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 .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/02/26. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn,
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Thombare et al. (US PGPub 2018/0294187, hereinafter referred to as “Thombare”) in view of Carver et al. (US Patent 4,431,708, hereinafter referred to as “Carver”).
Thombare discloses the semiconductor method substantially as claimed. See figures 1A-11 and corresponding text, where Thombare teaches, in claim 1, a method of forming a film stack, the method comprising:
depositing a molybdenum nucleation layer (108) on a gate oxide layer (104);
depositing a molybdenum layer (108) (includes both Mo nucleation layer and bulk layer) on the molybdenum nucleation layer (108); (figure 1A; [0020]) and
sequentially performing a plasma nitridation process and a thermal nitridation process to insert nitrogen atoms ([0071], deposition is performed within the temperature ranges to facilitate Mo-containing precursor) into the molybdenum layer to form a work function modulating layer ([0068]), the plasma nitridation process comprising exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3. (figure 4B; [0068-0074])
However, Thormbare fails to show, in claim 1, exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3.
Carver teaches, in claim 1, exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3 for electrical resistivity after being anneal by the flow of nitrogen (Col. 3, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3, in the method of Thormbare, according to the teachings of Carver, with the motivation of lowering resistivity through a post nitridation plasma treatment process.
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 2, wherein the radical-rich plasma further comprises argon ([0054]).
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 3, wherein the radical-rich plasma is generated using one or more of an inductively coupled plasma (ICP), microwave plasma or remote plasma source ([0087], [0089], [0101-0107]).
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 4, wherein the molybdenum layer is deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0025]).
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 5, further comprising annealing the work function modulating layer. ([0074], [0082], the examiner views that the MoN or MoCN is present)
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 6, wherein annealing the work function modulating layer occurs in a molecular hydrogen (H.sub.2) environment at a temperature in a range of 300° C. to 1100° C. without plasma.([0082])
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 7, wherein annealing the work function modulating layer occurs at a temperature in a range of 300° C. to 1100° C. in a molecular hydrogen (H.sub.2) plasma comprising H* radicals. ([0082])
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 9, further comprising forming the gate oxide layer on a substrate surface. (figure 1A; [0020])
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 10, wherein the gate oxide layer comprises silicon oxide.([0020])
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 12, further comprising depositing a conductive layer on the work function modulating layer. ([0037, tungsten)
Claim(s) 8, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thombare et al. (US PGPub 2018/0294187, hereinafter referred to as “Thombare”) in view of Carver et al. (US Patent 4,431,708, hereinafter referred to as “Carver”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nimi et al. (US PGPub 2015/0187771, hereinafter referred to as “Nimi”).
Thombare in view of Carver discloses the semiconductor method substantially as claimed. See the rejection above.
However, Thombare in view of Carver fails to explicitly show, in claim 8, wherein annealing the work function modulating layer.
Thombare in view of Carver teaches, that annealing the work function layer allows grains growth and lowers resistivity [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,to incorporate wherein annealing the work function modulating layer decreases a flat band voltage (V.sub.fb) by an amount in a range of 100 mV to 600 mV, in the method of Thormbare, according to the teachings of Thormbare, with the motivation of lowering resistivity. In addition, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
However Thombare in view of Carver fails to show, in claim 11, wherein the gate oxide layer is an in-situ steam generated (ISSG) silicon oxide layer.
Nimi teaches, in claim 11, a similar semiconductor device that includes forming a silicon oxide material used for a gate oxide layer by using insitu steam oxidation (ISSG) to a thickness in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 nm (5 Angstroms – 15 Angstroms). In addition, Nimi provides the advantages of creating a high quality gate dielectric for the purpose of improving carrier mobility thereby improving the performance of the semiconductor device ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the gate oxide layer is an in-situ steam generated (ISSG) silicon oxide layer, in the method of Thombare in view of Carver, based on the teachings of Nimi, with the motivation of improving carrier mobility thereby improving the performance of the semiconductor device.
However, Thombare in view of Carver fails to show, in claim 13, wherein the conductive layer comprises platinum deposited by physical vapor deposition (PVD).
Nimi teaches, in claim 13, a similar semiconductor method that includes the use of platinum for a metal gate. In addition, Nimi provides the advantages of gate metals not depleting of carriers when voltage is applied. ([0004])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute wherein the conductive layer comprises platinum deposited by physical vapor deposition (PVD), in the method of Thombare in view of Carver, according to the teachings of Nimi, with the motivation of the gate metals not depleting of carriers when voltage is being applied. In addition, since both Thombare in view of Carver and Nimi teach metal gates, substituting platinum for the tungsten metal would be obvious to because they are both transitional metals, thus would not affect the functionality of forming a metal gate for a semiconductor device. Lastly, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
However, Thombare in view of Carver fails to explicitly show, in claim 14, wherein the thermal nitridation process includes a thermal anneal process in an ammonia (NH3) ambient.
Thombare in view of Carver teaches, in claim 14, that the electrical properties of the work function film can be tuned by introducing nitrogen or carbon ([0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the work function modulating layer has an effective work function ≤ 4.5 eV, in the method of Thombare in view of Carver, according to the teachings of Thombare, with the motivation of tuning the electrical properties of the work function film for a desired result for improving the overall semiconductor device. In addition, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
Thombare in view of Carver shows, in claim 15, wherein the molybdenum nucleation layer has a thickness in a range of from 5 Å to 20 Å.([0045])]
However, Thombare in view of Carver fails to explicitly show, in claim 15, wherein the gate oxide layer has a thickness in a range of from 20 Å to 50 Å
Nimi teaches, in claim 15, a similar semiconductor device that includes forming a silicon oxide material used for a gate oxide layer by using insitu steam oxidation (ISSG) to a thickness in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 nm (5 Angstroms – 15 Angstroms). In addition, Nimi provides the advantages of creating a high quality gate dielectric for the purpose of improving carrier mobility thereby improving the performance of the semiconductor device ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the gate oxide layer has a thickness in a range of from 20 Å to 50 Å, in the method of Thombare in view of Carver based on the teachings of Nimi, with the motivation of improving carrier mobility thereby improving the performance of the semiconductor device.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thombare et al. (US PGPub 2018/0294187, hereinafter referred to as “Thombare”) in view of Carver et al. (US Patent 4,431,708, hereinafter referred to as “Carver”) in view of Nimi et al. (US PGPub 2015/0187771, hereinafter referred to as “Nimi”).
Thombare discloses the semiconductor method substantially as claimed. See figures 1A-11 and corresponding text, where Thombare shows, in claim 16, a method of forming a film stack, the method comprising:
depositing a molybdenum nucleation layer (108) on a gate oxide layer (104);
depositing a molybdenum layer (108) on the molybdenum nucleation layer (figure 1A; [0020]);
sequentially performing a plasma nitridation process and a thermal nitridation process to insert nitrogen atoms into the molybdenum layer to form a work function modulating layer, plasma nitridation process comprising exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3; (figure 4B; [0068-0074]) and
annealing the work function modulating layer. ([0074], [0082], the examiner views that the MoN or MoCN is present)
However, Thormbare fails to show, in claim 16, exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3.
Carver teaches, in claim 1, exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3 for electrical resistivity after being anneal by the flow of nitrogen (Col. 3, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate, exposing the molybdenum layer to a radical-rich plasma comprising one or more of N.sub.2 or NH.sub.3, in the method of Thormbare, according to the teachings of Carver, with the motivation of lowering resistivity through a post nitridation plasma treatment process.
However, Thombare in view of Carver fails to explicitly show, in claim 16, molybdenum layer to form a work function modulating layer having an effective work function ≤ 4.5 eV,
Thombare in view of Nimi shows teaches, in claim 17, wherein annealing the work function modulating layer occurs in a molecular hydrogen (H.sub.2) environment at a temperature in a range of 300° C. to 1100° C. without plasma. ([0074], [0082], the examiner views that the MoN or MoCN is present)
Thombare in view of Nimi shows, in claim 18, wherein annealing the work function modulating layer occur at a temperature in a range of 300° C. to 1100° C. in a molecular hydrogen (H.sub.2) plasma comprising H* radicals. ([0074], [0082], the examiner views that the MoN or MoCN is present)
However, Thombare in view of Nimi fails to explicitly show, in claim 19, wherein annealing the work function modulating layer decreases a flat band voltage (V.sub.fb) by an amount in a range of 100 mV to 600 mV.
Thombare in view of Carver teaches, that annealing the work function layer allows grains growth and lowers resistivity [0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein annealing the work function modulating layer decreases a flat band voltage (V.sub.fb) by an amount in a range of 100 mV to 600 mV, in the method of Thormbare, according to the teachings of Thormbare, with the motivation of lowering resistivity. In addition, a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable
ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007),
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been 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. The examiner agrees with applicant regarding the limitations not being address. Therefore, the examiner has made the corrections in the office action and is resubmitting the new office.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 May 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights