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 § 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.
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinriki (Patent No.: US 2008/0318417) and further in view of MA (Pub. No.: US 2007/0054487).
Re claim 10, Shinriki, Figs. 7(a)-(f) teaches method for manufacturing a semiconductor device that includes forming a ruthenium film on a conductive film formed on a substrate for manufacture of the semiconductor device,
wherein the conductive film includes a metal that increases an electrical resistance between the conductive film and the ruthenium film by interfacial diffusion between the conductive film and the ruthenium film, and
wherein the method comprises forming the ruthenium film (210, Fig. 7(d), ¶ [0170]) on the conductive film (209, [0167]) by alternately repeating a plurality of times (to reach certain thickness, for example, “repeated for a specified number of cycles (such as 10 cycles, 20 cycles, 30 cycles, 40 cycles, 50 cycles”, [0142]);
forming a ruthenium thin film by supplying a ruthenium raw material gas ((Ru(EtCp)2), [0141]) to the substrate (201) on which the conductive film is formed; and
supplying a boron compound gas (B2H6, [0167]) to the ruthenium thin film.
Shinriki differs from the claim invention by not disclosing “then supplying a boron compound gas to the ruthenium thin film”.
However, the changes in sequence of method steps such as “supplying a boron compound gas after depositing the ruthenium thin film” has a little patentable weight unless it is critical. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Shinriki fails to teach forming a ruthenium film including boron.
MA teaches forming a ruthenium film including boron (“a boron-containing reactant compound (e.g., diborane) is used to form a ruthenium material containing boride”, ¶ [0029]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of providing a variety of reactants of forming ruthenium materials as taught by MA, [0029].
Re claim 11, Shinriki, Figs. 7(a)-(f) teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the conductive film is a cobalt film including cobalt [0212].
Re claim 12, Shinriki, Figs. 7(a)-(f) teaches the method of Claim 11, wherein the boron compound gas is a diborane gas (B2H6, [0167]).
Re claim 13 and 15, Shinriki teaches the method of Claim 12, wherein the ruthenium raw material gas is a derivative ruthenium precursor gas (Figs. 2(a)-2(c), [015])).
Shinriki differs from the invention by not showing a dodecacarbonium triruthenium gas.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the above said teaching since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 14, Shinriki teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein the ruthenium thin film has a film thickness of 0.268 nm or more and 2 nm or less (“approx. 1 nm, [0150]).
Re claim 15, Shinriki teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the boron compound gas is a diborane gas (B2H6, [0167]).
Re claim 17, Shinriki teaches the method of Claim 10, wherein the ruthenium thin film has a film thickness of 0.268 nm or more and 2 nm or less (“approx. 1 nm, [0150]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 10-17 on the remarks filed on 04/27/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 TONY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/TONY TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights