DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “(TMDC) liner directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material” of claim 1 and “the bottom consisting of a channel material” of claims 12 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently the Applicant’s drawings show the TMDC being directly on a base material and does not show a channel material. Further, the Applicant’s written specification does not recite that the base material is a channel material nor where the base material consists of a channel material. Lastly, it is unclear where the TMDC liner directly contacts the channel material as a channel material is not shown in the drawings. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “(TMDC) liner directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant’s written specification nor their drawings is it taught that the TMDC liner is directly on a channel material. Instead, the Applicant’s drawings show where the TMDC liner is directly on a base material but the written specification does not state that the base material is a channel material. Further, a channel material is only recited twice in the Applicant’s written specification, once to state that the TMDC itself may act as a channel material, liner or barrier layer and second to state that in one or more embodiments that the TMDC itself acts as a channel material. In no instance does the written specification state that the TMDC is directly on a channel material. As such, the limitation constitutes new matter. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 currently recites “the bottom consisting of a channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant written specification or drawings is it recited that a feature bottom consists of a channel material. Further should the Applicant argue that the drawings show the TMDC material directly on the base material in the drawings, nowhere in the Applicant’s specification is a connection made between the base and the TMDC material. Instead, in the Applicant’s written specification a channel material is only mentioned twice and it is with respect to the TMDC layer itself acting as a channel material. Therefore claim 12 contains new matter. Appropriate changes should be made to remove the new matter from the claim.
Claims 15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 currently recites “the bottom consisting of a channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant written specification or drawings is it recited that a feature bottom consists of a channel material. Further should the Applicant argue that the drawings show the TMDC material directly on the base material in the drawings, nowhere in the Applicant’s specification is a connection made between the base and the TMDC material. Instead, in the Applicant’s written specification a channel material is only mentioned twice and it is with respect to the TMDC layer itself acting as a channel material. Therefore claim 19 contains new matter. Appropriate changes should be made to remove the new matter from the claim.
Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 20 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 claim 1, claim 1 recites “(TMDC) liner directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the TMDC liner directly contacts the channel material as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s written specification does not discuss the channel material directly contacting the TMDC liner. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a channel material with its possible use as a channel material itself. Further, should the Applicant argues that the channel material is the base material shown in the Applicant’s drawings, the Examiner avers that nowhere in the Applicant’s specification is it taught that the base material is a channel material or comprises a channel material as thus still does not clarify where the channel material is in the structure. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the bottom [of the feature] consisting of a channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the channel material is located as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s written specification does not discuss the channel material relative to the TMDC liner. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a base material with respect to the feature bottom. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Claims 15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “the bottom [of the feature] consisting of a channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the channel material is located as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s written specification does not discuss the channel material relative to the TMDC liner. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a base material with respect to the feature bottom. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2023/0307551) hereinafter “Yoo” in view of Deijkers et al. (US 2022/0384197) hereinafter “Deijkers” and Ruiz et al. (US 2018/0212147) hereinafter “Ruiz” and in further view of Casiraghi et al. (US 2016/0340533) hereinafter “Casiraghi”.
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 2 of Yoo teaches a method of forming a 3D NAND device (Paragraph 0091), the method, comprising: forming, a substantially conformal barrier layer (Item BP) directly on a dielectric material (Item GI) on a semiconductor substrate (Combination of Items 100, 101, SE, and ILD) having a feature (Combination of Items GI and CH) comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material (Item CH), the at least one sidewall comprising the dielectric material (Item GI); and depositing a metal fill (Item CP) directly on the barrier layer (Item BP) to fill the feature.
Yoo does not teach where the barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner such that the TMDC liner is formed in the absence of a barrier layer nor where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms nor where the TMDC liner acts as both a barrier and a liner.
Fig. 1 of Deijkers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) on a dielectric material (Item 130), where the TMDC liner (Item 120) has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms (Paragraph 0023) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the barrier layer of Yoo be a TMDC liner such that the TMDC liner is formed in the absence of a barrier layer, where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms, where the TMDC liner acts as a barrier layer and a liner because the TMDC liner having a thickness between 10 Angstroms and 20 Angstroms prevents metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074).
When the barrier layer of Yoo is a TMDC liner as taught by Deijkers, the metal fill will be directly deposited on the TMDC liner.
Yoo does not explicitly teach where the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As Deijkers recites all of the materials recited by the Applicant in their specification as the possible TMDC liner (molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide), the TDMC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner taught by Deijker.
Further, the resistivity of a transition metal dichalcogenide is a result effective variable (Ruiz Paragraph 0073 where the resistivity is tuned so that a cell is more stable during reading). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the resistivity of the TMDC liner such that the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms because "[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) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Yoo does not teach where the TMDC liner is directly on a channel material.
Casiraghi teaches where a TMDC is a barrier layer which also acts a gate dielectric (Paragraph 0161).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner directly on the channel material of Yoo because it is known that a TMDC may act as a gate dielectric material in a transistor (Casiraghi Paragraph 0161).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers, Ruiz and Casiraghi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Yoo does not explicitly teach where surface scattering of electrons between the metal fill and TMDC liner is less than surface scattering of electrons between a similar metal fill formed on a titanium nitride (TiN) liner.
Deijkers further teaches where a transition metal dichalcogenide liner can be formed to be very thin such that a resistance (i.e. surface scattering of electrons between the metal fill and TMDC liner) of a metal gate in a transistor is reduced relative to a metal gate utilizing previously relied upon barrier layer materials such as TaN/Ta (Paragraph 0022).
Further, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the surface scattering of electrons between the metal fill and TMDC liner is less than surface scattering of electrons between a similar metal fill formed on a titanium nitride (TiN) liner is rendered to be an obvious inherent characteristic of the TMDC material.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers, Ruiz and Casiraghi teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the TMDC liner acts as a fluorine diffusion barrier.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the TMDC liner acting as a fluorine diffusion barrier is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner. Further, Deijkers further teaches other TMDC materials such as molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers, Ruiz and Casiraghi teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the TMDC liner comprises tungsten disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, tantalum disulfide, or titanium sulfide.
Deijkers further teaches where the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises a tungsten disulfide (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner comprise a tungsten disulfide because tungsten disulfide is known to prevent metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers, Ruiz and Casiraghi teaches all of the elements as stated above except where forming the TMDC liner comprises exposing the dielectric material to a chalcogenide precursor comprising one or more of sulfur, selenium, or tellurium.
Deijkers further teaches where forming the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises exposing the dielectric material (Item 130) to a chalcogenide precursor comprising one or more of sulfur, selenium or tellurium (Paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the forming the TMDC liner comprise exposing the dielectric material to a chalcogenide precursor comprising one or more of sulfur, selenium, or tellurium because “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers, Ruiz and Casiraghi teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the transition metal dichalcogenide film is substantially free of oxygen.
Deijkers further teaches where the transition metal dichalcogenide film (Item 120) is substantially free of oxygen (Paragraphs 0061-0064; See also Paragraph 0065 where the use of oxygen is in an alternate embodiment indicating that the embodiment in paragraphs 0061-0064 do not include oxygen).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal dichalcogenide film be substantially free of oxygen since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers, Ruiz and Casiraghi teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the TMDC liner comprises one or more of molybdenum, tungsten, tantalum, or titanium.
Deijkers further teaches where the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises tungsten (Paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner comprise tungsten because tungsten is known to prevent metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claims 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2023/0307551) hereinafter “Yoo” in view of Deijkers et al. (US 2022/0384197) hereinafter “Deijkers” and in further view of Ruiz et al. (US 2018/0212147) hereinafter “Ruiz”.
Regarding claim 12, Fig. 2 of Yoo teaches a 3D NAND device (Paragraph 0091) comprising: a substrate (Combination of Items 100, 101, SE, and ILD) having a feature (Combination of Items GI and CH) comprising a bottom (Bottom portion of Item CH) and at least one sidewall, the bottom (Bottom portion of Item CH) consisting of a channel material (Item CH), the at least one sidewall comprising a dielectric material (Item GI); a substantially conformal barrier layer (Item BP) formed directly on the at least one sidewall leaving a feature opening; and a metal fill (Item CP) formed in the feature opening directly on the conformal barrier layer (Item BP).
Yoo does not teach where the barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner nor where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms nor where the TMDC liner acts as both a barrier and a liner.
Fig. 1 of Deijkers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) on a dielectric material (Item 130), where the TMDC liner (Item 120) has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms (Paragraph 0023) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the barrier layer of Yoo be a TMDC liner, where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms, where the TMDC liner acts as a barrier layer and a liner because the TMDC liner having a thickness between 10 Angstroms and 20 Angstroms prevents metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074).
When the barrier layer of Yoo is a TMDC liner as taught by Deijkers, the metal fill will be directly deposited on the TMDC liner.
Yoo does not explicitly teach where the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As Deijkers recites all of the materials recited by the Applicant in their specification as the possible TMDC liner (molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide), the TDMC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner taught by Deijker.
Further, the resistivity of a transition metal dichalcogenide is a result effective variable (Ruiz Paragraph 0073 where the resistivity is tuned so that a cell is more stable during reading). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the resistivity of the TMDC liner such that the TMDC liner has a resistivity less than or equal to 12 µΩ-cm for a thickness less than 35 angstroms because "[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) (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Yoo does not teach where the TMDC liner comprises tungsten disulfide, molybdenum disulfide, tantalum disulfide, or titanium sulfide.
Deijkers further teaches where the TMDC liner (Item 120) comprises a tungsten disulfide (Paragraph 0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TMDC liner comprise a tungsten disulfide because tungsten disulfide is known to prevent metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above except where the TMDC liner acts as a fluorine diffusion barrier.
However, MPEP 2112(III) states “Where applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.” As such, the TMDC liner acting as a fluorine diffusion barrier is rendered to be an inherent characteristic of the TMDC liner. Further, Deijkers further teaches other TMDC materials such as molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Yoo, Deijkers and Ruiz teaches all of the elements as stated above except where the transition metal dichalcogenide film is substantially free of oxygen.
Deijkers further teaches where the transition metal dichalcogenide film (Item 120) is substantially free of oxygen (Paragraphs 0061-0064; See also Paragraph 0065 where the use of oxygen is in an alternate embodiment indicating that the embodiment in paragraphs 0061-0064 do not include oxygen).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal dichalcogenide film be substantially free of oxygen since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), and MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jahangir et al. (US 2018/0226248) hereinafter “Jahangir” in view of Yoo et al. (US 2023/0307551) hereinafter “Yoo” and Wu et al. A Self-Limited Atomic Layer Deposition of WS2 Based on the Chemisorption and Reduction of Bis(t-butylimino)bis(dimethylamino) Complexes. Chem. Mater. 2019, 31, 1881-1890 and in further view of Deijkers et al. (US 2022/0384197) hereinafter “Deijkers”.
Regarding claim 19, Fig. 2(b) of Jahangir teaches a method of forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film (Item MoS2) on a substrate (Item n+ Si) surface, the method comprising: sequentially exposing the substrate surface to a metal precursor (Paragraph 0046 where tungsten is applied) and an oxidant (Paragraph 0047 where oxygen is applied to the metal precursor) to directly deposit a transition metal oxide film (Paragraph 0047 where an intermediate transition metal oxide film is formed), the metal precursor comprising tungsten (Paragraph 0046); exposing the transition metal oxide film to a chalcogenide precursor to convert the transition metal oxide film to a transition metal dichalcogenide film (Paragraph 0050), the chalcogenide precursor comprising sulfur (Paragraph 0050).
Jahanagir does not teach where the semiconductor substrate has a feature comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom consisting of a channel material, the at least one sidewall comprising a dielectric material nor depositing a metal fill directly on the transition metal dichalcogenide film to fill the feature.
Yoo teaches a 3D NAND device (Paragraph 0091) having a semiconductor substrate (Combination of Items 100, 101, SE, and ILD) having a feature (Combination of Items GI and CH) comprising a bottom (Bottom portion of Item CH) and at least one sidewall, the bottom consisting of a channel material (Item CH), the at least one sidewall comprising the dielectric material (Item GI); and a metal film directly on a transition metal dichalcogenide film to fill the feature.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have where the semiconductor substrate have a feature comprising a bottom and at least one sidewall, the bottom consisting of a channel material, the at least one sidewall comprising a dielectric material; and a metal film directly on a transition metal dichalcogenide film to fill the feature because this yields a transistor structure (Yoo Paragraph 0002).
Jahanagir does not teach where the transition metal oxide film is substantially conformal and directly on the dielectric material nor that the TMDC liner is formed in the absence of a barrier layer nor where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms nor where the TMDC liner acts as both a barrier and a liner.
Fig. 1 of Deijkers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) that is substantially conformal (Paragraph 0029) directly on a dielectric material (Item 130), where the TMDC liner (Item 120) has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms (Paragraph 0023) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal oxide film be substantially conformal directly on the dielectric material because this allows for step coverage over structures with complex surface morphology (Deijkers Paragraph 0029) and to have the transition metal oxide film be formed in the absence of a barrier layer, where the TMDC liner has a thickness in the range of 10 Angstroms to 20 Angstroms, where the TMDC liner acts as a barrier layer and a liner because the TMDC liner having a thickness between 10 Angstroms and 20 Angstroms prevents metal from the fill from diffusing into the material (whether it be channel or dielectric) below and to the side of it (Deijkers Paragraph 0074).
Jahangir does not teach where the tungsten precursor is bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten.
Wu teaches where bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten is used as a precursor to a deposition of tungsten (Under “WS2 ALD section”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tungsten precursor be bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten because bis(t-butylimino) bis(dimethylamino) tungsten is known to be a precursor material when forming a WS2 film (Wu Under “WS2 ALD section).
Jahangir does not teach where the chalcogen precursor comprises H2S.
Deikjers teaches where H2S is used as a chalcogen precursor for the formation of a WS2 film (Paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the chalcogen precursor comprises H2S because H2S is known to be a precursor material when forming a WS2 film (Deijkers Paragraph 0062).
Jahangir does not explicitly teach wherein the substrate surface is maintained at a temperature in a range of about 350 °C to about 450 C.
However, Jahanagir teaches where the substrate surface is maintained at a temperature in a range of about 350C to 450C (Paragraph 0051 where the annealing temperature is between 400C and 550C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the substrate surface be maintained at a temperature in a range of about 350C to 450C because “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Jahanair does not teach explicitly teach the transition metal dichalcogenide film having a thickness in a range of 20 A to 30 A.
Deijkers further teaches where the barrier layer of transition metal chalcogenide has a thickness of less than 3nm (30 Angstroms).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transition metal dichalcogenide film having a thickness in a range of 20 A to 30 A because this allows for the transition metal dichalcogenide to act as barrier layer (Deijkers Paragraph 0072) and “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)” (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Jahanagir further teaches where depositing the transiston metal oxide film on the semiconductor substrate and converting the transition metal oxide film to the transition metal dichalcogenide film are performed in a single processing chamber (Paragraphs 0049 and 0050).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 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 Casiraghi.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026, with regard to claim 19, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that neither Yoo nor Deijkers teaches or suggests that the deposited barrier layer is a TMDC liner formed in the absence of a barrier layer. However, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive as Dejikers teaches where a barrier layer is a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) liner (Item 120; Paragraph 0020) that is substantially conformal (Paragraph 0029) directly on a dielectric material (Item 130) and where the TMDC liner (Item 120) acts as a barrier layer and liner (Paragraph 0022).As such, Deijkers teaches where an additional barrier layer is not necessary to be present. Further, when the teaching of the TMDC acting as a barrier and liner is included in the structure taught by Yoo and Jahanagir as stated in the rejection above, the TMDC material would replace any barrier or liner layer such that no additional barrier layer is present when the TMDC is formed in the structure. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument persuasive and continues to maintain the reliance on the combination of Jahanagir, Yoo, Deijkers and Woo to reject claim 19.
Further, the Applicant argues that Yoo does not teach where the bottom consists of a channel material. The Examiner disagrees as Yoo teaches where a feature which comprises the dielectric material (GI) and the channel material (CH) has a bottom (bottom portion of CH) which consists of the channel. The claim language does not further define what constitutes a bottom of the feature. Therefore, a bottom of a feature, which comprises a dielectric material and a channel material, may be indicated as being a portion or surface of the channel material and is not required to be a portion that contacts the TMDC. As such, the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s arguments with regard to claim 19 persuasive and maintains the rejection of claim 19. A similar rationale also pertains to claim 12.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached on 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights