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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on August 4, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no analysis or reasoned statement of why one having ordinary kill in the art would find a timing sequence for a deposition of SiN (as taught in Clark) at all relevant for a deposition and inhibition process of an entirely different material as taught in Yang. This is not found persuasive because Yang taught all the claimed features including the precursor gas and inhibition gas (also considered as one of the reactants) are suppled in sequences (precursor gas/inhibition gas pulses) or simultaneously (paragraph 0064) (offset or overlap), and the dose time of inhibition gas is chosen to tune inhibition profiles (paragraphs 0053 and 0061). Clarks teaches the supply of two different reactants gas are at least temporal overlap between some of the gas pulses a pulsed CVD (similar process of Yang) (paragraph 0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the two different reactant gas in a way to at least temporal overlap between some of the gas pulses as suggested by Clarks in the method of Yang because Clacks teaches it facilitates the supply of the reactant gases in the pulsed CVD method (paragraph 0068). Nevertheless, all the claimed features of claim 1 are disclosed by Yang in view Ueda (US20120276306). The detailed rejections are provided below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 6, “its it gas source” should be corrected to “its gas source”
Regarding claim 3, “a purge” in line 2 should be corrected to “a first purge”. “A purge’ in line 3 should be corrected to “a second purge”.
Regarding claim 11, line 3, “a third layer” should be corrected to “a third station”. “A second station of a multi-station chamber” should be corrected to “a second station of the multi-station chamber”. “A multi-station chamber” in line 3 should be corrected to “the multi-station chamber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-8 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 7 and 8, it is unclear what element/component of the process is associated to the “offset” or the “delay parameters” without any description. For purpose of examination, both the offset and the delay parameters are considered to be describing the reactive inhibition gas or metal precursor gas pulses. However, Applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US20170365513) in view of Ueda (US20120276306).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches a method of filling features with tungsten by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (abstract, paragraphs 0041, 0004). Yang teaches to preform an inhibition treatment on the substate in a chamber, wherein pulses of an inhibition vapor (reactive inhibition gas) and a tungsten containing precursor (metal precursor) are introduced to the chamber in sequence or simultaneously (offset or overlap in time, and simultaneously means each co-flow pulse comprises a pulse of the reactive inhibition gas and a pulse of the metal precursor gas) (paragraphs 0063-0064 and 0047) (the pulses of the reactive inhibition gas and the pulses of the metal precursor gas, as measured from when each gas is flowed from its gas source, are offset or overlap in time). Yang teaches the inhibition gas is supplied from source 1202 (first gas source) (paragraph 0081) and the chamber has a designated reactant (metal precursor) distribution system (paragraph 0090) which would be expected to comprise a second gas source to provide the reactants (flowing co-flow pulses of a reactive inhibition gas from a first gas source and a metal precursor gas form a second gas source to the chamber). Yang teaches the inhibition treatment inhibits metal nucleation (paragraph 0004, 0060).
Yang teaches the pulses of the reactive inhibition gas and the pulses of the metal precursor are offset or overlap in time (paragraphs 0064) but does not explicitly teach they are offset and overlap in time. However, Ueda teaches a method of forming a film by ALD, and discloses the pulses of the precursor gas and inhibitor gas can be provided in sequence with (offset) or without overlap (offset and overlap) (paragraphs 0038 and 0051). Offset, and offset and overlap in providing pulses of precursor gas and inhibition gas are considered as functionally equivalent technique to supply gases in ALD as evidenced by Ueda. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute to provide the pulses of precursor gas and inhibition gas in offset and overlap for offset as the in technique to supply gases in ALD method as disclosed by Yang.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda teaches the pulse of the metal precursor and the pulse of the reactive inhibition gas is in sequence with overlap, which indicate they do not start at the same time (sequence). Yang teaches the dose time (pulse duration) of inhibition gas is chosen to tune inhibition profiles, with increasing treatment time causing inhibition deeper into a feature (paragraphs 0053 and 0061). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the dose time (pulse duration of inhibition gas with respect to the precursor gas pulse duration, which governs the two pulses end time) in the process to yield the desired inhibition profile. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 3, Ueda further teaches each pulse of the reactive inhibition gas is separated from subsequent pulses of the reactive inhibition gas by purge and each pulse of the metal precursor gas is separated from subsequent pulses of the metal precursor gas by a purge (paragraphs 0018 and 0051). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include purges between the pulses as suggested by Ueda in the method of Yang because Ueda teaches the purges facilitate the ALD process (paragraphs 0018 and 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches the metal is tungsten (abstract, paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches the reactive inhibition gas is nitrogen containing (paragraph 0048).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the reactive inhibition gas is ammonia or hydrazine (paragraph 0060).
Regarding claims 7-8, Yang in view of Ueda teaches the pulses of the inhibition gas and precursor gas are provided sequential with overlap (offset and overlap in time), thus, one of the pulses of the gases is considered to delayed. Since Yang teaches the dose time (pulse duration) of inhibition gas is chosen to tune inhibition profiles, with increasing treatment time causing inhibition deeper into a feature (paragraphs 0053 and 0061). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the dose time (pulse duration of inhibition gas with respect to the precursor gas pulse duration, determining an offset from delay parameters) in the process to yield the desired inhibition profile. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Yang teaches the inhibition profile optimized to reduce the line to line non-uniformity of the metal layer (paragraphs 0005, 0040 and 0051)
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches to deposit a first metal layer on the substate before the inhibition treatment (paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches to deposit a second metal layer on the substrate after the inhibition treatment (paragraph 0042-0045).
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches one or more stations are used to fill features with tungsten containing materials (multi-station chamber), with first station being used for an initial deposition operation (first metal layer), second station maybe be used form a corresponding selective inhibition operation (inhibition treatment) and additional station (third station) is used form another deposition operation (second metal layer) (paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the reactive inhibition as is supplied to the chamber through its own showerhead (paragraph 0081, see figure 12) and reactant (metal precursor) has a designated reactant distribution system (paragraph 0090), thus, Yang indicating the reactive inhibition gas and the metal precursor gas can be mix only after exciting the shower head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights