimize the etching in desired directions, such as vertical sidewalls.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claims 7 and 8 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gas is first gas, and the first etch is performed in the presence of a second gas (paragraph [0062] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claims 7, 8 and 9 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second gas comprises: a reactive component including argon, oxygen, carbon tetrafluoride, chlorine, water, hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, fluoroform, sulfur hexafluoride, one or more fluorocarbons having a formula of CxFy, or a combination thereof; and a hydrocarbon component including ethylene, ethyne, propylene, propyne, butene, butyne, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0063], rows 4-13).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the first gas includes a carrier gas (paragraph [0062], row 11). Joubert does not directly teach the method of claim 10, wherein the first gas includes a hydrocarbon component including ethylene, ethyne, propylene, propyne, butene, butyne, or a combination thereof, and wherein a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component to the carrier gas is approximately 1:1 to 1:10. However, Joubert teaches the top electrode may be ruthenium (paragraph [0056], rows 1-5) and the magnetoresistive stack contains ruthenium layers (paragraph [0056], rows 16-18) that are removed by a gas that includes a hydrocarbon component including ethylene, ethyne, propylene, propyne, butene, butyne, or a combination thereof, and wherein a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component to the carrier gas is approximately 1:1 to 1:10 (paragraph [0063], the rate for the hydrogen containing gas is 5-1000 sccm and the rate for argon is 0-1000 sccm , so the a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component to the carrier gas is approximately 1:1) Therefore, Joubert teaches the top electrode can be removed using a similar etch, which satisfies the limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claim 7 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Joubert does not teach the method of claim 7, further comprising depositing an encapsulation layer above the top electrode. Nagel teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising depositing an encapsulation layer above the top electrode (Fig.11, element #130). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagel and disclose the method further comprising depositing an encapsulation layer above the top electrode. As disclosed by Nagel, the encapsulant may be formed from silicon nitride or silicon oxide (column 14, rows 55-57). An encapsulant made from silicon nitride or oxide prevents contamination of the magnetoresistive device with outside impurities, which would degrade its performance.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joubert in view of Nagel and in view of disclosed prior art, of disclosed prior art, Chen et al, (United States Patent Number, US 7,320,942 B2) hereinafter referenced as Chen and in view Aggarwal et al, (United States Patent Number, US 10,461,251 B2) hereinafter referenced as Aggarwal.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Joubert and Nagel teaches the method of claim 1 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Joubert and Nagel does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, after the first etch and prior to the second etch, using an ion-beam etch to clean at least one sidewall of the top electrode, wherein the ion-beam etch is performed at an angle of approximately 45o. Chen teaches after the first etch, and prior to the second etch, using an etch to clean at least one sidewall of the top electrode (Fig.2C, top electrode #204 is etched and Fig.2D, residue deposited on the sidewall of the top electrode is cleaned, prior to second etch Fig.2H). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen and disclose after the first etch, and prior to the second etch, using an etch to clean at least one sidewall of the top electrode. As disclosed by Chen, the residue formed during the top electrode etch is electrically conductive, and the conductive residues can result in electrical shorts. (column 1, rows 55-57).
Chen teaches a wet chemistry etch to clean at least one sidewall of the top electrode (column 4, row 14-19). The combination Joubert, Nagel and Chen does not teach the method of using an ion-beam etch to clean at least one sidewall of the top electrode, wherein the ion-beam etch is performed at an angle of approximately 45o. Aggarwal teaches cleaning the at least one sidewall of the top electrode, wherein the ion-beam etch is performed at an angle of approximately 45o (Fig.4A, the sidewall of top electrode, #10, column 5, rows 53, is cleaned using an ion-beam etch performed at an angle of approximately 45o, column 11, rows 39-55). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Aggarwal and disclose cleaning the at least one sidewall of the top electrode, wherein the ion-beam etch is performed at an angle of approximately 45o. As disclosed by Aggarwal, this allows for a thorough cleaning of the etch residue for structures with increase height of decreased pitch (column 11, rows 58-64).
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hsu et al., (United States Patent Number, US 9,130,156 B2), hereinafter referenced as Hsu.
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches a method of manufacturing a magnetoresistive device, the method comprising: providing a magnetoresistive structure comprising a bottom electrode (Fig.2, element #120), a magnetoresistive stack (Fig.2, element #122), and a top electrode (Fig.2, element #124); removing at least a portion of the top electrode using a first etch, wherein the first etch is performed in the presence of a first gas mixture (Fig.4, portions of element #124 are removed using reactive ion etching, therefore there is a gas mixture); using an etch to clean a sidewall of the magnetoresistive structure (Fig.8, step S08, column 7, rows 42-44), wherein the etch is performed in the presence of a second gas mixture (column 6, rows 66-67 and column 7, rows 1-10);
Yang teaches the etch used to clean a sidewall of the magnetoresistive structure is a RIE.
Yang does not teach the etch used to clean a sidewall of the magnetoresistive structure is an ion beam etch. Hsu teaches an ion beam etch used to clean a sidewall of the magnetoresistive structure (Fig. element #32 is removed using an ion beam etch, column 4, rows 60-67). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hsu and disclose an ion beam etch used to clean a sidewall of the magnetoresistive structure. As disclosed by Hsu, the IBE offers control of the incidence angle of the ion beam on the structure which allows for a more uniform etch profile (column 5, rows 1-3, 7-10).
Yang further teaches removing at least a portion of the magnetoresistive stack and a portion of the bottom electrode using a second etch (Fig.7, step S07), wherein the second etch is performed in the presence of a third gas mixture (column 5, rows 45-54); wherein the second, and third gas mixtures comprise a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond (third gas mixture may comprise a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond, column 5, rows 46-53 and second gas mixture, may comprise a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond, column 7, rows 2-10). Yang does not directly teach the first mixture comprises a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. However, Yang teaches the top electrode is made of the same material as the bottom electrode (column 3, rows 47-53 and rows 58-64). Therefore, the top electrode can be etched using one of the gas mixtures used for etching the bottom electrode, which contains a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond (column 5, rows 50-51). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Yang and disclose the first mixture comprises a hydrocarbon including a carbon-carbon double bond or a carbon-carbon triple bond. Using the same of similar gas mixtures for the first and second etch allows one to perform both processes using the same etch tool or etch chamber, which simplifies the device manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yang and Hsu teaches the method of claim 14 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the magnetoresistive structure is a first magnetoresistive structure, and a pitch between the first magnetoresistive structure and a second magnetoresistive structure adjacent to the first magnetoresistive structure is less than or equal to approximately 180 nanometers (column 5, rows 32-34).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Yang and Hsu teaches the method of claim 14 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 14, wherein a height of the magnetoresistive structure is less than or equal to approximately 115 nanometers (column 5, rows 37-38).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Yang and Hsu teaches the method of claim 14 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising depositing an encapsulation layer in contact with the top electrode (Fig.6, element #138).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hsu and in view of Nagel.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yang and Hsu teaches the method of claim 14 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Yang further teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the magnetoresistive structure is above a via (Fig.6, the magnetoresistive structure formed by elements #132, #134 and #136 is located above via, element #108). The combination of Yang and Hsu does not teach a width of the magnetoresistive structure is less than a width of the via. Nagel teaches a width of the magnetoresistive structure is less than a width of the via (Fig.5, the width of the bottom electrode, element #240, in the horizontal direction, is less that the withs of the via, element #230, in the horizontal direction). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Nagel and disclose a width of the magnetoresistive structure is less than a width of the via. A width of the via is determined by the metal stack process design rules and the requirement to manufacture reliable electrical contacts between different metal lines of the device, while the width of the magnetoresistive structure determines its electrical and magnetic properties. Therefore, having a width of the magnetoresistive structure less than a width of the via is a matter of design so that the performance of the final device is achieved.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view Hsu, and in view of Lee et al, (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2007/0051700 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Yang and Hsu teaches the method of claim 14 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. The combination of Yang and Hsu does not teach the method of claim 14, wherein a polymerization layer forms during the first etch. Yang teaches the top electrode is made of TaN (Fig 3, element #124, column 3, rows 58-59), covered by a hard mask made of silicon dioxide (Fig 3, element #126, column 4, rows 60-61). Lee teaches wherein a polymerization layer (Fig.1C, element #125, paragraph [0034], rows 7-10), forms during the dry etch of a TaN top electrode (Fig.1C, element #110, paragraph [0032], rows 7-8), covered by a hard mask made of silicon oxide (Fig.1C, element #115, paragraph [0032], rows 11-13). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Lee and disclose wherein a polymerization layer forms during the first etch. As disclosed by Lee, this is the result of the combination between the metal ions liberated from the top electrode with the organic materials present in the etch (paragraph [0034], rows 7-9).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Hsu Lee and in view of Deshpande et al, (United States Patent Application Publication Number, US 2015/0236248 A1) hereinafter referenced as Deshpande and in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Yang and Hsu teaches the method of claim 14 as set forth in the obviousness rejection and the combination of Yang, Hsu and Lee teaches the method of claim 18 as set forth in the obviousness rejection. Both Yang and Lee teach the first etch is performed using a had mask and a photoresist (Yang, column 5, rows 4-9 and Lee, paragraph [0032], rows 14-15). As noted in the rejection of claim 18, Lee also teaches the formation of a polymer material during the first etch, disposed on one or more sidewalls of a hard mask (Fig.1C, element #125, paragraph [0034], rows 7-10).
The combination of Yang, Hsu and Lee does not teach wherein the polymerization layer is disposed on a top surface of a layer constituting the top electrode. Deshpande teaches etching the top electrode using a photoresists and a hard mask, where only a portion of the top electrode is removed during the first etch (Fig.4, element top electrode, element #154, hard mask #element #162 and photoresists, element #172). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Deshpande and disclose where only a portion of the top electrode is removed during the first etch. As disclosed by Deshpande, this prevents the formation of residual portions that may negatively impact subsequent etching steps (paragraph [0030]). The electrode is made of TaN [0032]. Furthermore, Chen teaches the formation of a polymer on the sidewalls of the top electrode and the top side of the entire structure due to the first etch ( Fig.2C, element #217, column 1, rows 54-58, column 4, rows 10-14). As disclosed by Chen, this is the result of the process of etching the top electrode using a photoresist. As noted above, both Yang and Lee use a photoresist to etch the top electrode. Therefore, if the first etch would remove only a portion of the top electrode as taught by Deshpande, the polymer would be disposed on the top side of the structure, which would be also a top side of the top electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed if written in independent form and amended to overcome the 122(b) rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 12 the cited prior art does not teach or fairly suggests, along with other
claimed features: “wherein a molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component comprised in the second gas to the reactive component of the second gas is different than the molar ratio of the hydrocarbon component included in the first gas to the carrier gas of the first gas.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRISTIAN A TIVARUS whose telephone number is (703)756-4688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 AM -5:00 PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/CRISTIAN A TIVARUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights