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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 in line 6 recites “wherein…..” which should be “,wherein…..” instead. There is a missing comma before the term “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are objected to being dependent on claim 1.
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 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.
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2015/0311273 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Lin teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
451
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method, comprising:
forming a capacitor bottom metal electrode layer (CBM 102, para [0015]) of a capacitor structure (MIM capacitor 300, para [0025], Fig. 3) in a dielectric layer (ILD 310, para [0028]);
an amorphous material layer (amorphous 202b, para [0018]) of the capacitor structure over the capacitor bottom metal electrode layer (as seen),
wherein the amorphous material layer comprises a first bandgap (bandgap of 202b, para [0021]), and
wherein the amorphous material layer is formed to a first thickness (thickness of 202b);
forming an insulator layer stack (including high-k dielectric 202c, dielectric 304 & 306, para [0018] & [0028]) of the capacitor structure comprising a bottom layer (202c) on the amorphous material layer,
wherein the bottom layer comprises a second bandgap (band gap of 202c) that is lesser relative to the first bandgap (see para [0021], 202b has larger band gap than 202c i.e., 202c has lesser band gap relative to that of 202b),
wherein the insulator layer stack is formed to a second thickness (the whole thickness of 202c, 304 & 306), and
wherein the first thickness and the second thickness are different thicknesses (as seen in Fig. 3 above, thickness of 202b and thickness of the whole of 202c, 304 & 306 are different); and
forming a capacitor top metal electrode layer (CTM 106, para [0015]) of the capacitor structure on the insulator layer stack (106 formed on 202c).
Regarding claim 17, Lin teaches the method of claim 16 and further teaches , wherein the second thickness is greater than the first thickness (as seen).
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 teaches d 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 7-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20150311273 A1) in view of Filippi et al. (US 2015/0235944 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Lin teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
451
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method, comprising:
forming a capacitor bottom metal electrode layer (CBM 102, para [0025]) of a capacitor structure (MIM capacitor 300, para [0025], Fig. 3) on a metal layer(lower metal interconnect layer within BEOL metallization stack on which etch stop layer 302 is disposed over, para [0025]);
forming a …..layer (202a, para [0026]) of the capacitor structure on the capacitor bottom metal electrode layer;
forming an amorphous material layer (amorphous 202b, para [0018]) of the capacitor structure on the ….. layer, wherein the amorphous material layer comprises a first bandgap (bandgap of 202b, para [0021]);
and forming an insulator layer stack (including high-k dielectric 202c, dielectrics 304 & 306, para [0018] & [0028]) of the capacitor structure on the amorphous material layer,
wherein the insulator layer stack comprises a bottom material layer (202c) comprising a second bandgap (band gap of 202c) that is lesser relative to the first bandgap(see para [0021], 202b has larger band gap than 202c i.e., 202c has lesser band gap relative to 202b).
But Lin does not explicitly teach,
202a is a coating treatment layer.
But Lin additionally teaches, high-k dielectric 202a may comprise titanium oxide (TiO2) (para [0026])
Meanwhile, Filippi teaches, high-k dielectric of a capacitor may be TiO2 or TION (see para [0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute TiO2 with TiON as a material of high-k dielectric 202a such that 202a is a coating treatment layer (according to specification para [0042], coating treatment layer 304 maybe formed of TiON), since the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another (TiON for TiO2) to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). (Please see Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, Lin & Filippi teaches the method of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein forming the coating treatment layer comprises: forming a titanium oxy nitride coating treatment layer (202a formed of TiON as per claim 7 rejection above).
Regarding claim 9, Lin & Filippi teaches the method of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein forming the amorphous material layer comprises: forming an aluminum oxide amorphous material layer (202b may comprise aluminum oxide, para [0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin & Filippi teach the method of claim 9 and further teaches , wherein forming the insulator layer stack comprises: forming the bottom material layer of a zirconium dioxide material (202c may comprise zirconium oxide, para [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Lin & Filippi teach the method of claim 7 and further teaches,wherein forming the amorphous material layer comprises: forming a silicon dioxide amorphous material layer (202b may comprise silicon dioxide (SiO2), para [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, Lin & Filippi teach the method of claim 11 and further teaches,wherein forming the insulator layer stack comprises: forming the bottom material layer of at least one of: a zirconium dioxide material(202c may comprise zirconium oxide, para [0026]), or an aluminum oxide material.
Regarding claim 13, Lin & Filippi teach the method of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein the second bandgap is less than approximately 5.8 electron volts.
But Lin additionally teaches, high -k dielectric (i.e., 202c) may have band gap less than 4.5 eV (para [0021]).
However, it is to be noted here that the claimed range of less than approx. 5.8 eV and the range less than 4.5 eV taught by Lin overlaps each other. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges teaches d 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).
Regarding claim 14, Lin & Filippi teach he method of claim 7 and further teaches, wherein forming the amorphous material layer comprises: forming the amorphous material layer to a thickness that is included in a range of approximately 2 angstroms to approximately 16 angstroms.
But Lin additionally teaches, amorphous layer 202b may have a second thickness approximately between 5 angstroms and 50 angstroms (para [0022]).
However, it is to be noted here that the claimed range of approximately 2 to 16 angstroms and the range 5 to 50 angstroms taught by Lin overlaps each other. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges teaches d 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).
Regarding claim 18, Lin teaches the method of claim 16 and further teaches, further comprising: forming a …..layer (layer of 202a, para [0026], Fig. 3) of the capacitor structure on the capacitor bottom metal electrode layer, wherein forming the amorphous material layer comprises: forming the amorphous material layer (202b) on the …..layer (202a).
But Lin does not explicitly teach,
202a is a coating treatment layer
But Lin additionally teaches, high-k dielectric 202a may comprise titanium oxide (TiO2) (para [0026]) and
Meanwhile, Filippi teaches, high-k dielectric of a capacitor may be TiO2 or TION (see para [0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute TiO2 with TiON as a material of high-k dielectric 202a such that 202a is a coating treatment layer (according to specification para [0042], coating treatment layer 304 maybe formed of TiON), since the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another (TiON for TiO2) to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). (Please see Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980)).
Regarding claim 19, Lin teaches the method of claim 18 and further teaches , wherein forming the coating treatment layer comprises: forming the coating treatment layer to a third thickness (thickness of 202a, Fig. 3) that is less than the second thickness (thickness of the whole of 202c, 304 & 306).
Regarding claim 20, Lin teaches the method of claim 19 but does not explicitly teaches, wherein the third thickness that is less than the first thickness
But Lin additionally teaches,
……, the first thickness (thickness of 202a) and the third thickness (thickness of 202c) may be in a range of between approximately 15 angstroms and approximately 80 angstroms. …. the second thickness (thickness of 202b) may be in a range of between approximately 5 angstroms and approximately 50 angstroms. Thickness of 202a and 202c may be substantially the same. Using a substantially same first and third thicknesses, provides for the MIM capacitor 200 with symmetric I-V characteristics (para [0022]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary thickness of 202a and 202c, with routine experiment and optimization, such that thickness of 202a is equal to thickness of 202c and less than thickness of 202b, according to teaching of Lin, since the thickness dimensions of the 202a and 202c is important, in order to provide MIM capacitor with symmetric I-V characteristics, as taught by Lin . In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of Filippi et al. and further in view of Dewey et al. (US 2020/0098925 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Lin & Filippi teach the method of claim 7 but does not explicitly teach , wherein forming the amorphous material layer comprises: forming the amorphous material layer of at least one of: an aluminum monoxide material, a hafnium silicate material, a lanthanum oxide material, an aluminum nitride material, or a zirconium silicate material.
But Lin addionally teaches,
amorphous 202b may comprise silicon oxide (SiO2) (para [0026]).
Meanwhile, Dewey teaches, interfacial oxide layer 140 may include silicon dioxide (SiO2), or zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4), or hafnium silicate (HfSiO4) (para [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute SiO2 with zirconium silicate as a material of dielectric 202b , since the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another (zirconium silicate ZrSiO4 for silicon oxide SiO2) to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). (Please see Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are objected to but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome claim objections, as set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claims 1, the prior art of record does not appear to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for combination to following limitation:
“forming a capacitor bottom metal electrode layer along contours of a trench region that extends into a stack of one or more dielectric layers; forming an amorphous material layer over contours of the capacitor bottom metal electrode layer…. forming an insulator layer stack along contours of the amorphous material layer”
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. (US 20150311273 A1) teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
451
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A method, comprising:
forming a capacitor bottom metal electrode layer(CBM 102, para [0025]) ……;
forming an amorphous material layer (amorphous 202b, para [0018]) ………..,
wherein the amorphous material layer includes a first bandgap (bandgap of 202b, para [0021]) ;
forming an insulator layer stack (including high-k dielectric 202c, dielectrics 304 & 306, para [0018] & [0028])…….,
wherein a bottom layer of the insulator layer stack (202c) includes a second bandgap (band gap of 202c) that is lesser relative to the first bandgap (see para [0021], 202b has larger band gap than 202c i.e., 202c has lesser band gap relative to 202b).;
and forming a capacitor top metal electrode layer (106, PAR [0015]) on the insulator layer stack (106 formed on 202c)
But Lin fails to teach,
…….along contours of a trench region that extends into a stack of one or more dielectric layers
……….over contours of the capacitor bottom metal electrode layer,
……..along contours of the amorphous material layer
The other cited arts, either alone or in combination, fails to cure deficiencies of Lin.
Claims 2-6 are objected to being dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Loke, can be reached on (571) 272-1657. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights