DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on December 24, 2025, claims 1 – 18, 20 – 21 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 11, 12, 15, 21 have been amended and claim 19 has been canceled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Analysis
The Examiner notes that the claims as presented (except claim 5) require that the boron nitride consists essentially of boron and nitrogen. The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976). "A ‘consisting essentially of’ claim occupies a middle ground between closed claims that are written in a ‘consisting of’ format and fully open claims that are drafted in a ‘comprising’ format." PPG Industries v. Guardian Industries, 156 F.3d 1351, 1354, 48 USPQ2d 1351, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also Atlas Powder v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 224 USPQ 409 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Janakirama-Rao, 317 F.2d 951, 137 USPQ 893 (CCPA 1963); Water Technologies Corp. vs. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 7 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
However, the Applicant has not identified what are the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention.
Absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising" for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355.
The Examiner further notes that in contrast to the present claim scope, paragraph [0032] clearly sets forth what is allowable where the boron nitride material consists of boron nitride – allowing for an acceptable amount of incidental impurities.
Repeating from the previous Office Action, the Examiner notes that claims 15, 16, 18 recite multiple ranges, but the ranges are indicated to be alternative ranges (e.g. “temperature … between about 300°C and about 600 °C … or about 200 °C and about 400 °C.”).
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 12 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 – 18, 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 21:
Claims 1 and 21 have been respectively amended to recite “wherein the deposition process is a thermal deposition process, wherein the thermal deposition process does not include use of a plasma to form activated species for use in the deposition process”. As amended, the limitation brings into question what steps would be considered part of a thermal deposition process and what steps would not be part of the recited thermal deposition process that does not include the use of a plasma, especially when there is no declaration of “a thermal deposition process” and what would such a thermal deposition would expressly comprise or consist thereof; and because none of the other express steps do not also recite anything concerning the exclusion of plasma in their practice. As there is no clear demarcation of what is part of “the thermal deposition process, wherein … [the] process does not include the use of a plasma …”, the metes and bounds of the claim is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims are rejected based on the deficiencies of their parent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 recites that the dielectric constant of the layer of boron nitride is less than 2. However, parent claim 1 recites that the result of the recited method – which is the basis of product-by-process claims 17 and 18 – is a formed boron nitride that has a dielectric constant of less than 2. Furthermore, the method implies that such a formed boron nitride is a film/layer on a substrate. Thus, claim 18 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The rejections of claims 1 – 16, 20 and 21 under 35 USC § 103 over the cited prior art in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
The rejections of claims 17 and 18 under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 over the cited prior art in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Umeda et al. “Boron carbon nitride film with low dielectric constant as passivation film for high speed electronic devices”. Diamond and Related Materials 13 (2004) 1135 – 1138 (hereinafter “Umeda”).
Regarding claims 17, 18:
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that present claim 17 and claims dependent from claim 17 are product-by-process claims. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Umeda is directed to boron carbon nitride films on substrates such as n-Si substrate and particularly a Ni/BCN/n-Si/insulator/semiconductor structures [in total a device structure] (Abstract; page 1135 1st column, page 1136 1st col).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect]Umeda discloses BCN films with having a dielectric constant as low as 1.9 can be created by annealing BCN films after growth (page 1135 2nd col). As shown in Fig. 1, Umeda discloses specific embodiments of their after-annealed devices and the measured dielectric constants of BCN films specifically being below 2.0 as reproduced below with emphasis (Fig. 1):
Umeda therefore provides anticipatory examples of device structures comprising a boron nitride layer having a dielectric constant of less than 2.
Alternatively, Umeda discloses that deposition and annealing conditions can be modified to produce a BCN film having a dielectric constant as low as 1.9 (page 1135 2nd col, page 1135 – 1136 “2. Experimental procedure”). Umeda also discloses that producing devices having BCN/insulator films with a dielectric constant that is lower than 2 is critical to suppress signal time delays in ultralarge scale integrated circuits which in turns improves overall device operation performance (page 1135 1st col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced a device having a boron nitride film consisting essentially of boron and nitrogen having a dielectric constant of less than 2.0 by e.g. the method disclosed in Umeda with optimized process conditions because Umeda teaches that such devices would have improved operational performance compared to devices having a boron and nitrogen-containing films with larger dielectric constants.
Claim 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf et al. US 2018/0040476 A1 (hereinafter “Wolf”) in view of Sano et al. US 2014/0370692 A1 (hereinafter “Sano”), Ito et al. US 2020/0312654 (hereinafter “Ito”), and Umeda.
Regarding claim 1, 8, 9, 14:
Wolf is directed to atomic layer deposition (ALD) of a boron nitride film using a boron precursor and a reactive nitrogen precursor. Wolf discloses that their method comprises: placing a substrate in an ALD reactor; heating the substrate to a deposition temperature; and sequential exposing the substrate to a reactive nitrogen containing precursor and a boron containing precursor (Claim 1). The boron-containing precursor may be e.g. BBr3 [boron halide that does not contain chlorine or fluorine, meeting claim 9] (Claim 3; [0014], [0030]). During processing the nitrogen-containing precursor, e.g. thermal hydrazine (N2H4), reacts produces N-Hx groups on substrate surfaces (Claim 2; [0030] – [0031]). The ALD reaction may occur at elevated temperatures e.g. 350°C or less (Claims 10, 11) as a thermal ALD process containing no plasma to form activated species for use in the thermal ALD process ([0031], [0034]).
Wolf does not expressly teach:
that the hydrazine precursor is a substituted hydrazine compound;
that the boron-halogen compound comprises, or more particularly consists of [claim 8], boron triiodide; and
that the formed boron nitride consists essentially of boron and nitrogen and has a dielectric constant of less than 2:
With regards to the hydrazine precursor being a substituted hydrazine compound:
Sano is directed to a method of forming a boron nitride film onto a substrate in the manufacturing a semiconductor device ([0005], [0141]). As shown in Fig. 5A and Fig. 7A, Sano discloses a cyclical deposition method comprising: supplying a boron halide gas, e.g. BCl3, to a wafer disposed in a reaction chamber to absorb the BCl3 onto the surface of the substrate ([0038], [0130]); and providing an amine-based gas or an organic hydrazine gas to react with the absorbed BCl3 gas and form a boron nitride film with a concentration of carbon ([0130], [0132], [0143]). The organic hydrazine gas may be e.g. monomethyl hydrazine ((CH3)HN2H2 i.e. (CH3)NHNH2), dimethyl hydrazine, trimethyl hydrazine, ethyl hydrazine [meeting claim 14] ([0228]). The inclusion of carbon in a boron nitride film increases the etch resistance or permittivity of the film ([0005], [0141]), which is useful when boron nitride films is used as a hard mask or an etch stopper layer ([0231]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf to include or replace the hydrazine reactant of Wolf with an organic hydrazine, i.e. substituted hydrazine, because Sano teaches that the use of an organic hydrazine allows for the inclusion of carbon in a boron nitride film and thus increases the etch resistance or permittivity of the resultant boron nitride film.
With regards to the boron-halogen compound comprises, or more particularly consists of, boron triiodide:
Ito is directed to a method for forming nitride films on substrates by atomic layer deposition (Abstract, [0003]). The nitride film can be a boron nitride film ([0121]). Ito discloses that suitable precursors/raw materials for forming the nitride film include boron tribromide (BBr3) and/or boron triiodide (BI3) ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano by fully substituting the boron tribromide precursor taught by Sano with boron triiodide because as taught by Ito, the use of boron triiodide (BI3), including boron triiodide by itself [meeting claim 8] is known to be suitable for the purpose of forming boron nitride films by a vapor deposition technique. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With regards to the formed boron nitride consists essentially of boron and nitrogen and has a dielectric constant of less than 2:
As discussed above, Umeda discloses BCN films with having a dielectric constant as low as 1.9 can be created by annealing BCN films after growth (page 1135 2nd col). As shown in Fig. 1, Umeda discloses specific embodiments of their after-annealed devices and the measured dielectric constants of BCN films specifically being below 2.0.
Umeda discloses that deposition and annealing conditions can be modified to produce a BCN film having a dielectric constant as low as 1.9 (page 1135 2nd col, page 1135 – 1136 “2. Experimental procedure”). Umeda also discloses that producing devices having BCN/insulator films with a dielectric constant that is lower than 2 is critical to suppress signal time delays in ultralarge scale integrated circuits which in turns improves overall device operation performance (page 1135 1st col).
The Examiner notes that as presented, claim 1 does not require that the boron nitride film is formed by the express steps of the method, only that the claimed method results in the forming of a boron nitride on a surface of a substrate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda by including a step of annealing the deposited boron carbon nitride film at optimized conditions to produce a final formed boron carbon nitride film having a dielectric constant that is less than 2 because Umeda teaches that such devices would have improved operational performance compared to devices having a boron and nitrogen-containing films with larger dielectric constants.
Regarding claim 4:
Wolf discloses that their deposition process is a thermal ALD process ([0031], [0034]). As per the definitions provided in paragraphs [0029] – [0030] of the instant specification, an ALD process qualifies as a cyclical chemical vapor deposition process.
Regarding claim 7:
Wolf discloses that their method may be used to form an amorphous boron nitride film ([0015]).
Regarding claims 10, 15:
Wolf discloses that the ALD reaction may occur at elevated temperatures e.g. 350°C or less (Claims 10, 11) as a thermal ALD process ([0031], [0034]). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13:
Sano discloses that the organic hydrazine gas may be e.g. monomethyl hydrazine ((CH3)HN2H2 i.e. (CH3)NHNH2), dimethyl hydrazine, trimethyl hydrazine, ethyl hydrazine ([0228]).
Regarding claim 16:
Wolf does not expressly teach that the pressure within the reaction chamber during practice of their method is between either: 0.5 Torr and about 50 Torr; or about 1 Torr and about 10 Torr.
Sano discloses that the inner pressure of a process chamber where the method is practiced can range from e.g. 1 to 13300 Pa (0.008 Torr to 100 Torr), such as between 399 to 3990 Pa (3 Torr to 30 Torr) ([0081], [0099]). Furthermore, the amount of carbon present in the resultant boron nitride film can be adjusted by appropriately controlling the inner pressure of the process chamber while supplying the amine-based gas ([0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf by setting the pressure within the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation in order to set the amount of carbon within the boron nitride film, as taught by Sano. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 above, and further in view of Fukazawa US 2020/0318237 A1 (hereafter “Fukazawa”).
Regarding claim 2:
Wolf discloses that the boron-containing precursor include, but are not limited to
BCl3, BBr3, BF3, B2H6, borazine (BH)3(NH)3, as
well as tris(dimethylamino) borane (TDMAB) and related organometallic compounds. ([0014]). Ito discloses that boron-containing precursors also include BI3 ([0089]).
Wolf in view of Sano does not expressly teach that the method further comprises a plasma pretreatment step.
Fukazawa is directed to methods for forming a boron nitride film by a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process. (Abstract). Fukazawa discloses that their method comprises ([0026] – [0060]): providing a substrate within a reaction chamber (Abstract; [0006], [0015], [0022] – [0023], [0030]); providing into the reaction chamber a first reactant comprising a boron precursor, wherein the boron precursor is a boron halide ([0024], [0039]; Claim 2). In some embodiments, the substrate is pretreated to provide a desired surface termination, for example, by exposing the substrate surface to a pretreatment plasma for such boron precursors ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda by including a plasma pretreatment step because Fukazawa teaches that such a step provides desired surface terminations to aid in the deposition of boron nitride films particularly where the precursors are a form of boron halide, of which boron triiodide is a species thereof.
Claims 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 above, and further in view of Miyahara US 2017/0117145 A1 (hereafter “Miyahara”).
Regarding claim 3:
Wolf in view of Sano does not expressly teach that the method comprises a plasma treatment that employs a hydrogen or hydrazine-based plasma or a treatment step comprising forming a plasma consisting essentially of argon or a gas consisting essentially of hydrogen and argon.
Miyahara is directed to a boron nitride film forming method for forming a boron nitride film on a target substrate (Abstract). Miyahara’s method comprises a first operation of introducing a boron-containing gas and a nitriding gas into a process vessel which accommodates the substrate, and depositing an incompletely-nitrided and boron-rich nitride film on the substrate by CVD or ALD; and a second operation of introducing a nitriding gas into the process vessel and subjecting the boron-rich nitride film to a nitriding process, wherein the first operation and the second operation are performed at least once. (Abstract, [0043]). As shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, after deposition of the incompletely-nitrided film, the film is, in one embodiment, annealed in a nitriding environment (e.g. ammonia gas environment, hydrazine environment; [0032]) at either an elevated temperature of e.g. 700°C ([0043]) or is, in another embodiment, treated with a plasma generated by the nitriding environment ([0044]). The plasma may be generated from a mixed gas comprising nitrogen gas, hydrogen gas and argon ([0041]).
Both embodiments of the after-deposition step can be considered to be a treatment step. Miyahara discloses that the nitriding step after deposition further includes additional nitrogen into the boron nitride film, thus improving the electric insulative properties of the boron nitride film while also maintaining a good surface morphology ([0029], [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda by further including a treatment step such as plasma nitridation with a plasma based on hydrogen, argon and nitrogen [hydrogen-based] because Miyahara teaches that such a treatment step can improve the electrical properties of the resultant boron nitride film, such as by improving the insulative properties (related to the dielectric constant congruent with Umeda) and surface morphology.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. US 2019/0378723 A1 (hereafter “Nakamura”); and evidenced by or alternatively further in view of Hong et al. “Ultra-low dielectric constant amorphous boron nitride”. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (2020). Available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/236030 (hereinafter “Hong”) and Wolf et al. “Low-temperature amorphous boron nitride on Si0.7Ge0.3(001), Cu, and HOPG from sequential exposures of N2H4 and BCl3”. Applied Surface Science 439 (2018) 689–696. (hereinafter “NPL-Wolf”).
Regarding claim 5:
Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda does not expressly teach that the boron nitride consists of boron and nitrogen; and does not expressly teach that the boron nitride consisting of boron and nitrogen has a dielectric constant of less than 2.
With regards to the boron nitride consisting of boron and nitrogen:
Nakamura is directed to film forming methods to form nitride films by supplying a nitriding gas and a hydrazine-based gas as part or all of the nitriding gas (Abstract; [0006]). Nakamura generally discloses embodiments of their method that comprises: as a cyclical process: providing a pulse of a halogenated precursor gas into a reaction chamber; and then supplying the hydrazine-based gas into the reaction chamber before repetition of the cycle. The deposited film may be, in one embodiment, boron nitride as a binary film ([0045]; Claim 3, 13). In an example, Nakamura discloses that in the case of depositing a titanium nitride film, the halogenated precursor may be any of titanium tetrabromide, titanium tetraiodide, or titanium tetrachloride ([0077]). The hydrazine-based gas may be e.g. monomethyl hydrazine or dimethylhydrazine ([0041] – [0044]). The nitriding gas may comprise ammonia and the hydrazine-based gas either in combination, or in sequential steps of introducing the components of the nitriding gas individually ([0047], [0051] – [0060]). The addition of the hydrazine-based gas, when alone or with other nitriding gases, substantially increases the nitriding power of other nitriding gases and substantially aids in removing any impurities such as chlorine from film surfaces as the film grows, and thus helps result in a nitride film with higher quality ([0040]). The hydrazine-based gas can be used as little as needed ([0102]), especially in light that the hydrazine-based gas may add carbon to the growing nitride film at certain temperatures, exposure time, and/or concentrations ([0100]).
The Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, that while the transitional phrase “consists of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (In re Gray, 53 F.2d 520, 11 USPQ 255 (CCPA 1931)), the scope afforded by such a transitional phrase allows for the inclusion of materials other than those recited except for impurities ordinarily associated therewith. Ex parte Davis, 80 USPQ 448, 450 (Bd. App. 1948). Such an interpretation is consistent with the specification, that allows for “acceptable” amount of carbon impurities ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda to substantially form a film consisting of boron, nitrogen and an amount of carbon sufficiently low enough that it would be considered an impurity because Nakamura teaches that: A.) there is a desire for producing binary boron nitride films, and B.) that the inclusion of substituted hydrazine substantially speeds up the nitriding reaction and suggests aids in removing halogen impurities. Nakamura further teaches that substituted hydrazine can be used to form boron nitride films with a reasonable expectation of success by e.g. operating disclosed in Nakamura; thus Nakamura and Sato teach that the level of carbon inclusion from substituted hydrazine is a tunable and controllable variable.
With regards to the boron nitride consisting of boron and nitrogen has a dielectric constant of less than 2:
Wolf substantially discloses an embodiment of their ALD method that results in an amorphous boron nitride film (a-BN film, [0034]).
Wolf in view of Sano, Ito, Umeda and Nakamura teaches the resultant a-BN film consisting of boron and nitrogen above but fails to teach that the resultant a-BN film has a (relative) dielectric constant that is less than 2.
It is reasonable to presume that such a low dielectric constant is inherent to Wolf as modified by Sano, Ito, Umeda and Nakamura. Support for said presumption is found in Hong and NPL-Wolf, alongside Umeda’s teaching the reduction of any present atomic carbon bonds such as C = C and C – H bonds relate to the reduction of the dielectric constant.
Hong is directed to amorphous boron nitride and inter alia the properties of a-BN. Hong discloses that a-BN have an average κ-value [dielectric constant] of 1.16 at 100 kHz and 1.16 at 1MHz frequency and is characterized by being near-stoichiometric/near 1:1 B/N ratio, having nonpolar bonds between boron and nitrogen, and an absence of order (page 4 lines 6 – 12, page 7 lines 4 – 11; Fig. 1; Fig. 3(b)). The a-BN film was formed by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process.
NPL-Wolf, which shares authors with Wolf, discloses a method of forming low temperature a-BN by a thermal ALD deposition technique similar to that of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito, Umeda and Nakamura (Abstract). Like Hong, NPL-Wolf discloses that the deposited a-BN is near-stoichiometric (page 691 2nd col, page 695 1st col). In view of the evidence in Umeda, Hong and NPL-Wolf, a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the dielectric constant of a-BN produced by a CVD technique, which ALD would be a species thereof in view of the definition of ALD supplied in the instant specification in paragraphs [0029] – [0030], would necessarily and therefore inherently have a dielectric constant that is less than 2. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Alternatively, Hong discloses that the temperature of deposition affects the resultant microstructure of deposited boron nitride film, in the context of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposited nanocrystalline BN and a-BN (page 6 lines 3 – 20).
In addition to the discussion above, it would have been obvious to have modified the reaction conditions, such as temperature, in the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda to have produced or to have expected an a-BN film with a dielectric constant that is less than 2 in order to produce device structures with reduced resistance-capacitance delays, as taught by NPL-Wolf (page 690) and Hong (page 2). Note also In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote 4 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 above, and further in view of Antonelli et al. US 2011/0244694 A1 (hereafter “Antonelli”).
Regarding claim 6:
Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda does not expressly teach that the method further comprises a treatment step comprising forming a plasma from a gas consisting of argon or gas consisting of hydrogen and argon.
Antonelli is directed to methods of depositing conformal boron nitride films that include a post-deposition plasma treatment (Abstract, [0001]). As depicted in Fig. 1, Antonelli discloses a method comprising: depositing a boron-containing film on a substrate; and exposing the deposited boron-containing film to a plasma [treatment step] ([0015] – [0017]). The exposure step helps to densify the boron nitride film by removing hydrogen, which Antonelli discloses to be advantageous within the art ([0017], [0026], [0031]). The plasma may be one or a combination of inter alia: Argon gas or hydrogen gas ([0024] – [0025]). The addition of hydrogen gas adds an etching action that leads to a film with less surface hydrogen on the boron nitride surface ([0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda by post-treating the deposited boron nitride layer with a plasma because Antonelli teaches that such a post treatment densifies the boron nitride layer, which is recognized to be a beneficial result. With respect to the use of argon gas or the combination of argon gas and hydrogen gas; A.) Antonelli teaches that the inclusion of hydrogen gas to form plasma therefrom adds an etching function that helps densify the boron nitride film further and B.) as taught by Antonelli, the use of argon gas individually or in combination with hydrogen gas are known to be suitable for the purpose of densifying boron nitride films. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 above, and further in view of Ma et al. US 20100062614 A1 (hereafter “Ma”).
Sano discloses that the organic hydrazine gas may be e.g. monomethyl hydrazine ((CH3)HN2H2 i.e. (CH3)NHNH2), dimethyl hydrazine, trimethyl hydrazine, ethyl hydrazine ([0228]).
Regarding claim 11:
Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda does not expressly teach that the substituted hydrazine comprises one or more of 1,1 - diphenylhydrazine, 1,2diphenylhydrazine, N - methyl -N - phenylhydrazine, 1, 1 dibenzylhydrazine, 1,2 -dibenzylhydrazine, 1 - ethyl - 1 phenylhydrazine, 1 - methyl - 1- ( m - tolyl ) hydrazine, and 1 -ethyl - 1- ( p - tolyl ) hydrazine.
However, Sano discloses that the organic hydrazine gas may be e.g. monomethyl hydrazine ((CH3)HN2H2 i.e. (CH3)NHNH2), dimethyl hydrazine, trimethyl hydrazine, ethyl hydrazine ([0228]).
In analogous art, Ma is directed to inter alia methods of depositing a material during a vapor deposition process (Abstract), such as tantalum boron nitrides ([0047] – [0048], [0081]). While boron may be provided by a boron-containing compound ([0081]). Ma further discloses that nitrogen precursors may be used for forming nitride materials ([0080]). Such precursors include inter alia phenylhydrazine, hydrazine, monomethyl hydrazine, dimethyl hydrazine and other such hydrazines ([0080]).
Furthermore, Ma discloses that nitrogen precursors can be monomethyl hydrazine, dimethyl hydrazine, phenylhydrazine and other hydrazine derivatives. Sano and Ma respectively discloses similar hydrazine compounds that differ in the number of a given moiety of substitution and finite number of moiety species: methyl, ethyl and phenyl groups.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered hydrazine derivatives that have differing combinations of phenyl, methyl and ethyl groups, such as 1,1 - diphenylhydrazine, 1,2 diphenylhydrazine, N - methyl -N – phenylhydrazine because:
A.) The claimed compounds are structurally similar to known hydrazine derivatives, differing only in the number of a given moiety (in the case of the claimed diphenyl hydrazines) and the combination of moieties (in the case of N-methyl-N–phenylhydrazine). A reasonable expectation of similar and predictable properties exist between the claimed chemical species and the species disclosed by Sano and Ma. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
B.) In view of Sano and Ma, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known, finite options for substituents within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda as applied to claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 above, and further in view of Ho et al. US 2021/0375776 A1 (hereinafter “Ho”) and Chooi et al. US 6690091 B1 (hereafter “Chooi”).
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, Wolf discloses that a boron nitride film may be deposited as an interconnect covering [barrier layer] on copper ([0002]).
Wolf in view of Sano does not expressly teach the steps of forming a metal interconnect overlying the boron nitride barrier layer and forming a boron nitride cap layer directly disposed on an upper surface of the metal interconnect.
Ho is directed to methods of lining and capping conductive features that act as interconnect structures in order to reduce electromigration (Abstract; [0005], [0015]). As illustrated by Fig. 1, Ho discloses that their method comprises:
providing a workpiece having a dielectric barrier layer that lines a formed conductive feature ([0017]);
optionally forming a conductive metallic cap layer onto the formed conductive feature [under the broadest reasonable interpretation, forming a metal interconnect maps to the implicit act of forming the conductive feature and the forming of the conductive metallic cap layer or alternatively the implicit act of forming the conductive feature only]; and
forming a capping layer directly over the conductive feature or the metallic cap layer, wherein the capping layer may include boron nitride ([0029], [0031]; Fig. 2A).
Ho discloses that such a structure helps prevent deterioration of a conductive feature due to contact with adjacent dielectric layers ([0002], [0013])
Chooi is directed to damascene structures and methods of making damascene structures for semiconductor devices (Abstract, col 1 lines 5 – 30). Chooi discloses that their method comprises: providing a semiconductor substrate with a conductive layer (col 3 lines 10 – 25, col 4 line 65 – col 5 line 15); depositing a passivation layer [barrier layer] of boron nitride onto the conductive layer (col 3 lines 25 – 60); forming a metal interconnect that overlies the barrier layer 90 (col 6 lines 29 – 45); and forming an optional cap layer 70 of e.g. boron nitride that overlies in the vicinity of the metal interconnect (col 4 lines 40 – 65, col 6 lines 10 – 27). Passivation layers and cap layers help to fabricate semiconductor devices and the use of boron nitride for both passivation layers and cap layers allow for such devices with reduced capacitance between interconnects while also having acceptable etch selectivities (col 1 lines 15 – 40), which in turns allows for formation of structures with optimized performance, reliability and fabrication costs (col 2 lines 30 – 45).
In view of the prior art as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano, Ito and Umeda by including the steps of forming a metal interconnect overlying the boron nitride barrier layer and forming a boron nitride cap layer directly disposed on an upper surface of the metal interconnect because Wolf suggests that their boron nitride film may be used as an interconnect covering; Ho teaches that the resultant structure that is formed from the method helps prevent deterioration of a conductive feature due to contact with adjacent dielectric layers; and because Chooi teaches that the additional steps allow for the fabrication of semiconductor devices with optimized performance, reliability and fabrication cost.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf in view of Sano, Ma and Umeda.
Regarding claim 21:
This discussion of Wolf above in the rejection of instant claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
Wolf does not expressly teach:
that the hydrazine precursor is a substituted hydrazine compound;
that the substituted hydrazine compound is e.g. monomethyl hydrazine ((CH3)HN2H2 i.e. (CH3)NHNH2), dimethyl hydrazine, trimethyl hydrazine, ethyl hydrazine or the other recited chemical species; and
that the formed boron nitride consists essentially of boron and nitrogen and has a dielectric constant of less than 2:
The discussion of Sano above in the rejection of instant claims 1, 4, 7 – 10, 13 – 16 also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
The discussion of Ma above in the rejection of instant claims 11 also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
With regards to the hydrazine precursor to be a substituted hydrazine compound and that the substituted hydrazine compound is e.g. monomethyl hydrazine ((CH3)HN2H2 i.e. (CH3)NHNH2), dimethyl hydrazine, trimethyl hydrazine, ethyl hydrazine or the other recited chemical species:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf to include or replace the hydrazine reactant of Wolf with an organic hydrazine of the listed species because:
A.) Sano teaches that the use of an organic hydrazine allows for the inclusion of carbon in a boron nitride film and thus increases the etch resistance or permittivity of the resultant boron nitride film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered hydrazine derivatives that have differing combinations of phenyl, methyl and ethyl groups, such as 1,1 - diphenylhydrazine, 1,2 diphenylhydrazine, N - methyl -N – phenylhydrazine because:
B.) The claimed compounds are structurally similar to known hydrazine derivatives, differing only in the number of a given moiety (in the case of the claimed diphenyl hydrazines) and the combination of moieties (in the case of N-methyl-N–phenylhydrazine). A reasonable expectation of similar and predictable properties exist between the claimed chemical species and the species disclosed by Sano and Ma. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
C.) In view of Sano and Ma, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known, finite options for substituents within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
With regards to the formed boron nitride consists essentially of boron and nitrogen and has a dielectric constant of less than 2:
The discussion of Umeda above in the rejection of instant claims YYY also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Wolf in view of Sano and Ma by including a step of annealing the deposited boron carbon nitride film at optimized conditions to produce a final formed boron carbon nitride film having a dielectric constant that is less than 2 because Umeda teaches that such devices would have improved operational performance compared to devices having a boron and nitrogen-containing films with larger dielectric constants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 24, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) under 35 USC §102 and 35 USC §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 Umeda.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed December 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining principal arguments are:
a.) Regarding claim 4, chemical vapor deposition is a well-known term of art that is distinct from atomic layer deposition and cyclical chemical vapor deposition processes. Wolf therefore does not teach a chemical vapor deposition.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The Federal Circuit' s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
However, when an Applicant acts as their own lexicographer and sets forth a special definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s), the special definition controls the broadest reasonable interpretation of such a defined claim limitation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Such a special definition has not been set forth for the term “chemical vapor deposition”. However, the instant application provides special definitions for what can be fairly interpreted as species of chemical vapor deposition processes: cyclical chemical vapor deposition (instant specification [0028]) and chemical vapor atomic layer deposition ([0029]).
Such interpretations are corroborated within the art, which indicate that ALD is a variant or subclass (i.e. a type) of CVD. See e.g. US2001/0000866A1 paragraphs [0003] – [0005]; US2011/0060165 A1 paragraphs [0005]; US 2020/0161475A1 paragraphs [0252] – [0255]; US 2006/0216548 A1 paragraph [0002]. For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the position that Wolf fairly teaches a chemical vapor deposition process, especially in view of the indefiniteness of the claims and that the method “comprises chemical vapor deposition”, which does not require that the entirety of the method – including the expressly recited steps – is a chemical vapor deposition process.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights