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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2019/0013391, hereinafter Moon) in view of JP (JP 4132824, hereinafter JP).
With respect to claim 1, Moon discloses a capacitor (Fig. 3B) comprising:
a first electrode (BE); a first seed layer (OSL1) over the first electrode;
a first hafnium oxide layer (HOL) over the first seed layer;
a second seed layer (OSL2) over the first hafnium oxide layer;
a second electrode (TE) over the second seed layer.
Moon does not explicitly disclose a second hafnium oxide layer over the second seed layer; a third seed layer over the second hafnium oxide layer; and an interface hafnium oxide layer in contact with at least one of the first seed layer and the second seed layer.
In an analogous art, JP discloses a second hafnium oxide layer over the second seed layer; a third seed layer over the second hafnium oxide layer (Para 0045 – alternate layers of HfO and AL2O layers repeat- according to applicant’s specs para 0081-0083 – seed layer can comprise of Al2O); and an interface hafnium oxide layer in contact with at least one of the first seed layer and the second seed layer (Para 0045 – there can be multiple layers of HfO and HfO is in contact with bottom/first and top/second seed layers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s device by having JP’s disclosure in order to improve the storage capacity of a capacitor.
With respect to claim 3, Moon discloses wherein the interface hafnium oxide layer, the first hafnium oxide layer, and the second hafnium oxide layer each include hafnium oxide having a tetragonal crystal structure (Para 0004-0005).
With respect to claim 10, Moon discloses wherein the interface hafnium oxide layer is positioned between the first electrode and the first seed layer (Fig. 2A – HOL is between BE and OSL).
With respect to claim 11, Moon discloses wherein the interface hafnium oxide layer is positioned between the third seed layer and a leakage blocking layer (Para 0089; Fig. 5A – HOL is between CSL and OSL wherein CSL works as a leakage blocking layer).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/JP in view of Park (US 2010/0255217, hereinafter Park).
With respect to claim 2, Moon/JP discloses the capacitor of claim 1.
Moon/JP does not explicitly disclose wherein the first seed layer, the second seed layer, and the third seed layer each include a zirconium-based material having a tetragonal crystal structure.
In an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the first seed layer, the second seed layer, and the third seed layer each include a zirconium-based material having a tetragonal crystal structure (Para 0010-0011 and 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon/JP’s device by having Park’s disclosure in order to improve the storage capacity of a capacitor.
With respect to claim 4, Moon/JP discloses the capacitor of claim 1.
Moon discloses wherein the first seed layer and the third seed
layer each include zirconium oxide (Para 0005).
Moon/JP does not explicitly disclose that the zirconium oxide have a tetragonal crystal structure.
In an analogous art, Park discloses that the zirconium oxide have a tetragonal crystal structure (Para 0010-0011 and 0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon/JP’s device by having Park’s disclosure in order to improve the storage capacity of a capacitor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/JP in view of Phatak et al. (US 2016/0133691, hereinafter Phatak).
With respect to claim 5, Moon/JP discloses the capacitor of claim 1.
Moon/JP does not explicitly disclose wherein the second seed layer includes tetragonal zirconium oxide having a doping layer embedded therein.
In an analogous art, Phatak discloses wherein the second seed layer includes tetragonal zirconium oxide having a doping layer embedded therein (Para 0050). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon/JP’s device by having Phatak’s disclosure in order to improve the insulating property of the semiconductor device.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon/JP in view of Tendulkar et al. (US 2014/0175362, hereinafter Tendulkar).
With respect to claim 8, Moon/JP discloses the capacitor of claim 1.
Moon/JP does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the interface hafnium
oxide layer, the first hafnium oxide layer, and the second hafnium oxide layer include an
embedded doping level.
In an analogous art, Tendulkar discloses wherein at least one of the interface hafnium oxide layer, the first hafnium oxide layer, and the second hafnium oxide layer include an embedded doping level (Para 0057). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon/JP’s device by having Tendulkar’s disclosure in order to improve the insulating property of the semiconductor device.
With respect to claim 9, Moon/JP/Tendulkar discloses the capacitor of claim 8.
Moon/JP does not explicitly disclose wherein a
Moon/JP does not explicitly disclose wherein the embedded doping level includes strontium (Sr), lanthanum (La), gadolinium (Gd), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), bismuth (Bi), germanium (Ge), dysprosium (Dy), titanium (Ti), cerium (Cc), magnesium (Mg), nitrogen (N), tantalum (Ta), beryllium (Bc), calcium (Ca), barium (Ba), indium (In), gallium (Ga), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), vanadium or combination thereof.
In an analogous art, Tendulkar discloses wherein the embedded doping level includes strontium (Sr), lanthanum (La), gadolinium (Gd), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), yttrium (Y), zirconium (Zr), niobium (Nb), bismuth (Bi), germanium (Ge), dysprosium (Dy), titanium (Ti), cerium (Cc), magnesium (Mg), nitrogen (N), tantalum (Ta), beryllium (Bc), calcium (Ca), barium (Ba), indium (In), gallium (Ga), tin (Sn), lead (Pb), vanadium or combination thereof (Para 0057 – silicon). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon/JP’s device by having Tendulkar’s disclosure in order to improve the insulating property of the semiconductor device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 have been allowed.
Claims 6-7 and 12-13 are 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.
With respect to claim 6, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “wherein the tetragonal zirconium oxide having
the doping layer embedded therein includes: lower tetragonal zirconium oxide; and upper tetragonal zirconium oxide, wherein the doping layer is positioned between the lower tetragonal zirconium oxide and the upper tetragonal zirconium oxide, and is thin enough not to separate crystal
grains of the lower tetragonal zirconium oxide and crystal grains of the upper tetragonal
zirconium oxide” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is objected because of its dependency on claim 6.
With respect to claim 12, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “wherein the interface hafnium oxide layer
includes: a first interface hafnium oxide layer positioned between the first electrode and
the first seed layer; and a second interface hafnium oxide layer positioned between the third seed layer
and a leakage blocking layer” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 13, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “a leakage blocking layer between the third seed layer and the second electrode; and an interface control layer between the leakage blocking layer and the second electrode”. when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 14, none of the prior art on record disclose or render obvious the claimed limitations including “ a leakage blocking layer between the second zirconium oxide layer and the second electrode; an interface control layer between the leakage blocking layer and the second electrode; a first interface hafnium oxide layer positioned between the first electrode and the first zirconium oxide layer; and a second interface hafnium oxide layer positioned between the second zirconium oxide layer and the leakage blocking layer” when considered as a whole along with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-19 have been allowed because of their dependency on claim 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M CHOUDHRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5716. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Fairbanks Brent can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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 M CHOUDHRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights