DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on February 2, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 3, 7-8 and 11 were amended. Claims 13-27 were canceled. Claims 28-31 were added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued October 1, 2025.
Claim Objections
The claim objections on claims 1-12 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 7-8 are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
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 31 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 31, the specification does not disclose the metal precursor gas and the reactive inhibition gas are flowed without reacting. In addition, neither the claim or specification disclose what are these gases not reacting with. For purpose of examination, the metal precursor gas and reactive inhibition gas are intrinsically flown without reacting with something when they first enter into the chamber.
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, 28 and 30-31 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 perform 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 offset (pulse duration of inhibition gas with respect to the precursor gas pulse duration by selecting a dose delay and selecting a gas to delay) 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.
Regarding claim 28, Yang in view of Wang teaches pulses of the metal precursor gas flow and the inhibition gas flow are offset and overlap in time to be provide on the substrate, thus, it is expected at least an amount of the metal precursor gas and an amount of the inhibition gas reach the substrata simultaneously.
Regarding claim 29, Yang teaches the inhibition treatment inhibits metal nucleation (paragraph 0004, 0060), wherein the inhibition treatment on the substate is performed by introducing pulses of an inhibition vapor (reactive inhibition gas) to the substrate in the chamber. Yang in view of Ueda further 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 offset (pulse duration of inhibition gas with respect to the precursor gas pulse duration by selecting a dose delay) 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), which includes the layer being formed on the center and edge of the substrate. Yang teaches the non-uniformity was measured using no inhibition as composed to deposition using remote plasma inhibition (paragraph 0078), thus, Yang in view of Ueda teaches the offset is determined by the measuring nucleation delay at a center and edge of the substrate.
Regarding claim 30, 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 (the time of the pulse of the metal precursor gas with respect with the time of pulse of the reactive inhibition gas) 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 31, the metal precursor gas and reactive inhibition gas are intrinsically flown without reacting with something when they first enter into the chamber.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Ueda teaches while the oxidation pulses can overlap with the precursor pulse, it cannot overlap with the inhibitor pulse (paragraph 0051).
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
Ueda clearly teaches the “gases can be supplied in sequence with or without overlap” (paragraph 0038), which indicate the inhibitor gas and precursor pulse can be supplied in sequence with or without overlap. Ueda teaches oxidation pulses cannot overlap with the inhibitor pulse (pargraph 0051), but not inhibitor gas cannot overlap with precursor pulse.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US20160343612).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/N.V.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights