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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 2/6/2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are pending. Claims 9 and 16 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/12/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final Office action on 3/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byun et al. (US 2023/0215763) and further in view of Lee et al. (US 7,084,070).
Regarding Claim 1: Byun teaches a method for cleaning a surface of a substrate, comprising:
performing a chlorine-based soak process to remove oxides from the surface of the substrate in a BEOL process, wherein the substrate contains, at least in part, low-k dielectric material [0039, 0041, 0045]; and
performing a plasma treatment on the surface of the substrate with a remote plasma containing a hydrogen gas [0041, 0058].
Byun further teaches performing the plasma treatment at a temperature of approximately 300C-500C [0040, 0041]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art range overlaps the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun does not expressly disclose that the hydrogen gas is diluted with at least one inert gas to remove residual chlorine residue from the surface of the substrate. However, Lee teaches removing residual chlorine (col. 10, ll. 44-55) with hydrogen diluted with an inert gas in order to help strike and/or sustain the plasma (col. 11, ll. 24-29). Lee teaches that removing the residual chlorine used in an etch process helps to prevent subsequent corrosion in the device (ll. 44-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun by diluting the hydrogen gas with at least one inert gas in order to help strike and/or sustain the plasma, as suggested by Lee.
Byun does not expressly disclose that the plasma treatment is performed at pressures within the claimed range. Lee is cited for teaching that hydrogen plasma treatment is used to remove residual chlorine after a chlorine etchant is used in an etch process. Lee teaches that this hydrogen plasma treatment is performed at a pressure of, for example, about 90 mTorr (col. 11, ll. 35) or 70 mTorr (e.g., Table 2). It is known that chamber pressures will affect plasma activity. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee by performing the hydrogen plasma treatment at a pressure within the claimed range in order to effectively remove residual chlorine, as taught by Lee.
Regarding Claim 2: Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak process uses molybdenum pentachloride or tungsten pentachloride [0039].
Regarding 3: Byun further teaches performing the chlorine-based soak process at a temperature of approximately 300C-500C [0040]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art range overlaps the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4: Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak is performed at a pressure of approximately 1-90 torr [0040], which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 5: Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak process is performed with a chlorine-based gas flowing at a rate of 200-1000 sccm [0040], which overlaps the claimed range. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 6: Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak process is performed for a duration of approximately 50 ms to 60 seconds [0040], which overlaps the claimed range. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 7: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Lee is cited for teaching the inert gas, and further teaches wherein the at least one inert gas is argon (col. 11, ll. 27-29).
Regarding Claim 8: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Byun and Lee do not expressly disclose wherein chlorine diffusion is less than 1% below chlorine detection levels and carbon depletion in the low-k dielectric material is less than 1% carbon loss after the chlorine based soak and plasma treatment. However, Byun teaches that the chlorine soak is performed to selectively remove the oxide from the substrate surface, such that the underlying layer is not damaged [0004, 0039]. Lee teaches effectively removing chlorine residue such that the number of corrosion-induced device failures due to the presence of chlorine residue is acceptable from a manufacturing standpoint (col. 11, line 64 - col. 12, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the chlorine soak and plasma treatment steps to result in less than 1% chlorine detection and less than 1% carbon loss in order to prevent device damage as suggested by Byun and Lee.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Lee teaches plasma source power of about 200 W, but does not expressly disclose source power or bias power within the claimed ranges. Lee teaches that the plasma parameters can be optimized to suit the treatment (col. 11, ll. 47-48). It is understood that the source power and bias power affects the plasma density and etch rate. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee to optimize the power to a value within the claimed range in order to enhance the plasma density and etch rate.
Regarding Claim 12: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Lee is cited for teaching the inert gas for dilution. Though Lee does not expressly disclose the amount to which the hydrogen gas is diluted, Lee does teach that the amount of inert gas used for dilution effects the plasma and substrate during the hydrogen plasma treatment (col. 11, ll. 30-33). Lee also teaches that the chlorine residue is removed such that the number of corrosion-induced device failures due to the presence of chlorine residue is acceptable from a manufacturing standpoint (col. 11, line 64 - col. 12, line 3).
It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Byun and Lee by diluting the hydrogen gas down approximately 1% to approximately 99% by volume with the inert gas in order to avoid sputtering the substrate surface, as suggested by Lee. It is noted that such a dilution would result in a reduction of carbon damage as claimed given that the same steps are being performed under similar conditions as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Byun teaches that the flowrate of the hydrogen gas can be about 50 to 5000 sccm [0041], which overlaps the claimed range. Lee is cited for teaching the inert gas to dilute the hydrogen gas in the plasma treatment and teaches that the flowrate of the inert gas can be about 150 sccm (col. 11, ll. 38-40), which is within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 14: Byun teaches a method for cleaning a surface of a substrate, comprising:
performing a chlorine-based soak process using molybdenum pentachloride or tungsten pentachloride to remove molybdenum oxide from the surface of the substrate in a back-end-of-the-line (BEOL) process, wherein the substrate contains, at least in part, low-k dielectric material [0039, 0041, 0045]; and
performing a plasma treatment on the surface of the substrate with a remote plasma containing a hydrogen gas [0041, 0058].
Byun further teaches performing the chlorine-based soak process at a temperature of approximately 300C-500C [0040]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art range encompasses the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak process is performed for a duration of approximately 50 ms to 60 seconds [0040], which encompasses the claimed range. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun further teaches performing the plasma treatment at a temperature of approximately 300C-500C [0040, 0041]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art range overlaps the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun does not expressly disclose that the hydrogen gas is diluted with argon gas and helium gas to remove residual chlorine residue from the surface of the substrate. However, Lee teaches removing residual chlorine with hydrogen diluted with one or more inert gases in order to help strike and/or sustain the plasma (col. 11, ll. 24-29). Lee also teaches that the chlorine residue is removed such that the number of corrosion-induced device failures due to the presence of chlorine residue is acceptable from a manufacturing standpoint (col. 11, line 64 - col. 12, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun by diluting the hydrogen gas with argon and helium in order to help strike and/or sustain the plasma, as suggested by Lee. Argon and helium are well known inert gases (see Lee, claim 23, for example) and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07).
Lee is cited for teaching the inert gas for dilution. Though Lee does not expressly disclose the amount to which the hydrogen gas is diluted, Lee does teach that the amount of inert gas used for dilution effects the plasma and substrate during the hydrogen plasma treatment (col. 11, ll. 30-33). It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Byun and Lee by diluting the hydrogen gas down about 3-10% by volume with the argon gas and helium gas in order to avoid sputtering the substrate surface, as suggested by Lee. It is noted that such a dilution would result in the reduction of carbon damage as claimed given that the same steps are being performed under similar conditions as claimed.
Byun does not expressly disclose that the plasma treatment is performed at pressures within the claimed range. Lee is cited for teaching that hydrogen plasma treatment is used to remove residual chlorine after a chlorine etchant is used in an etch process. Lee teaches that this hydrogen plasma treatment is performed at a pressure of, for example, about 90 mTorr (col. 11, ll. 35) or 70 mTorr (e.g., Table 2). It is known that chamber pressures will affect plasma activity. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee by performing the hydrogen plasma treatment at a pressure within the claimed range in order to effectively remove residual chlorine, as taught by Lee.
Regarding Claim 15: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above. Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak is performed at a pressure of approximately 1-90 torr [0040], which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 17: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above. Lee is cited for teaching the inert gases to dilute the hydrogen gas in the plasma treatment and teaches that the flowrate of the inert gases can be about 150 sccm (col. 11, ll. 38-40), which is within the claimed ranges. Byun and Lee do not expressly disclose a flow rate of the hydrogen gases within the claimed range. However, Lee teaches that the parameters are varied to suit the needs of the treatment. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). It is understood that the flow rate of the gas affects plasma shape and cleaning rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee by optimizing the etch rate to a value within the claimed range in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency.
Regarding Claim 18: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 14 as discussed above. Lee teaches plasma source power of about 200 W, but does not expressly disclose source power or bias power within the claimed ranges. Lee teaches that the plasma parameters can be optimized to suit the treatment (col. 11, ll. 47-48). It is understood that the source power and bias power affects the plasma density and etch rate. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee to optimize the power to a value within the claimed range in order to enhance the plasma density and etch rate.
Regarding Claim 19: Bynum teaches a non-transitory, computer readable medium having instruction stored thereon that, when executed, cause a method for cleaning a surface of a substrate [0064-0065]. Byun teaches a method for cleaning a surface of a substrate, comprising:
performing a chlorine-based soak process using molybdenum pentachloride or tungsten pentachloride to remove molybdenum oxide from the surface of the substrate in a back-end-of-the-line (BEOL) process, wherein the substrate contains, at least in part, low-k dielectric material [0039, 0041, 0045]; and
performing a plasma treatment on the surface of the substrate with a remote plasma containing a hydrogen gas [0041, 0058].
Byun further teaches performing the chlorine-based soak process at a temperature of approximately 300C-500C [0040]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art range encompasses the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun further teaches that the chlorine-based soak process is performed for a duration of approximately 50 ms to 60 seconds [0040], which encompasses the claimed range. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun further teaches performing the plasma treatment at a temperature of approximately 300C-500C [0040, 0041]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art range overlaps the claimed range (see MPEP 2144.05).
Byun does not expressly disclose that the hydrogen gas is diluted with argon gas and helium gas to remove residual chlorine residue from the surface of the substrate. However, Lee teaches removing residual chlorine with hydrogen diluted with one or more inert gases in order to help strike and/or sustain the plasma (col. 11, ll. 24-29). Lee also teaches that the chlorine residue is removed such that the number of corrosion-induced device failures due to the presence of chlorine residue is acceptable from a manufacturing standpoint (col. 11, line 64 - col. 12, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun by diluting the hydrogen gas with argon and helium in order to help strike and/or sustain the plasma, as suggested by Lee. Argon and helium are well known inert gases (see Lee, claim 23, for example) and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.07).
Lee is cited for teaching the inert gas for dilution. Though Lee does not expressly disclose the amount to which the hydrogen gas is diluted, Lee does teach that the amount of inert gas used for dilution effects the plasma and substrate during the hydrogen plasma treatment (col. 11, ll. 30-33). It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the method of Byun and Lee by diluting the hydrogen gas down about 3-10% by volume with the argon gas and helium gas in order to avoid sputtering the substrate surface, as suggested by Lee. It is noted that such a dilution would result in the reduction of carbon damage as claimed given that the same steps are being performed under similar conditions as claimed.
Byun does not expressly disclose that the plasma treatment is performed at pressures within the claimed range. Lee is cited for teaching that hydrogen plasma treatment is used to remove residual chlorine after a chlorine etchant is used in an etch process. Lee teaches that this hydrogen plasma treatment is performed at a pressure of, for example, about 90 mTorr (col. 11, ll. 35) or 70 mTorr (e.g., Table 2). It is known that chamber pressures will affect plasma activity. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee by performing the hydrogen plasma treatment at a pressure within the claimed range in order to effectively remove residual chlorine, as taught by Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the computer readable medium having instructions thereon to cause the method described by the combination of Byun and Lee in order to automate the method and enhance the cleaning efficiency.
Regarding Claim 20: Byun and Lee teach the elements of Claim 19 as discussed above.
Lee is cited for teaching the inert gases to dilute the hydrogen gas in the plasma treatment and teaches that the flowrate of the inert gases can be about 150 sccm (col. 11, ll. 38-40), which is within the claimed ranges. Byun and Lee do not expressly disclose a flow rate of the hydrogen gases within the claimed range. However, Lee teaches that the parameters are varied to suit the needs of the treatment. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). It is understood that the flow rate of the gas affects plasma shape and cleaning rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee by optimizing the etch rate to a value within the claimed range in order to enhance the cleaning efficiency.
Byun does not expressly disclose that the plasma treatment is performed at a pressure within the claimed range. Lee is cited for teaching that hydrogen plasma treatment is used to remove residual chlorine after a chlorine etchant is used in an etch process. Lee further teaches that this hydrogen plasma treatment is performed at a pressure of, for example, about 90 mTorr (col. 11, ll. 35) or 70 mTorr (e.g., Table 2). It is understood that chamber pressures affect plasma activity. It has been held that where 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 (MPEP 2144.05). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Byun and Lee by performing the hydrogen plasma treatment at a pressure within the claimed range in order to effectively remove residual chlorine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the cited prior art does not teach chamber pressures within the amended claimed ranges. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). Applicant has argued that the pressure of the plasma treatment is critical to the outcome of the chlorine removal, citing applicant’s statement in paragraph [0026] that the inventors have found that lower pressures during the plasma treatment yield better results (chlorine removal with minimal damage to low-k materials, etc.). However, the term “lower pressures” is not defined, and the paragraph [0026] citation does not support evidence of criticality given that the following statement cites chamber pressures of 10 mTorr to approximately 200 mTorr. Thus, applicant has not established unexpected results over the claimed range by comparing results both inside and outside the claimed range to show said criticality (see MPEP 716.02(d)(II). Chamber pressure is a variable well known to affect the activity of the plasma, thus optimization of such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant has argued that Lee does not teach the dilution of the hydrogen to within the claimed range. Applicant argues that Lee’s reasoning for diluting the plasma is different than that disclosed by applicant. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Lee teaches diluting the plasma in order to stabilize and maintain the plasma, the degree of dilution being result effective to control subsequent sputtering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the dilution for a more stable and controlled plasma. The dilution of the plasma within the claimed range would have thus yielded similar results as claimed.
Applicant has argued that the reference to Byun teaches using a direct plasma and treating a surface of the metal-containing material, and alleges that Byun is silent as to a plasma treatment that is performed after a chlorine based soak in order to remove residual chlorine residue, as claimed. Applicant has argued that the examiner’s only source for motivation of a combination of Byun and Lee is from applicant’s present application.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Byun’s method expressly discloses etching the substrate surface with a chlorine etchant (i.e., molybdenum chloride) to remove metal oxide (i.e., molybdenum oxide) from the substrate surface, as claimed. Byun teaches that in addition to the chlorine soak for removing the molybdenum oxide, the same cleaning step (cleaning step 104, for example) may comprise a plasma treatment step with a hydrogen-containing gas [0041]. What is not expressly disclosed by Byun is the use of the hydrogen treatment for the purpose of residual chlorine removal. Thus, Lee is cited for teaching that while chlorine-based etching provides excellent selectivity with respect to low-K material, such chlorine-based etching is also known to result in corrosion issues which are resolved by a hydrogen post-etch treatment (col. 10, ll. 44-55). Lee teaches performing plasma treatment with a hydrogen gas diluted with an inert gas to remove residual chlorine from a substrate surface after etching with a chlorine-based etchant. Since Lee teaches the use of diluted hydrogen plasma treatment to remove post-etch chlorine residues, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Byun’s method by diluting the hydrogen plasma to treat the etched surface to remove residual chlorine in order to enhance its cleaning efficiency and effect. Thus, the motivation to combine is found within the cited prior art.
Appellant has argued that the cited prior art does not disclose compatibility with BEOL processes as in the present application. This argument is not persuasive because Byun teaches that the method is performed to clean a low-k material surface in preparation for metal-containing material deposition [0004, 0055], which includes BEOL processing.
Appellant has argued that the temperature range disclosed by Byun is for a process designed to remove metal oxides and not for a process for removing chlorine residue. This argument is not persuasive because it remains that Byun includes the temperature range in the metal oxide removal step and in the hydrogen plasma step [0042]. That Byun does not expressly disclose that the disclosed temperature is maintained explicitly for removing residual chlorine with the hydrogen treatment does not negate that Byun indeed teaches the claimed range. As discussed, Lee is cited for showing the use of a hydrogen plasma step results in residual chlorine removal.
Applicant has argued that the combination of Byun and Lee is silent as to wherein chlorine diffusion is less than 1% below chlorine detection levels on the low-k dielectric material and carbon deletion in the low-k dielectric material is less than 1% carbon loss after performing the chlorine soak and plasma processes. However, Byun teaches that the chlorine soak is performed to selectively remove the oxide from the substrate surface, such that the underlying layer is not damaged [0004, 0039]. Lee teaches effectively removing chlorine residue such that the number of corrosion-induced device failures due to the presence of chlorine residue is acceptable from a manufacturing standpoint (col. 11, line 64 - col. 12, line 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the chlorine soak and plasma treatment steps to result in less than 1% chlorine detection and less than 1% carbon loss in order to prevent device damage as suggested by Byun and Lee.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive, and the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been maintained.
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 NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights