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
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takewaka (PGPub No. 20020177325) in view of Lin1 (PGPub No. 20170141028), Lee (PGPub No. 20050031786), Chandrashekar (US Patent No. 8119527), Chou (US Patent No. 10074725), Agarwal (PGPub No. 20020043695), and Anthis (PGPub No. 20180033689).
Regarding claim 1, Takewaka teaches the depositing of a hard mask on a metal gate film, the metal gate film formed on a substrate surface having a narrow feature and a wide feature, with the hard mask forming on the metal gate film at a top, bottom and sidewalls of the wide feature and on a top of the narrow feature to cover the metal gate film, and substantially no hard mask forming on a bottom or sidewalls of the narrow feature leaving the metal gate film (Fig. 4 and [0044] point to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the deposition of a tungsten film 8 (hard mask) over a titanium nitride film 5 (metal gate film), said tungsten film forming over the top of the narrow feature and the top, bottom, and sidewalls of the wide feature.).
Takewaka fails to teach depositing a hard mask by physical vapor deposition (PVD), the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 15, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2).
Lin1 teaches depositing a hard mask by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (Fig. 1B and [0020] point to a semiconductor structure comprising a metal hard mask 150 which can be formed using a PVD chamber 930.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka and Lin, such that the hard mask is formed by physical vapor deposition in order to, for example, allow for precise thickness control and/or avoid the use of chemical precursors.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 15, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2).
Lee teaches the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 15 ([0035]). In particular, Lee describes “high aspect ratio contacts, including, but not limited to contacts have an aspect ratio of […] 20:1 or greater”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Lee, such that the narrow feature is formed of an appropriate aspect ratio so as to make use of more features within the same space and improve the efficiency of their device.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2).
Chandrashekar teaches the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3. Specifically, Chandrashekar teaches that feature hole 105, “may have an aspect ratio of at least about 2:1” (Col. 2, lines 49-50). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wide feature with an aspect ratio that falls within the range described in the claimed invention so as to make use of features that are easier to fabricate and manipulate as needed.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2).
Chou teaches oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film (Fig. 3A-B and Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 11 point to a dry oxidation process P1 performed on the tantalum nitride layer 130 (metal gate film), specifically the top surface 130a, resulting in the formation of tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film), which is substantially the original exposed surface 130a (a portion of the metal gate film).), the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature (Id. points to the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film) having a gradient oxygen concentration decreased from the top surface 140a of the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 toward the tantalum nitride layer 130.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chou, such that a metal oxide film is formed to work in combination with the remaining metal gate film in order to create a high-performance, tunable, and robust gate stack.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2).
Agarwal teaches wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3 ([0017] points to a high density plasma (oxidizing plasma) with an ion concentration between 1011 to 1012 ions/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Agarwal, such that oxidizing process comprises an oxidizing plasma with a high enough ion concentration in order to form an ultrathin film and by extension reduce the size of the overall device.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2).
Anthis teaches etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2) (Figs. 2B-2C and [0029-30] point to etching an oxide film 140 (metal oxide film) via exposing said film to a metal halide, resulting in a v-shaped nitride film 131 (gradient etch profile).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Anthis, such that the metal oxide film is etched, via the use of a material that can be directionally controlled such as a metal halide, into a gradient profile in order to avoid voids and keyhole defects during the later fill process.
Regarding Claim 2, Chandrashekar teaches wherein the hard mask comprises one or more of carbon (C), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium oxynitride (TiON), silicon dioxide (SiO2), and silicon nitride (SiN) (Fig. 1 and Col. 4, lines 42-44 point to a diffusion barrier layer 115 (hard mask) which may include tungsten nitride, titanium, titanium nitride, and others). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chandrashekar, such that the hard mask comprises one or more of carbon (C), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium oxynitride (TiON), silicon dioxide (SiO2), and silicon nitride (SiN) in order to create a layer that can adequately mask and protect the underlying layers.
Regarding claim 3, Chandrashekar teaches wherein the hard mask on the top of the wide feature and the top of the narrow feature has a thickness in a range of from 10 Å to 1000 Å (Col. 4, lines 44-45 point to the diffusion barrier layer (hard mask) having a thickness between about 10 Angstroms and 500 Angstroms. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chandrashekar, such that portions of the hard mask fall within a certain thickness range in order to apply a thicker hard mask to areas needing more protection or a thinner hard mask to areas of limited space.
Regarding claim 4, Chandrashekar teaches wherein the hard mask on the bottom and the sidewalls of the wide feature has a thickness greater than or equal to 10 Å (Col. 4, lines 44-45 point to the diffusion barrier layer (hard mask) having a thickness between about 10 Angstroms and 500 Angstroms. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chandrashekar, such that portions of the hard mask fall within a certain thickness range in order to apply a thicker hard mask to areas needing more protection or a thinner hard mask to areas of limited space.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches wherein the aspect ratio of the narrow feature is greater than or equal to 20 ([0035]). In particular, Lee describes “high aspect ratio contacts, including, but not limited to contacts have an aspect ratio of […] 20:1 or greater”. Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Lee, such that the narrow feature has an aspect ratio of at least 20 in order to decrease the horizontal space required and allow for the fabrication of additional features/components.
Regarding claim 6, Chandrashekar teaches wherein the aspect ratio of the wide feature 105 is less than or equal to 2 in Fig. 1. Specifically, Chandrashekar teaches that feature hole 105, “may have an aspect ratio of at least about 2:1” (Col. 2, lines 49-50). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Lee, such that the wide feature has an aspect ratio of at most 2 in order to increase the horizontal space and simplify the fabrication process.
Regarding claim 7, Chandrashekar teaches wherein the narrow feature has a width in a range of 2 nm to 10 nm and the wide feature has a width in a range of from 50 nm to 300 nm in Fig. 1 (symbol 105). Specifically, Chandrashekar teaches that “The features hole 105 may also have a cross-section dimension near the opening (e.g., opening diameter, line width, etc.) of between about 10 nanometers to 500 nanometers, or more specifically between about 25 nanometers to 300 nanometers.” (Col. 2, lines 51-55). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created and used features with widths that fall within or overlap the ranges described in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Chou teaches wherein in a range of from 5% to 70% of the metal gate film is converted to the metal oxide film (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 13-19 point to the tantalum nitride layer 130 (metal gate film) and the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film), which have an unobvious boundary due to the layer 140 having a gradient oxygen concentration decreasing towards the layer 130. Note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the amount of the metal gate film converted to be a result effective variable affecting the etch stop effect of the resulting metal oxide film. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of claim 8 to have the converted amount within the claimed range in order to achieve an adequate etch stop effect without compromising the remaining metal gate film, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chou, such that a certain portion of the metal gate film is converted to the metal oxide film in order to create a high-performance, tunable, and robust gate stack.
Regarding claim 9, Agarwal teaches wherein the oxidizing plasma comprises one or more of oxygen (O2), nitrous oxide (N2O), water (H2O), ozone (O3), an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) thereof, or a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) thereof ([0017] points to a high density plasma (oxidizing plasma) containing H2, NH3, N2, O2, O3, N2O, or NO.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Agarwal, such that the oxidizing plasma comprises elements such as oxygen (O2), nitrous oxide (N2O), water (H2O), and/or ozone (O3) in order to form an ultrathin film and by extension reduce the size of the overall device.
Regarding claim 11, Chandrashekar teaches repeating a cycle comprising depositing the hard mask, oxidizing the metal gate film and etching the metal oxide film less than or equal to 10 times (Fig. 2 and Col. 8, lines 1-9 point to a decision block 207 which indicates the repetition of a deposition operation 203 and a selective removal operation 205 one or more times. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chandrashekar, such that the depositing, oxidizing, and etching steps are repeated in order to ensure that the proper dimensions are met, such as overhang size and/or feature size.
Regarding claim 12, Chou teaches wherein 30% of the metal gate film is converted to the metal oxide film (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, lines 13-19 point to the tantalum nitride layer 130 (metal gate film) and the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film), which have an unobvious boundary due to the layer 140 having a gradient oxygen concentration decreasing towards the layer 130. Note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the amount of the metal gate film converted to be a result effective variable affecting the etch stop effect of the resulting metal oxide film. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of claim 8 to have the converted amount within the claimed range in order to achieve an adequate etch stop effect without compromising the remaining metal gate film, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chou, such that a certain portion of the metal gate film is converted to the metal oxide film in order to create a high-performance, tunable, and robust gate stack.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takewaka et al. in further view of Cook (Patent No. 9976230 B2).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the metal oxide film comprises one or more of titanium oxynitride (TiON), tantalum oxynitride (TaON), tungsten oxynitride (WON), silicon oxynitride (SiON), and aluminum oxynitride (AION), Cook teaches the use of a “precursor layer formed on the [substrate] surface”, which “can include, but is not limited to […] an oxynitride” (Col. 2, line 67 – Col. 3, lines 1-2). Cook specifies: “Examples of oxynitrides include silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxynitride, tungsten oxynitride, tantalum oxynitride, titanium oxynitride, and aluminum titanium oxynitride.” (Col. 3, lines 12-14). Said layer is then melted, as shown in Step 10 of Fig. 1, while minimizing melting of the underlying substrate (Col. 2, lines 49 – 50). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed to invention that Cook’s “precursor layer” would function the same as the claimed invention’s “metal oxide film” because of the list of elements mentioned in addition to each being applied in a similar manner, i.e., layered onto a substrate surface and then selectively removed while minimizing any possible damage to the underlying substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Cook teaches wherein the metal oxide film comprises one or more of titanium oxynitride (TiON), tantalum oxynitride (TaON), tungsten oxynitride (WON), silicon oxynitride (SiON), and aluminum oxynitride (AION) (Col. 3, lines 1-14 point to the formation of a precursor layer (metal oxide film) which can include, but is not limited to, an oxynitride; specific examples of oxynitrides include tungsten oxynitride, tantalum oxynitride, titanium oxynitride.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Cook in order to provide a certain level of protection to the underlying layer(s) of their device via an oxide film or liner.
Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takewaka et al. in further view of Lin2 (US Patent No. 9490202).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in combination with Lin2 teaches filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material that is substantially free of seams and voids. Lee teaches filling the narrow feature and wide feature in Figs. 4A-4C, specifically mentioning “the fill of recesses” (Col. 12, line 46 – Col. 13, line 1), but fails to explicitly teach the use of a gap fill material. Lin2, however, teaches filling with a gap fill material in Fig. 1G (symbol 116). Lin2 additionally describes how “material 116 is deposited […] to fill gaps” (Col. 6, lines 35-37). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the narrow and wide features mentioned in Lee with the “material […] to fill gaps” mentioned in Lin2 so as to make use of a gap fill material that could be used on a semiconductor’s recesses in order to provide a layer of protection or allow for manipulation of the device without damaging the underlying substrate.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takewaka et al. in further view of Eom (PGPub No. 20200388686).
Regarding claim 15, Eom teaches wherein the gap fill material comprises one or more of titanium nitride (TiN) or titanium oxynitride (TiON), shown in Fig. 10H (symbol 29). Specifically, Eom teaches the use of “a gap-fill material 29 comprising […] the interface material” ([0158]), additionally stating that “the interface material […] may include titanium oxynitride” ([0152]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gap fill material comprised of titanium oxynitride (TiON) so as to make use of a gap fill material that could be used on a semiconductor’s features in order to provide a certain layer of protection or allow for selective manipulation of the device without damaging the underlying substrate.
Regarding claim 17, Takewaka teaches a processing method comprising: performing at least one process cycle, each process cycle comprising: depositing of a hard mask on a metal gate film, the metal gate film on a substrate surface having a narrow feature and a wide feature, with the hard mask forming on the metal gate film at a top, bottom and sidewalls of the wide feature and on a top of the narrow feature to cover the metal gate film, and substantially no hard mask forming on a bottom or sidewalls of the narrow feature leaving the metal gate film (Fig. 4 and [0044] point to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the deposition of a tungsten film 8 (hard mask) over a titanium nitride film 5 (metal gate film), said tungsten film forming over the top of the narrow feature and the top, bottom, and sidewalls of the wide feature.).
Takewaka fails to teach depositing a hard mask by physical vapor deposition (PVD), the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 15, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), the gap fill material substantially free of seams and voids.
Lin1 teaches depositing a hard mask by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (Fig. 1B and [0020] point to a semiconductor structure comprising a metal hard mask 150 which can be formed using a PVD chamber 930.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka and Lin, such that the hard mask is formed by physical vapor deposition in order to, for example, allow for precise thickness control and/or avoid the use of chemical precursors.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 15, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), the gap fill material substantially free of seams and voids.
Lee teaches the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 15 ([0035]). In particular, Lee describes “high aspect ratio contacts, including, but not limited to contacts have an aspect ratio of […] 20:1 or greater”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka and Lee, such that the narrow feature is formed of an appropriate aspect ratio so as to make use of more features within the same space and improve the efficiency of their device.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), the gap fill material substantially free of seams and voids.
Chandrashekar teaches the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 3. Specifically, Chandrashekar teaches that feature hole 105, “may have an aspect ratio of at least about 2:1” (Col. 2, lines 49-50). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a wide feature with an aspect ratio that falls within the range described in the claimed invention so as to make use of features that are easier to fabricate and manipulate as needed.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), the gap fill material substantially free of seams and voids.
Chou teaches oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film (Fig. 3A-B and Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 11 point to a dry oxidation process P1 performed on the tantalum nitride layer 130 (metal gate film), specifically the top surface 130a, resulting in the formation of tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film), which is substantially the original exposed surface 130a (a portion of the metal gate film).), the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature (Id. points to the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film) having a gradient oxygen concentration decreased from the top surface 140a of the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 toward the tantalum nitride layer 130.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chou, such that a metal oxide film is formed to work in combination with the remaining metal gate film in order to create a high-performance, tunable, and robust gate stack.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), the gap fill material substantially free of seams and voids.
Agarwal teaches wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3 ([0017] points to a high density plasma (oxidizing plasma) with an ion concentration between 1011 to 1012 ions/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Agarwal, such that oxidizing process comprises an oxidizing plasma with a high enough ion concentration in order to form an ultrathin film and by extension reduce the size of the overall device.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), the gap fill material substantially free of seams and voids.
Anthis teaches etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2) (Figs. 2B-2C and [0029-30] point to etching an oxide film 140 (metal oxide film) via exposing said film to a metal halide, resulting in a v-shaped nitride film 131 (gradient etch profile).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Anthis, such that the metal oxide film is etched, via the use of a material that can be directionally controlled such as a metal halide, into a gradient profile in order to avoid voids and keyhole defects during the later fill process.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Lee in combination with Lin2 teaches filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material. Lee teaches filling the narrow feature and wide feature in Figs. 4A-4C, specifically mentioning “the fill of recesses” (Col. 12, line 46 – Col. 13, line 1), but fails to explicitly teach the use of a gap fill material. Lin, however, teaches filling with a gap fill material in Fig. 1G (symbol 116). Lin2 additionally describes how “material 116 is deposited […] to fill gaps” (Col. 6, lines 35-37). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the narrow and wide features mentioned in Lee with the “material […] to fill gaps” mentioned in Lin2 so as to make use of a gap fill material that could be used on a semiconductor’s recesses in order to provide a layer of protection or allow for manipulation of the device without damaging the underlying substrate.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Eom teaches a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), shown in Fig. 10H (symbol 29). Specifically, Eom teaches the use of “a gap-fill material 29 comprising […] the interface material” (Col. 21, lines 3-7), additionally stating that “the interface material […] may include titanium oxynitride” (Col. 20, lines 14-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gap fill material comprised of titanium oxynitride (TiON) so as to make use of a gap fill material that could be used on a semiconductor’s features in order to provide a certain layer of protection or allow for selective manipulation of the device without damaging the underlying substrate.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takewaka et al. in further view of Lai (PGPub No. 9972504 B2).
Regarding claim 18, Lai teaches repeating each process cycle mentioned in claim 17 less than or equal to 10 times in Fig. 3. Said figure repeats each cycle until the “feature [has] been sufficiently filled” (Fig. 3, symbol 307). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to repeat the process cycles of the claimed invention multiple times so as to verify that each cycle was conducted correctly and that the final product correlated with the original design.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takewaka et al. in further view of Huang (US Patent No. 5747379).
Regarding claim 20, Takewaka teaches a processing method comprising: depositing of a hard mask on a metal gate film, the metal gate film formed on a substrate surface having a narrow feature and a wide feature, the hard mask forming on the metal gate film at a top, a bottom and sidewalls of the wide feature and on a top of the narrow feature to cover the metal gate film, and substantially no hard mask forming on a bottom or sidewalls of the narrow feature leaving the metal gate film (Fig. 4 and [0044] point to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the deposition of a tungsten film 8 (hard mask) over a titanium nitride film 5 (metal gate film), said tungsten film forming over the top of the narrow feature and the top, bottom, and sidewalls of the wide feature.).
Takewaka fails to teach depositing the hard mask by physical vapor deposition (PVD), the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 20 and a width in a range of 2 nm to 10 nm, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 1.5 and a width in range from 50nm to 300 nm; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); repeating the steps of depositing, oxidizing, and etching described above less than or equal to 10 times, as well as filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 20 and a width in a range of 2 nm to 10 nm, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 1.5 and a width in range from 50nm to 300 nm; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); repeating the steps of depositing, oxidizing, and etching described above less than or equal to 10 times, as well as filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Lee teaches the narrow feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to about 20 ([0035]). In particular, Lee describes “high aspect ratio contacts, including, but not limited to contacts have an aspect ratio of […] 20:1 or greater”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka and Lee, such that the narrow feature is formed of an appropriate aspect ratio so as to make use of more features within the same space and improve the efficiency of their device.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the narrow feature having a width in a range of 2 nm to 10 nm, the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 1.5 and a width in range from 50nm to 300 nm; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); repeating the steps of depositing, oxidizing, and etching described above less than or equal to 10 times, as well as filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Chandrashekar teaches wherein the narrow feature has a width in a range of 2 nm to 10 nm and the wide feature has a width in a range of from 50 nm to 300 nm in Fig. 1 (symbol 105). Specifically, Chandrashekar teaches that “The features hole 105 may also have a cross-section dimension near the opening (e.g., opening diameter, line width, etc.) of between about 10 nanometers to 500 nanometers, or more specifically between about 25 nanometers to 300 nanometers.” (Col. 2, lines 51-55). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and repeating (a) through (c) (e.g., “depositing…”, “oxidizing…”, and “etching…”, respectively) less than or equal to 10 times (Fig. 2 and Col. 8, lines 1-9 point to a decision block 207 which indicates the repetition of a deposition operation 203 and a selective removal operation 205 one or more times. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chandrashekar, such that the depositing, oxidizing, and etching steps are repeated in order to ensure that the proper dimensions are met, such as overhang size and/or feature size.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach the wide feature having an aspect ratio less than or equal to 1.5; oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Huang teaches the wide feature (contact hole 9) having an aspect ratio of 1.5 in Fig. 1. Specifically, Huang describes the range of dimensions of contact hole 9, including “aspect ratios between about 1 to 3” (Col. 4, lines 62-65). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a feature with an aspect ratio of 1.5 so as to make use of features that are easier to fabricate and manipulate as needed.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film, wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature; etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Chou teaches oxidizing the metal gate film in the narrow feature to convert a portion of the metal gate film to a metal oxide film (Fig. 3A-B and Col. 4, line 66 – Col. 5, line 11 point to a dry oxidation process P1 performed on the tantalum nitride layer 130 (metal gate film), specifically the top surface 130a, resulting in the formation of tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film), which is substantially the original exposed surface 130a (a portion of the metal gate film).), the metal oxide film forming as a gradient oxide layer with an amount of metal oxide decreasing from the top of the narrow feature (Id. points to the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 (metal oxide film) having a gradient oxygen concentration decreased from the top surface 140a of the tantalum oxynitride layer 140 toward the tantalum nitride layer 130.). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Chou, such that a metal oxide film is formed to work in combination with the remaining metal gate film in order to create a high-performance, tunable, and robust gate stack.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3, and etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Agarwal teaches wherein oxidizing the metal gate film comprises exposing the metal gate film to one or more of an oxidizing plasma or oxygen radicals, the oxidizing plasma having an ion concentration of greater than or equal to about 1010/cm3 ([0017] points to a high density plasma (oxidizing plasma) with an ion concentration between 1011 to 1012 ions/cm3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Agarwal, such that oxidizing process comprises an oxidizing plasma with a high enough ion concentration in order to form an ultrathin film and by extension reduce the size of the overall device.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2); and filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Anthis teaches etching the metal oxide film from the narrow feature to leave a gradient etch profile, wherein etching the metal oxide film comprises exposing the metal oxide film to one or more of a metal halide, chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), tantalum pentachloride (TaCI5), tungsten pentachloride (WCl5), or tungsten dichloride dioxide (WO2Cl2) (Figs. 2B-2C and [0029-30] point to etching an oxide film 140 (metal oxide film) via exposing said film to a metal halide, resulting in a v-shaped nitride film 131 (gradient etch profile).). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Takewaka et al. and Anthis, such that the metal oxide film is etched, via the use of a material that can be directionally controlled such as a metal halide, into a gradient profile in order to avoid voids and keyhole defects during the later fill process.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Lee in combination with Lin2 teaches filling the narrow feature and the wide feature with a gap fill material. Lee teaches filling the narrow feature and wide feature in Figs. 4A-4C, specifically mentioning “the fill of recesses” (Col. 12, line 46 – Col. 13, line 1), but fails to explicitly teach the use of a gap fill material. Lin, however, teaches filling with a gap fill material in Fig. 1G (symbol 116). Lin2 additionally describes how “material 116 is deposited […] to fill gaps” (Col. 6, lines 35-37). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the narrow and wide features mentioned in Lee with the “material […] to fill gaps” mentioned in Lin2 so as to make use of a gap fill material that could be used on a semiconductor’s recesses in order to provide a layer of protection or allow for manipulation of the device without damaging the underlying substrate.
Takewaka et al. still fails to teach a gap fill material comprising of titanium oxynitride (TiON).
Eom teaches a gap fill material comprising one or more of a metal nitride, titanium nitride (TiN) and titanium oxynitride (TiON), shown in Fig. 10H (symbol 29). Specifically, Eom teaches the use of “a gap-fill material 29 comprising […] the interface material” (Col. 21, lines 3-7), additionally stating that “the interface material […] may include titanium oxynitride” (Col. 20, lines 14-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to a POSITA prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a gap fill material comprised of titanium oxynitride (TiON) so as to make use of a gap fill material that could be used on a semiconductor’s features in order to provide a certain layer of protection or allow for selective manipulation of the device without damaging the underlying substrate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1, 17, and 20 (and by extension any dependent claims) under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takewaka et al. in further view of Lin1 (PGPub No. 20170141028). For the sake of clarity, the previously used reference Lin (US Patent No. 9490202) has been renamed to Lin2.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 with regards to claims 14, 15, and 17 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Takewaka et al. (specifically references Takewaka, Lin, and/or Eom) fails to teach the formation of a “V” shape in either the narrow feature 100 or wide feature 200, citing [0041] of the present application. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the narrow feature 100 and/or the wide feature 200 having a “V” shaped opening) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive and fail to overcome the rejections of said claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick L Cullen whose telephone number is (703)756-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30AM - 5PM 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, Dale Page can be reached at (571)270-7877. 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.
/PATRICK CULLEN/ Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899