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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/26, 01/07/26 were filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 15-19 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim #1, 2, 4-6-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTEAGA MULLER (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0372053), hereinafter referred to as "Muller" and in view of Gatineau et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,309,010), hereinafter referred to as "Gatineau".
Muller shows, with respect to claim #1, method of forming a semiconductor device, the method comprising: exposing a metal silicide film to a plasma (paragraph 0052-0058) comprising ammonia (NH3) (paragraph 0055)
Gatineau teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising at a temperature in a range of from 6000C to 1000 0C (column #6, Line 9-10; 2000C to 8000C) to form NH radicals that diffuse through the metal silicide film and form a metal silicon nitride film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight (column #5, Line 57-67; column #6, line 1-10).
The Examiner notes that Gatineau fails to state explicitly that the percentage of SiN, by weight is less than 5%. However, the Examiner notes the following;
Gatineau utilizes a method to create various cobalt containing compounds (metal silicide) that mirrors the claimed invention; as shown throughout the patent 10,309,010.
Gatineau teaches a method of applying a plasma in the presents of radicals, at temperatures in the range sort in the present application.
The Examiner takes the position that Gatineau shows all the claimed steps to achieve a low percentage of SiN within the compounds created.
Gatineau furthers shows a method of enhancing the plasma effect to further change the chemical composition of the metal silicide; column 12, line 24-34 and throughout the 10,309,010 patent.
The Examiner further notes that the statement of “film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight” is a description of the sort after results of the claimed method and there has been no further method shown to support or show that the sort after method has any special steps to achieve anything other than the described results. Therefore, if the methods are the same the results must yield the same conclusion.
The Examiner takes the position, in light of the evidence shown above, that Gatineau discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating that the “film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a “film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. in re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, the Examiner takes the position that Gatineau discloses the claimed invention except for
explicitly stating that the “film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to follow the inventive methods of Gatineau to obtain a “film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by the invention of Gatineau, which teaches, a method comprising at a temperature in a range of from 6000C to 1000 0C to form NH radicals that diffuse through the metal silicide film and form a metal silicon nitride film comprising less than 5% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight, to incorporate a structural condition that allows for adjustment of chemical components to further tune the resulting product, as taught by Gatineau.
Muller shows, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the plasma further comprises an inert gas selected from argon (Ar), helium (He), and xenon (Xe) (paragraph 0046-0049).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the plasma has a pressure in a range of from 0.2 Torr to 5 Torr (paragraph 0035).
Muller fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the metal silicon nitride film comprises less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight.
Gatineau teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method comprising at a temperature in a range of from 6000C to 1000 0C (column #6, Line 9-10; 2000C to 8000C) to form NH radicals that diffuse through the metal silicide film and form a metal silicon nitride film (column #5, Line 57-67; column #6, line 1-10).
The Examiner notes that Gatineau fails to state explicitly that the percentage of SiN, by weight is less than 4%. However, the Examiner notes the following;
Gatineau utilizes a method to create various cobalt containing compounds (metal silicide) that mirrors the claimed invention; as shown throughout the patent 10,309,010.
Gatineau teaches a method of applying a plasma in the presents of radicals, at temperatures in the range sort in the present application.
The Examiner takes the position that Gatineau shows all the claimed steps to achieve a low percentage of SiN within the compounds created.
Gatineau furthers shows a method of enhancing the plasma effect to further change the chemical composition of the metal silicide; column 12, line 24-34 and throughout the 10,309,010 patent.
The Examiner further notes that the statement of “film comprising less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight” is a description of the sort after results of the claimed method and there has been no further method shown to support or show that the sort after method has any special steps to achieve anything other than the described results. Therefore, if the methods are the same the results must yield the same conclusion.
The Examiner takes the position, in light of the evidence shown above, that Gatineau discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating that the “film comprising less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrive at a “film comprising less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. in re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, the Examiner takes the position that Gatineau discloses the claimed invention except for
explicitly stating that the “film comprising less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to follow the inventive methods of Gatineau to obtain a “film comprising less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by Gatineau, which teaches, wherein the metal silicon nitride film comprises less than 4% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight, to incorporate a structural condition that allow the control of electrical conductivity, as taught by Gatineau.
Muller shows, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the plasma is a remote plasma (paragraph 0136).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma at a temperature in a range of from 600 0C to 850 0C (paragraph 0121-0122).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the metal silicide film comprises a metal selected from titanium (Ti), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), ruthenium (Ru), tungsten (W), and nickel (Ni) (paragraph 0041-0043).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the metal silicide film is selected from titanium silicide (TiSi), cobalt silicide (CoSi), molybdenum silicide (MoSi), ruthenium silicide (RuSi), tungsten silicide (WSi), and nickel silicide (NiSi) (paragraph 0046).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein the metal silicon nitride film is selected from titanium silicon nitride (TiSiN), cobalt silicon nitride (CoSiN), molybdenum silicon nitride (MoSiN), ruthenium silicon nitride (RuSiN), tungsten silicon nitride (WSiN), and nickel silicon nitride (NiSiN) (paragraph 0036, 0125).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #12, a method wherein the metal silicide film comprises a metal film on a substrate, the metal film comprising one or more of titanium (Ti), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), ruthenium (Ru), tungsten (W), nickel (Ni), and titanium nitride (TiN), and the substrate selected from silicon (Si) or silicon germanium (SiGe) (paragraph 0036, 0125).
//
Claim #3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTEAGA MULLER (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0372053), hereinafter referred to as "Muller" as modified by Gatineau et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,309,010), hereinafter referred to as "Gatineau" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Hohage et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0123044), hereinafter referred to as "Hohage".
Muller as modified by Gatineau, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Muller as modified by Gatineau, fails to show, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the ammonia (NH3) and the inert gas are in a ratio of 1:1000 to 1:5.
Hohage teaches, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the ammonia (NH3) and the inert gas are in a ratio of 1:1000 to 1:5 (paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by Gatineau, with the invention of Hohage, which teaches, a method wherein the ammonia (NH3) and the inert gas are in a ratio of 1:1000 to 1:5, to incorporate a structural condition that allows for adjustment of ion ratios, which can influence the behavior of the plasma and the resulting plasma etching/deposition processes, as taught by Hohage.
///
Claim #11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTEAGA MULLER (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0372053), hereinafter referred to as "Muller" as modified by Gatineau et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,309,010), hereinafter referred to as "Gatineau" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Ganguli et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0124192), hereinafter referred to as "Ganguli".
Muller as modified by Gatineau, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Muller as modified by Gatineau, fails to show, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein the metal silicide film has a thickness in a range of from 2 nm to 6 nm.
Ganguli teaches, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein the metal silicide film has a thickness in a range of from 2 nm to 6 nm (paragraph 0206).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #11, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by Gatineau, with the invention of Ganguli, which teaches, a method wherein the metal silicide film has a thickness in a range of from 2 nm to 6 nm, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide the necessary design requirements, as taught by Ganguli.
///
Claims #13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTEAGA MULLER (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0372053), hereinafter referred to as "Muller" as modified by Gatineau et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,309,010), hereinafter referred to as "Gatineau" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Breil (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0364571), hereinafter referred to as "Breil".
Muller as modified by Gatineau, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Muller as modified by Gatineau, fails to show, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma for a time period in a range of from 30 seconds to 2 minutes.
Breil teaches, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma for a time period in a range of from 30 seconds to 2 minutes (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #13, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by Gatineau, with the invention of Breil, which teaches, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma for a time period in a range of from 30 seconds to 2 minutes, to incorporate a method that would not only control the quality of the plasma process but also the depth of which the process would affect the underlined layers, as taught by Breil.
Muller as modified by Gatineau and Breil, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #13 above.
Muller shows, with respect to claim #15, a method wherein the titanium film is selected from titanium (Ti), titanium/titanium nitride (Ti/TiN), and titanium silicide (TiS) (paragraph 0125).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein the titanium silicon nitride (TiSiN) film comprises less than 10% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight (paragraph 0125).
Muller shows, with respect to claim #17, a method wherein the titanium film is exposed to the plasma at a temperature in a range of from 600 °C to 850 (paragraph 0121-0122).
Muller as modified by Gatineau, fails to show, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma for a time period in a range of from 30 seconds to 2 minutes.
Breil teaches, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma for a time period in a range of from 30 seconds to 2 minutes (paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #18, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by Gatineau, with the invention of Breil, which teaches, a method wherein the metal silicide film is exposed to the plasma for a time period in a range of from 30 seconds to 2 minutes, to incorporate a method that would not only control the quality of the plasma process but also the depth of which the process would affect the underlined layers, as taught by Breil.
///
Claim #19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARTEAGA MULLER (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0372053), hereinafter referred to as "Muller" as modified by Gatineau et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 10,309,010), hereinafter referred to as "Gatineau" and Breil (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0364571), hereinafter referred to as "Breil" as shown in the rejection of claim #13 above and in further view of Hohage et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0123044), hereinafter referred to as "Hohage".
Muller as modified by Gatineau and Breil, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #13 above.
Muller shows, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the plasma has a pressure in a range of from 0.2 Torr to 5 Torr (paragraph 0035).
Muller as modified by Gatineau and Breil, fail to show, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the plasma is flowed with an inert gas in a ratio of ammonia to inert gas of 1:100 to 1:5.
Hohage teaches, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the ammonia (NH3) and the inert gas are in a ratio of 1:1000 to 1:5 (paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #19, to modified the invention of Muller as modified by Gatineau and Breil, with the modifications of the invention of Hohage, which teaches, a method wherein the ammonia (NH3) and the inert gas are in a ratio of 1:1000 to 1:5, to incorporate a structural condition that allows for adjustment of ion ratios, which can influence the behavior of the plasma and the resulting plasma etching/deposition processes, as taught by Hohage.
Pertinent art
Pertinent art, not relied on in the present rejection, but considered to be related to the claimed filed invention, will be listed below.
1) NAKAZAWA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0035935); metal silicon nitride film comprises less than 10% silicon nitride (SiN) by weight.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
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 Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
03/04/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899