DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 11 MAR 2026 has been entered.
Response To Final Rejection Office Action
The 23 FEB 2026 amendments to claims 1 and 19 have been entered. Claim 20 has been omitted.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 17, line 3, replace “region-from” with “region from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
New Grounds of Rejection
Prior art reference, Clark (US 20080241382), provides a new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
See previous Office action for a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 1, 3, 4, 7-14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over embodiments of Raisanen et al. (US 20160376704; below, “Raisanen” – previously cited) with evidence from or in view of Haukka et al. (US 20140220247; below, “Haukka” – previously cited 28 JUN 2021 IDS noted reference) with further evidence from or in further view of Clark (US 20080241382; below, “Clark”) with still further evidence from or in still further view of Park et al. (US 6426308; below, “Park”). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known method” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 1, Raisanen, in FIGURES 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0088], and claims 1-20, discloses a method for forming a doped metal carbide film on a substrate, the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
516
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
depositing ([0029], [0086], claims 1, 11, 17, et seq.) a doped metal carbide film to a predetermined thickness on the substrate (102, e.g., [0074]) by repeating deposition cycles of a cyclical deposition process (e.g., [0050], [0055], [0068]); and
treating a surface region of the doped metal carbide film of the predetermined thickness to remove chlorine from the surface region by contacting the doped metal carbide film with a plasma generated from a hydrogen-containing gas (e.g., [0041], [0048]),
wherein the deposition cycles comprise:
providing a first reactant comprising a transition metal halide reactant (e.g., titanium tetrachloride – [0033], [0086]); and
providing a second reactant comprising a metal component and a carbon component (e.g., [0034], [0050]),
wherein the second reactant reacts with the first reactant (e.g., [0056], [0086]),
wherein the hydrogen-containing gas comprises (see Haukka for: at least one of ammonia (NH3), hydrazine, or a hydrazine derivative),
wherein depositing the doped metal carbide film comprises (see Clark for: a continuous flow of one of the first vapor phase reactant and the second vapor phase reactant and pulsing of the other one of the first vapor phase reactant and the second vapor phase reactant), and
wherein (see Park for: depositing the doped metal carbide film is performed in a first reaction chamber at a first temperature and contacting the doped metal carbide film with the plasma is performed in a second reaction chamber at a second temperature different than the first temperature).
Raisanen is silent regarding at least one of ammonia (NH3), hydrazine, or a hydrazine derivative.
Haukka teaches at least one of ammonia (NH3), hydrazine, or a hydrazine derivative (e.g., [0007], [0008], [0038]).
Raisanen and Haukka are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Raisanen to include using at least one of ammonia (NH3), hydrazine, or a hydrazine derivative, since: 1. Haukka shows ammonia (NH3), hydrazine, or a hydrazine derivative to be functionally equivalent alternate expedients of hydrogen (it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)); 2. the modified method results in a reduction of particle formation from residue and thus increases throughput and in a lower cost of operation of deposition reactors, compared to reactors that are merely purged after similar deposition processes (Haukka [0019]); and 3. all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Raisanen discloses compounds may be delivered to a reaction chamber simultaneously or in separate pulses (e.g., [0033]).
Raisanen is silent regarding a continuous flow of one of the first vapor phase reactant and the second vapor phase reactant and pulsing of the other one of the first vapor phase reactant and the second vapor phase reactant. See Raisanen’s [0033] and [0073].
Clark, in Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0161], teaches a continuous flow of the first vapor phase reactant and pulsing of the second vapor phase reactant (e.g., [0091], [0109], [0129]).
Raisanen and Clark are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Raisanen to include using a continuous flow of the first vapor phase reactant and pulsing of the second vapor phase reactant. This is because: 1. the modified method provides good thickness and uniformity control (Clark [0015]); 2. the modification provides a method with greater design/processing latitude; 3. obvious to try, e.g., binary iteration or finite number of solutions; and 4. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Raisanen is silent regarding depositing the doped metal carbide film is performed in a first reaction chamber at a first temperature and contacting the doped metal carbide film with the plasma is performed in a second reaction chamber at a second temperature different than the first temperature.
Haukka teaches a reactor may be a standalone reactor or part of a cluster tool and may be dedicated to a doped metal film deposition process ([0021]). Furthermore, Park teaches performing a deposition process and a thermal treatment process at different temperatures and within different chambers (column 7, lines 5-20).
Raisanen, Haukka, and Park are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Raisanen as taught by Haukka and Park because: 1. a constant chamber-temperature reduces non-value-added time, e.g., wafer dwell-time during chamber-temperature adjustment; and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Applicants are reminded that different steps or a different sequence of steps distinguishes one method from a similar method.
RE 3, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cyclical deposition process comprises a hybrid atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition process, wherein the hybrid atomic layer deposition and chemical vapor deposition process comprises heating the substrate to a temperature above an atomic layer deposition process temperature (e.g., [0073]).
RE 4, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the steps of depositing the doped metal carbide film and contacting the doped metal carbide film with the plasma are repeated one or more times (e.g., [0050], [0055]).
RE 7, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transitional metal halide reactant comprises at least one of a transition metal chloride, a transition metal bromide, or a transition metal iodide (e.g., [0033], [0086]).
RE 8, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transition metal halide reactant comprises at least one of niobium (Nb in Group 5), molybdenum (Mo in Group 6), or zirconium (Zr in Group 4) (e.g., [0033]).
RE 9, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metal component of the second vapor phase reactant comprises aluminum (e.g., [0034], [0086]).
RE 10, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second vapor phase reactant comprises an aluminum metalorganic precursor (e.g., [0034], [0068], claims 7, 14).
RE 11, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the aluminum metalorganic precursor comprises tritertbutylaluminum (TTBA) ([0034], [0068], et seq.).
RE 12, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the doped metal carbide film comprises an aluminum-doped transition metal carbide film (e.g., [0009], [0024]).
RE 13, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the aluminum-doped transition metal carbide film comprises a composite material including doped transition metal carbide regions, aluminum carbide regions, and carbon regions (e.g., [0007]-[0011]).
RE 14, modified Raisanen is silent regarding the method of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen-containing gas comprises at least one of hydrazine or the hydrazine derivative.
Haukka teaches a hydrogen-containing gas including at least one of hydrazine or the hydrazine derivative (e.g., [0007], [0008], [0029]).
Raisanen and Haukka are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Raisanen to include using at least one of hydrazine or the hydrazine derivative because: 1. Haukka shows hydrazine or a hydrazine derivative to be functionally equivalent alternate expedients of hydrogen (it has been held to be within the general skill … to select a known material … as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)); 2. the modified method results in a reduction of particle formation … and thus increases throughput and in a lower cost of operation of deposition reactors, … (Haukka [0019]); and 3. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 16, modified Raisanen is silent regarding the method of claim 1, wherein the hydrogen-containing gas comprises the hydrazine derivative.
Haukka teaches a hydrogen-containing gas including a hydrazine derivative (e.g., [0007], [0008], [0029]).
Raisanen and Haukka are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Raisanen to include using the hydrazine derivative, because: 1. Haukka shows hydrazine derivatives to be functionally equivalent alternate expedients of hydrogen (it has been held to be within the general skill … to select a known material … as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)); 2. the modified method results in a reduction of particle formation … and thus increases throughput and in a lower cost of operation of deposition reactors, … (Haukka [0019]); and 3. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 17, Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein contacting the doped metal carbide film with the plasma further comprises removing a portion of at least one of a carbon region or an oxygen region-from [sic, “region from”] the doped metal carbide (e.g., [0041]).
RE 19, modified Raisanen is silent regarding the method of claim 1, wherein depositing the doped metal carbide film comprises a continuous flow of the first vapor phase reactant to the first reaction chamber (see Haukka’s [0007], [0008], and [0021]). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application understands that altering flow rates of precursors will result in changes to thin-film-growth mechanisms. See Raisanen’s [0033], [0073].
Clark, in Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0161], teaches a continuous flow of the first vapor phase reactant (e.g., [0091], [0109], [0129]).
Modified Raisanen and Clark are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Raisanen to include using a continuous flow of the first vapor phase reactant. This is because: 1. the modified method provides good thickness and uniformity control (Clark [0015]); 2. the modification provides a method with greater design/processing latitude; 3. flowing pulses of second vapor phase reactant in a continuous flow of first vapor phase reactant may provide films at a substantially higher deposition rate; 4. the modification provides a method with greater design/processing latitude; and 5. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 20, modified Raisanen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a mixture or laminate comprising hafnium oxide (HfO2), tantalum oxide (Ta2O5), zirconium oxide (ZrO2), titanium oxide (TiO2), hafnium silicate (HfSiOx), aluminum oxide (Al2O3) or lanthanum oxide (La2O3) (e.g., [0076]).
Claims 15 and 18 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over embodiments of Raisanen with evidence from or in view of Haukka with further evidence from or in further view of Clark with still further evidence from or in still further view of LI et al. (US 20090315093; below, “LI” – previously cited 24 AUG 2023 IDS noted reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 15, modified Raisanen is silent regarding the method of claim 1, wherein the plasma is generated by a microwave plasma.
LI teaches a plasma generated by a microwave plasma (e.g., [0035]).
Modified Raisanen and LI are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Raisanen wherein the plasma is generated by a microwave plasma, because: 1. low-temperature processing is enabled preserving sensitive materials; 2. faster deposition rates and improved film stoichiometry are achieved; and 3. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 18, modified Raisanen is silent regarding the method of claim 1, wherein contacting the doped metal carbide with the plasma further comprises reducing the electrical resistivity of the doped metal carbide film to between approximately 200 μΩ-cm and 1500 μΩ-cm.
The reduction of electrical resistivity can be parametrically controlled. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to reduce the electrical resistivity of the doped metal carbide film to between approximately 200 μΩ-cm and 1500 μΩ-cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). As evidence, see LI’s [0139].
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ 23 FEB 2026 rebuttal arguments (REM pages 5-7) are found to be unpersuasive in light of the arguments and positions detailed in the claim rejections above. Additionally, the new ground of rejection was necessary due to the applicants’ amendments. Applicants’ arguments regarding patentability have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. 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.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights