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 .
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.
Claim 1-4, 7-11 and 13-15, 18-19, 21 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. The applicant does not appear to have possession of “a second molybdenum-containing precursor that is different from the first molybdenum-containing precursor”. The paragraphs indicated by arguments filed on 06/17/26 did not appear to provide sufficient support for this new limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 11, 13-15, 18, 22, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandia [US 20250038003] in view of Dezelah [US 20220195599] and Mahenderkar [US 20250287675].
Claim 1: Mandia teaches a molybdenum deposition assisted by silicon containing reactants [title], wherein the method comprises forming a nucleation layer on a substrate surface by exposing the substrate surface to a molybdenum containing precursor and a nucleation reactant (silicon containing reactant modify the surface of the substrate to facilitate subsequent nucleation) [0174], the substrate surface includes a metal surface and dielectric surfaces/layers (on-metal and on-dielectric) [abstract]. Mandia further teaches the dielectric surface can be an oxide, silicon nitride and etc. [0160]. Mandia further teaches conforming depositing a molybdenum film on the nucleation layer [0160-0161], wherein the conformally depositing of the molybdenum film comprises exposing the nucleation layer to molybdenum containing precursor and molybdenum film reactant (precursor and reducing agent) [0039], wherein the precursor and molybdenum reactant can be different from nucleation reactant [0517; 0561-0562].
However, Mandia does not appear to teach the substrate surface includes titanium aluminum or ruthenium. Dezelah is provided.
Dezelah teaches a transition metal deposition method [title], wherein the transition metal may be molybdenum [0093] and method may include a seed or nucleation layer wherein the deposition can be continuous [0053]. Dezelah also teaches the substrate may include various features such as recesses and material such as bulk semiconductor, dielectric material, and other metals such as ruthenium [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the substrate to also have substrate comprised of ruthenium since Dezelah teaches this type of substrate material is well known in the art of depositing transition material such as molybdenum.
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the second molybdenum precursor is different from the second molybdenum precursor. Mahenderkar is provided.
Mahenderkar teaches the same or different molybdenum precursor used in nucleation layer may be used for bulk deposition [0106]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a same or different molybdenum containing precursor from the nucleation step and the bulk step since Mahendrakar teaches such technique another possibility that is already known in the semiconductor art.
Claim 2: Mandia teaches molybdenum pentachloride can be used as a precursor [0174], as well as MoO2Cl2, MoOCl4 and MoF6 [0474], and Mahendrakar also teaches alternative operable Mo precursors such as molybdenum fluoride [0068].
Claim 3: Mandia teaches the nucleation reactant such as silane, disilane or diborane [0012].
Claim 4: Mandia teaches the films are deposited at relatively low temperatures between 100-500 degrees C [abstract], and also between 200-450 degrees C and etc. [0159]. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the nucleation layer is performed in the claimed temperature range, since Mandia teaches that the entire deposition process is performed between 100-500 degrees or 200-450 degrees C it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the nucleation deposition is included in the deposition process therefore would also be performed in the taught temperature range. The claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). Mandia also teaches the pressure during deposition can be between 10 torr to about 100 torr [0159]. The claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 7: Mandia teaches using ALD or CVD [0159], Mahenderkar teaches nucleation layer may also be deposited by ALD [0084].
Claim 8: Mandia teaches the molybdenum film comprises hydrogen [0013].
Claim 11: Mandia teaches forming a nucleation layer directly on a dielectric region within the feature exposing the dielectric region to a molybdenum containing precursor and a nucleation reactant, the feature comprising at least one surface defining a via, the via comprising a bottom and two sidewalls comprising the dielectric region, the bottom including one or more titanium silicide or tungsten titanium silicide alloy and the dielectric region comprising one or more tantalum nitride, unclean silicon, oxide and silicon nitride of hafnium oxide [Fig. 1; 0160-0174]; and conforming depositing a molybdenum film on the nucleation layer to fill the feature, wherein conformally depositing the molybdenum film comprises exposing the nucleation layer to the molybdenum containing precursor and a molybdenum film reactant that is different from the nucleation reactant [abstract Fig. 1; 0160-0174], and the conformally deposited molybdenum film is substantially free of seams and voids [Fig. 1, 0038].
However, Mandia does not appear to teach the substrate surface includes titanium aluminum or ruthenium. Dezelah is provided.
Dezelah teaches a transition metal deposition method [title], wherein the transition metal may be molybdenum [0093] and method may include a seed or nucleation layer wherein the deposition can be continuous [0053]. Dezelah also teaches the substrate may include various features such as recesses and material such as bulk semiconductor, dielectric material, and other metals such as ruthenium [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the substrate to also have substrate comprised of ruthenium since Dezelah teaches this type of substrate material is well known in the art of depositing transition material such as molybdenum.
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the second molybdenum precursor is different from the second molybdenum precursor. Mahenderkar is provided.
Mahenderkar teaches the same or different molybdenum precursor used in nucleation layer may be used for bulk deposition [0106]. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use a same or different molybdenum containing precursor from the nucleation step and the bulk step since Mahendrakar teaches such technique another possibility that is already known in the semiconductor art.
Claim 13: Mandia teaches molybdenum pentachloride can be used as a precursor [0174], as well as MoO2Cl2, MoOCl4 and MoF6 [0474], and Mahendrakar also teaches alternative operable Mo precursors such as molybdenum fluoride [0068].
Claim 14: Mandia teaches the nucleation reactant such as silane, disilane or diborane [0012].
Claim 15: Mandia teaches the films are deposited at relatively low temperatures between 100-500 degrees C [abstract], and also between 200-450 degrees C and etc. [0159]. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the nucleation layer is performed in the claimed temperature range, since Mandia teaches that the entire deposition process is performed between 100-500 degrees or 200-450 degrees C it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the nucleation deposition is included in the deposition process therefore would also be performed in the taught temperature range. The claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). Mandia also teaches the pressure during deposition can be between 10 torr to about 100 torr [0159]. The claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 18: Mandia teaches using ALD or CVD [0159], Mahenderkar teaches nucleation layer may also be deposited by ALD [0084].
Claim 22: Mandia teaches a method of depositing a molybdenum film directly on a substrate surface [abstract] by exposing the substrate surface to a molybdenum containing precursor comprising one or more molybdenum pentachloride [0174], and a reactant comprising hydrogen [0013], the substrate surface comprising a first material and a second material, the first material including tungsten (W) [0017], and second material including silicon nitride [0160], and the molybdenum film forming selectively on the first material over the second material [abstract; 0018].
Claims 24-25: Mandia teaches molybdenum pentachloride can be used as a precursor [0174], MoO2Cl2, MoOCl4 and MoF6 [0474], and Mahendrakar also teaches alternative operable Mo precursors such as molybdenum fluoride [0068].
Claim(s) 9, 21, 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandia in view of Dezelah and Mahenderkar as applied to claim 1, 11 and 22 above, and further in view of Wright [US 2020/0199743] and Sharma [US 12341005].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to disclose the dielectric layer is of tantalum nitride. Wright is provided.
Claims 9, 21 and 23: Wright teaches that tantalum nitride is a suitable alternative to silicon nitride or hafnium oxide dielectric [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use tantalum nitride as suggested by Wright as a suitable alternative dielectric material to the silicon nitride of Mandia.
However, the prior art does not appear to teach the substrate surface includes titanium aluminum (TiAl). Sharma is provided.
Sharma teaches the substrate may include metal nitride such as TaN and the substrate may also comprise a metal carbide such as Ti(Al) [col 8, ln 50-55]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the substrate include titanium aluminum surfaces since Sharma teaches these materials for substrates is already well known for semiconductor processing.
Claim 26: Sharma teaches the substrate may include metal nitride such as TaN and the substrate may also comprise a metal carbide such as Ti(Al) [col 8, ln 50-55].
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandia in view of Dezelah and Mahenderkar as applied to claim 1, 11 and 22 above, and further in view of Kim [US 20230160057].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned but does not appear to teach the resistivity is less than the claimed range. Kim is provided.
Claims 10 and 19: Kim teaches a molybdenum deposition method [abstract] as a gap film [0067] wherein the resistivity of the film is less than 10 .mu.OMEGA.-cm [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the resistivity within the claimed range since Kim teaches lower effective electrical resistivity for interconnects is desirable in logic applications [0031]. Kim further teaches the thickness of the molybdenum affects the resistivity value; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the layers within the gap fill features as a result effective variable through routine experimentation to minimize the electrical resistivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1-4, 7-11, 13-15, 18-19, 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights