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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US20180331279A1) in view of Shen et al. (US10043851B1).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches a method of fabricating a magnetic memory device, comprising:
sequentially forming a first magnetic layer (12), a tunnel barrier (13), and a second magnetic layer (14) on a substrate (10) {Fig. 1; [0026]};
performing a first etching process (32i) of sequentially etching the second magnetic layer (14), the tunnel barrier (13), and the first magnetic layer (12) to form a magnetic tunnel junction pattern (1a) and an etch residue layer (19) on a side surface of the magnetic tunnel junction pattern (1a) {Fig. 4a; [0041]; sequential etching occurs because upper layers must be etched away before lower layers may be accessed};
performing a third etching process (33, 34v) to remove a portion of the etch residue layer (19) {Figs. 5, 6; [0041-0043]},
wherein the third etching process (33, 34v) comprises:
supplying a neutral gas onto the etch residue layer (19) {Fig. 5; [0041-0043]}; and
irradiating a first ion beam at a first inclination angle (implicit) relative to a top surface of the substrate (10) {Fig. 6; [0041-0043]}.
Shen does not teach performing a second etching process to remove at least a portion of the etch residue layer, and performing the third etching process after the second etching process.
In an analogous art, Shen ‘851 teaches {in col. 2, l. 49, through col. 3, l. 7; col. 6, l. 50, through col. 7, l. 9; and col. 9, ll. 18-25} repeating an IBE etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method based on the teachings of Shen ‘851, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to ensure a more complete removal of MTJ materials … and of redeposition material on MTJ sidewalls. Shen ‘851 col. 3, ll. 13-15. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, mere … [repetition] has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
A consequence of this modification is that Shen’s third etching process (33, 34v) may be performed twice (i.e., repeated/duplicated) so as to constitute a second etching operation and a third etching operation.
Regarding claim 2, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, and Shen further teaches wherein the neutral gas comprises methanol (CH3OH), ethanol (C2H5OH), acetic acid (CH3COOH), 1-propanol (CH3CH2CH2OH), 2-propanol (CH3CHOHCH3), butyl alcohol (C4H9OH), aminomethanol (NH2CH2OH), glycerol (C3H8O3), or ethylene glycol (C2H6O2) or a combination thereof {[0041-0043]}.
Regarding claim 5, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, but Shen does not expressly teach wherein the first inclination angle ranges from 30° to 50°.
However, Shen teaches in paragraph [0035] an inclination angle of 0° to 90°. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 6, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, but Shen does not expressly teach wherein the first ion beam is accelerated by a first potential difference, and wherein the first potential difference is less than or equal to 300 V.
However, Shen ‘851 teaches in col. 9, ll. 18-25, an ion beam is accelerated by a first potential difference of 50V to 400V. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 based on the further teachings of Shen ‘851, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, and Shen further teaches wherein the supplying of the neutral gas and the irradiating of the first ion beam are performed simultaneously {[0043]}.
Regarding claim 11, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, and Shen further teaches wherein the irradiating of the first ion beam is performed after the supplying of the neutral gas {[0041, 0042]; moreover, with respect to paragraph [0043], because the beam and gas are both supplied: (1) together as discussed with respect to claim 10 above and (2) for a non-zero period of time, it follows that the beam continues to be supplied after the initial supply of gas}.
Regarding claim 12, Shen teaches a method of fabricating a magnetic memory device, comprising:
sequentially forming a first magnetic layer (12), a tunnel barrier (13), and a second magnetic layer (14) on a substrate (10) {Fig. 1; [0026]};
performing a first etching process (32i) of sequentially etching the second magnetic layer (14), the tunnel barrier (13), and the first magnetic layer (12) to form a magnetic tunnel junction pattern (1a) and an etch residue layer (19) on a side surface of the magnetic tunnel junction pattern (1a) {Fig. 4a; [0041]; sequential etching occurs because upper layers must be etched away before lower layers may be accessed};
performing a third etching process (33, 34v) to remove a portion of the etch residue layer (19) {Figs. 5, 6; [0041-0043]},
wherein the first etching process (32i) and the third etching process (33, 34v) comprise a first ion beam etching process (32i) and a third ion beam etching process (33, 34v), respectively {Figs. 4a, 5, 6; [0041-0043]},
wherein the third etching process (33, 34v) further comprises supplying a neutral gas onto the etch residue layer (19) {Fig. 5; [0041-0043]}, and
wherein the supplying of the neutral gas and the third ion beam etching process (33, 34v) are performed simultaneously {Figs. 5, 6; [0041-0043]}.
Shen does not teach performing a second etching process to remove at least a portion of the etch residue layer, and performing the third etching process after the second etching process, wherein the second etching process comprises a second ion beam etching process.
In an analogous art, Shen ‘851 teaches {in col. 2, l. 49, through col. 3, l. 7; col. 6, l. 50, through col. 7, l. 9; and col. 9, ll. 18-25} repeating an IBE etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method based on the teachings of Shen ‘851, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to ensure a more complete removal of MTJ materials … and of redeposition material on MTJ sidewalls. Shen ‘851 col. 3, ll. 13-15. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, mere … [repetition] has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
A consequence of this modification is that Shen’s third etching process (33, 34v) may be performed twice (i.e., repeated/duplicated) so as to constitute a second etching operation and a third etching operation.
Regarding claim 13, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 12, and Shen further teaches wherein the neutral gas comprises methanol (CH3OH), ethanol (C2H5OH), acetic acid (CH3COOH), 1-propanol (CH3CH2CH2OH), 2-propanol (CH3CHOHCH3), butyl alcohol (C4H9OH), aminomethanol (NH2CH2OH), glycerol (C3H8O3), or ethylene glycol (C2H6O2) or a combination thereof {[0041-0043]}.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Shen ‘851 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US20200052196A1).
Regarding claim 3, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, but Shen does not teach wherein the first etching process, the second etching process, and the third etching process are performed in a same process chamber.
In an analogous art, Shen ‘196 teaches in Figs. 5, 6, and 7 and paragraph [0050] a first etching process (30), a second etching process (31p), and a third etching process (33) are performed in a same process chamber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 based on the teachings of Shen ‘196, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to enhance throughput. Shen ‘196 [0050]. Moreover, applying a known technique (e.g., as taught by Shen ‘196) in the same way to enhance another known technique (e.g., as taught by Shen) to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 4, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘196 teaches the method of claim 3, and Shen further teaches wherein the supplying of the neutral gas further comprises adsorbing the neutral gas on the etch residue layer {it is implicit that the neutral gas is adsorbed on the etch residue layer to achieve the chemical treatment taught by Shen in paragraph [0041]; see, e.g., Yun et al. (US20220102624A1) [0061] – a neutral gas (i.e., hydroxyl group -OH gas; e.g., methanol) is adsorbed by materials of a magnetic memory device. These materials are those constituting an etch residue layer because they are the materials being etched}.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Shen ‘851 as applied to claim 1 (for claims 7 and 8) and claim 12 (for claim 14) above, and further in view of Shen et al. (US20210135097A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 1, but Shen does not teach wherein the first etching process comprises irradiating a second ion beam at a second inclination angle relative to the top surface of the substrate, and wherein the second inclination angle is greater than the first inclination angle.
In an analogous art, Shen ‘097 teaches in Figs. 3A and 3D and paragraphs [0015, 0018] and claim 17 a first etching process (35) comprises irradiating a second ion beam at a second inclination angle relative to the top surface of a substrate (10), and wherein the second inclination angle is greater than the first inclination angle {Note, Shen ‘097’s angles are with respect to normal, not with respect to substrate}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 based on the teachings of Shen ‘097, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 teaches the method of claim 7, but Shen does not expressly teach wherein the second inclination angle ranges from 60° to 70°.
Shen ‘097 teaches in Figs. 3A and paragraph [0018] a second inclination angle ranges from 50° to 90°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 based on the further teachings of Shen ‘097, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to increase the verticality of the magnetic memory device. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 teaches the method of claim 12, and Shen further teaches
wherein the first ion beam etching process (32i) comprises irradiating a first ion beam onto the substrate (10) at a first inclination angle (implicit) relative to a top surface of the substrate (10),
wherein the second ion beam etching process (additional 33, 34v) comprises irradiating a second ion beam onto the substrate (10) at a second inclination angle (implicit) relative to the top surface of the substrate (10),
wherein the third ion beam etching process (33, 34v) comprises irradiating a third ion beam onto the substrate (10) at a third inclination angle (implicit) relative to the top surface of the substrate (10).
Shen does not teach the second and third inclination angles are smaller than the first inclination angle.
However, Shen teaches in paragraph [0035] an inclination angle of 0° to 90°.
Shen ‘097 teaches in Figs. 3A and 3D and paragraphs [0015, 0018] and claim 17 a first etching process (35) comprises irradiating a second ion beam at a first inclination angle relative to the top surface of a substrate (10), and wherein the first inclination angle is greater than a second inclination angle {Note, Shen ‘097’s angles are with respect to normal, not with respect to substrate}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 based on the teachings of Shen ‘097, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Because Shen ‘851 teaches repeating an IBE etching process, as discussed above with respect to base claim 12, Shen’s modified method includes a second IBE process having similar characteristics, such as inclination angle, to Shen’s third IBE process.
Claim(s) 9, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 as applied to claim 7 (for claim 9) and claim 14 (for claims 16 and 17) above, and further in view of Lill et al. (US20220131071A1).
Regarding claim 9, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 teaches the method of claim 7, and Shen further teaches wherein the second ion beam is accelerated by a second potential difference (implicit).
Shen does not teach the second potential difference is greater than or equal to 1000 V.
In an analogous art, Lill teaches in Fig. and paragraph [0050] applying a potential difference of 400V to 2000V for a first ion-beam etching operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 based on the teachings of Lill, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to form a patterned magnetic memory device fast at a high etch rate. Lill [0050]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 teaches the method of claim 14, and Shen further teaches wherein the first ion beam is accelerated by a first potential difference (implicit), wherein the second ion beam is accelerated by a second potential difference (implicit), wherein the third ion beam is accelerated by a third potential difference (implicit).
Shen does not teach the second and third potential differences are less than the first potential difference.
Lill teaches in paragraph [0050] applying a potential difference of 400V to 2000V for a first ion-beam etching operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 based on the teachings of Lill, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to form a patterned magnetic memory device fast at a high etch rate. Lill [0050]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Shen ‘851 teaches the second and third potential differences are each 50V to 400V {col. 9, ll. 21-23}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851, Shen ‘097, and Lill based on the further teachings of Shen ‘851, because applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
A consequence of these modifications is that the second and third potential differences are less than the first potential difference. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 17, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851, Shen ‘097, and Lill teaches the method of claim 16, but Shen does not teach wherein the first potential difference is greater than or equal to 1000 V, and wherein the second potential difference and the third potential difference is less than or equal to 300 V.
Lill teaches in paragraph [0050] applying a potential difference of 400V to 2000V for a first ion-beam etching operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851, Shen ‘097, and Lill based on the further teachings of Lill, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to form a patterned magnetic memory device fast at a high etch rate. Lill [0050]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Shen ‘851 teaches the second and third potential differences are each 50V to 400V {col. 9, ll. 21-23}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851, Shen ‘097, and Lill based on the further teachings of Shen ‘851, because applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
A consequence of these modifications is that the first potential difference is greater than or equal to 1000 V, and wherein the second potential difference and the third potential difference is less than or equal to 300 V. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20160218280A1).
Regarding claim 15, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 teaches the method of claim 14, but Shen does not teach wherein the first inclination angle ranges from 60° to 70°, and wherein the second and third inclination angles range from 30° to 50°.
Park teaches in paragraphs [0056, 0061] a first ion-beam etching may be performed at an inclination angle between 50° to 90°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘097 based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to increase the verticality of the magnetic memory device. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Shen ‘851 teaches second and third inclination angles range from 40° and 85° {col. 9, ll. 18-25}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851, Shen ‘097, and Park based on the further teachings of Park ‘851, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Shen and Shen ‘196.
Regarding claim 18, Shen teaches a method of fabricating a magnetic memory device, comprising:
sequentially forming a first magnetic layer (12), a tunnel barrier (13), and a second magnetic layer (14) on a substrate (10) {Fig. 1; [0026]};
performing a first etching process (32i) of sequentially etching the second magnetic layer (14), the tunnel barrier (13), and the first magnetic layer (12) to form a magnetic tunnel junction pattern (1a) and an etch residue layer (19) on a side surface of the magnetic tunnel junction pattern (1a) {Fig. 4a; [0041]; sequential etching occurs because upper layers must be etched away before lower layers may be accessed};
performing a third etching process (33, 34v) to remove a portion of the etch residue layer (19) {Figs. 5, 6; [0041-0043]},
wherein the first etching process (32i) and the third etching process (33, 34v) comprise a first ion beam etching process (32i) and a third ion beam etching process (33, 34v), respectively {Figs. 4a, 5, 6; [0041-0043]},
wherein the third etching process (33, 34v) further comprises supplying a neutral gas onto the etch residue layer (19) {Fig. 5; [0041-0043]}.
Shen does not teach performing a second etching process to remove at least a portion of the etch residue layer, and performing the third etching process after the second etching process, wherein the second etching process comprises a second ion beam etching process.
Shen ‘851 teaches {in col. 2, l. 49, through col. 3, l. 7; col. 6, l. 50, through col. 7, l. 9; and col. 9, ll. 18-25} repeating an IBE etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method based on the teachings of Shen ‘851, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to ensure a more complete removal of MTJ materials … and of redeposition material on MTJ sidewalls. Shen ‘851 col. 3, ll. 13-15. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, mere … [repetition] has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
A consequence of this modification is that Shen’s third etching process (33, 34v) may be performed twice (i.e., repeated/duplicated) so as to constitute a second etching operation and a third etching operation.
Shen does not teach the first, second, and third etching processes are performed in a same process chamber, and a vacuum pump connected to the process chamber is operated during the supplying of the neutral gas and the third ion beam etching process.
Shen ‘196 teaches in Figs. 5, 6, and 7 and paragraph [0050] a first etching process (30), a second etching process (31p), and a third etching process (33) are performed in a same process chamber. Shen ‘196 further teaches in paragraph [0054] a vacuum pump connected to the process chamber is operated during the supplying of the neutral gas and the third ion beam etching process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen’s method as modified by Shen ‘851 based on the teachings of Shen ‘196, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to enhance throughput. Shen ‘196 [0050]. Moreover, applying a known technique in the same way to enhance another known technique to achieve a predictable result is within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(C). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 19, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘196 teaches the method of claim 18, and Shen further teaches wherein the neutral gas comprises methanol (CH3OH), ethanol (C2H5OH), acetic acid (CH3COOH), 1-propanol (CH3CH2CH2OH), 2-propanol (CH3CHOHCH3), butyl alcohol (C4H9OH), aminomethanol (NH2CH2OH), glycerol (C3H8O3), or ethylene glycol (C2H6O2) or a combination thereof {[0041-0043]}.
Regarding claim 20, Shen as modified by Shen ‘851 and Shen ‘196 teaches the method of claim 18, and Shen further teaches wherein the supplied neutral gas is in an ion-free or radical-free state {[0041-0043]}.
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0072] of the instant PG-Pub discloses the ions and radicals are created from a hydroxyl group gas when applying a reactive ion etching (RIE) process. Shen teaches in paragraphs [0041, 0042] the IBE process conducted in the presence of the neutral gas and hydroxyl group gas is an alternative to supplying the neutral gas and hydroxyl group gas with an RIE process. Moreover, excluding features not identified (by a reference) as being included in a process would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patel (US10038138B1) teaches a process flow for forming and encapsulating magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) nanopillars includes patterning a reference layer (RL), free layer (FL), and tunnel barrier layer (TB) by reactive ion etching or ion beam etching to form MTJ sidewalls. A plurality of MTJs on a substrate is heated (annealed) at a station in a process chamber to substantially crystallize the RL, FL, and TB to a body centered cubic (bcc) structure without recrystallization from the edge of the device before an encapsulation layer is deposited thereby ensuring lattice matching between the RL and TB, and between the FL and TB. The encapsulation layer is deposited at the same station as the anneal step without breaking vacuum, and preferably using a physical vapor deposition to prevent reactive species from attacking MTJ sidewalls. Magnetoresistive ratio is improved especially for MTJs with critical dimensions below 70 nm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights