Attorney’s Docket Number: 38471U
Filing Date: 12/23/2020
Claimed Priority Dates: 5/17/2019 (PCT/JP2019/019)
6/28/2018 (JP 2018-123688)
Inventors: Yamaguchi et al.
Applicant: Tokyo Electron Limited
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 7/15/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 7/15/2025 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 16, mailed on 4/15/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1 and 7-30.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recess recited in claim 19 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in the top margin so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) and 37 CFR 1.84(c). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 10-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US 2009/0325372) in view of Kang (US 6287965).
Regarding claim 1, Harada (see, e.g., figs. 1-5 and 12) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a film forming method comprising:
Disposing a substrate on which an insulating film SiON is formed in a processing container 202
Forming a base film TiAlN by repeatedly supplying a Ti-containing gas, an Al-containing gas, and a reaction gas into the container under a decompressed atmosphere (see, e.g., pars. 0094-0095)
Forming a metal layer W made of metal material on the substrate on which the base is formed
Although Harada (see, e.g., fig. 9) teaches an Al content in the base film of about 40%, he fails to show that the Al content is 50% or more and less than 100%. Harada also fails to specify forming the first base film more times than the second base film, when forming the lower portion of the base film, or forming the second base film more times than the first film, when forming the upper portion of the base film. In other words, Harada fails to show supplying more Ti-containing gas than Al-containing gas when forming the lower portion of the base, and supplying more Al-containing gas than Ti-containing gas when forming the upper portion of the base film.
Harada, however, does teach that the composition of the base film can be adjusted by changing the number of times that the second base film is formed with respect to the time that the first base film is formed. Even the composition profile in the depth direction, i.e., from the upper portion towards the lower portion of the base, can be adjusted by the number of times the second base film is formed with respect to the first base film. Harada also teaches that lower Ti concentrations result in lower resistivity and that higher Al concentrations improve effective work function. See, e.g., pars. 0090/ll.1-7, 0100, 0116 and 0120. Like Harada, Kang teaches that the composition of the base film of Harada can be adjusted according to the number of depositions of the of the Ti/Al-containing gases so that a desired electrical conductivity and resistance is provided. See, e.g., Kang: col.5/l.60-col.6/l.2, col.6/ll.50-67 and col.8/ll.39-45.
Accordingly, the specific claimed amounts of the Ti/Al-containing gases, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the “optimum” amounts of the Ti/Al-containing gases of Harada that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired electrical conductivity, resistance, effective work function, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as forming the base film comprises the steps of supplying Ti/Al-containing gases, as already suggested by Harada.
In addition, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed concentrations and the relative amounts of the Ti/Al-containing gases, and because Harada and Kang teach that the amounts of Ti and Al are result-effective variables that would determine the resistance of the base film, and as such, subject to optimization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Harada.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentration and the relative amounts of Ti/Al gases or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Harada shows that the Ti-containing gas comprises any of TiCl4, TDMAT and TMEAT, and that the Al-containing gas comprises any of TMA and AlCl3. See, e.g., pars. 0094-0095.
Regarding claim 8, Harada shows that forming the base film comprises heating the substrate to 250-550°C. See, e.g., pars. 0094-0095.
Regarding claim 10, Harada (see, e.g., fig. 12) shows that the metal material contains any of W, Cu, Co, Ru, and Mo.
Regarding claim 11, Harada (see, e.g., par. 0095) shows that the reaction gas is any of a N-containing gas, a rare gas, and an inert gas.
Regarding claim 12, Harada (see, e.g., par. 0095) shows the reaction gas is any of NH3 and hydrazine.
Regarding claim 13, Harada (see, e.g., par.0096) teaches that the base film is 10 nm thick but fails to specify that it is less than 3.5 nm. However, differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thickness are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see paragraph 14 above) of the base film thickness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Harada.
Regarding claim 14, Kang (see, e.g., Table 1) shows the base film having a composition ratio of Ti and Al of 20-50%: 50-80%.
Regarding claim 18, Harada (see, e.g., fig. 12, par. 0099/l.12 and par.0119/l.17) shows that the insulating film is any of AlO layer, a SiO2 layer, and a SiN layer.
Claims 26, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada/Kang in view of Aoyama (WO 2018/021014).
Note: All sections of Aoyama quoted in the present Office action are from its equivalent patent application US 2019/0161853.
Regarding claim 26, Harada (see, e.g., figs. 1-5 and 12) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method of forming a tungsten film comprising:
Disposing a substrate on which an insulating film SiON is formed in a processing container 202
Forming a base film TiAlN on the insulating film by repeating a cycle of supplying TiCl4 gas, a TMA gas and an NH3 gas to the substrate under a decompressed atmosphere (see, e.g., pars. 0094-0095)
Forming a tungsten film W
Regarding claim 26, see also the comments stated in paragraphs 9-13 above, with respect to claim 1, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claims 9 and 26, Harada fails to specify that forming the tungsten/metal film includes forming an initial tungsten/metal film and forming a main tungsten/metal film.
Aoyama, in a similar method to Harada, teaches a method comprising:
Forming an initial tungsten film by repeatedly supplying WF6 and a B2H6 gases alternately to a substrate on which a base film is formed (see, e.g., par.0091)
Forming a main tungsten film by repeatedly supplying WF6 and a H2 gases alternately to the substrate on which the initial tungsten film is formed (see, e.g., par.0092)
Aoyama teaches using these steps to form a low-resistance tungsten film (see, e.g., par.0047).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the steps of Aoyama in the method of Harada to form a low-resistance tungsten/metal film.
Regarding claim 15, Harada shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 8-13 above) but fails to specify that the base film is an amorphous film. Aoyama (see, e.g., par. 0211), in a similar method to Harada, teaches using an amorphous base film to lower the resistance of a metal film formed on a base film.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the amorphous film of Aoyama for the base film of Harada to reduce the resistance of the metal layer formed on the base film.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama in view of Harada/Kang.
Regarding claim 1, Aoyama (see, e.g., figs. 19 and 20) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a film forming method comprising:
Disposing a substrate on which an insulating film 201 is formed in a processing container (see, e.g., par.0199-par.0208/l.3)
Forming a base film (see, e.g., par.0208/ll.3-5)
Forming a metal layer 205 made of a metal material on the substrate on which the base film is formed (see, e.g., par.0210)
Aoyama, however, fails to show that the base layer is formed by supplying a Ti-containing gas, an Al-containing gas, and a reaction gas into the container under a decompressed atmosphere. Harada (see, e.g., par.0008-0009,0094-0095), on the other hand, teaches doing so to reduce residual impurities in the film, further improving film flatness and film-forming rate while suppressing the amount of precursors used, thereby reducing costs.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the steps of forming the base in Harada in the method of Aoyama, to reduce the impurities and increase the film-forming rate of the base film.
Regarding claim 1, see also the comments stated in paragraphs 8-13 above, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 19, Aoyama (see, e.g., par. 0208/ll.5-8) teaches that the substrate has a recess, that the insulating film is exposed on at least a portion of an inner surface of the recess, and that the base film and the metal layer are formed on the insulating film to fill the recess.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues:
Requiring cancelling the recess recited in claim 19 simply because it is not literally depicted in the drawings would be an unduly harsh and formalistic application of the rule. Indeed, the applicants believe that the disclosure, when read as a whole, provides full and unambiguous support for the claimed structure, and as such request withdrawal of the drawings objection.
The examiner responds:
Claim 19 explicitly recites a substrate recess exposing the insulating film and further recite that the base film and metal layer are formed on the insulating film to fill that recess. The present drawings do not depict such a recess. Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a), drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. A recess that defines the structural relationship between the insulating film, the base film, and the metal layer is a structural feature material to understanding the claimed invention. The absence of a depiction of that recess in the drawings prevents a clear, unambiguous visual understanding of the claimed structure from the figures alone.
The applicants’ argument that requiring cancellation of the feature would be “unduly harsh and formalistic” is unavailing. An objection to drawings under § 1.83(a) is not a dispositive finding that the claim lacks written support; rather it identifies that the figures do not show a claimed structural feature necessary for understanding the invention. Whether or not the written description may contain support for the feature is a separate inquiry. Accordingly, applicant’s request to withdraw the drawings objection is denied.
The applicant argues:
The concentrations of Ti and Al are not mere result-effective variables and are not an arbitrary optimization but are designed to achieve four distinct and advantageous effects: improve adhesion with an underlying dielectric layer, suppress reaction with the underlying layer, facilitate forming a metal layer and reducing the resistance of the metal layer. The fact that Harada teaches that the composition profile can be adjusted in the depth direction is a mere statement of possibility without a technical reason. Kang, on the other hand, explicitly states that the composition ratio can be varied to achieve a desirable conductivity and resistance of the TiAlN base film. In contrast, the claimed invention changes the composition in the base film to achieve the four aforementioned effects. An Al content between 50-100% should not be treated as a result-effective variable for these same reasons.
The examiner responds:
These arguments are not persuasive.
Harada explicitly teaches that the composition of a TiAlN base film can be adjusted by controlling the number of depositions of Ti-containing and Al-containing layers, and further teaches that the composition profile in the depth direction of the base film can be adjusted accordingly. See, e.g., Harada: par. 0100. Harada also teaches that lower Ti concentrations result in lower resistivity and that higher Al concentrations improve effective work function. See, e.g., par. 0116 and 0120. Kang similarly teaches that the ratio of Ti-containing and Al-containing gases may be varied to achieve desired electrical conductivity and resistance of the TiAlN base film. See, e.g., Kang: col.5/l.60-col.6/l.2 and col.8/ll.39-45.
Accordingly, the prior art establishes that Ti concentration, Al concentration, and their depth-dependent distribution are recognized result-effective variables, and that adjusting these variables predictably affects film properties.
When the prior art recognizes a variable as result-effective, the selection of a particular value or range constitutes routine optimization absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results. Here, applicants have not provided any experimental data, comparative examples, or declaration evidence demonstrating that the claimed Al content of more than 50% and less than 100%, or the claimed Ti/Al supply sequencing, produces results that are unexpected relative to the teachings of Harada and Kang.
Applicants’ assertions regarding four alleged advantages are conclusory and unsupported by evidence. Arguments alone are insufficient to establish criticality or unexpected results. Furthermore, the alleged advantages correspond to effects that the prior art already teaches as predictable outcomes of adjusting Ti and Al concentrations and their distribution within the base film.
Applicants’ argument that Harada merely states a “possibility” of adjusting composition is not persuasive, as Harada expressly discloses a technical mechanism for achieving a compositional profile in the depth direction of the film. Kang further reinforces that such compositional adjustments are made to achieve predictable electrical properties.
Finally, applicants have not demonstrated that the claimed Al concentration range of more than 50% and less than 100% is critical. No evidence has been presented showing that compositions outside the claimed range fail to achieve the asserted effects or that the claimed range yields a new or unexpected result.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained, as the claimed subject matter represents an obvious optimization of result-effective variables taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within two months of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the three-month shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than six months from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
January 15, 2026