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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Haukka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0181555, hereafter Haukka ‘555) does not teach that the mini purge is in a range of from greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds to less than or equal to 500 milliseconds. This is not found persuasive because, while Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the mini purge is in a range of from greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds to less than or equal to 500 milliseconds, Haukka ‘555 does teach that the duration of the mini purge affects its ability to purge reaction gases from the chamber, as discussed below, and, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the duration of the mini purge, as discussed below.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0181555, hereafter Haukka ‘555) in view of Matthysse et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0042119, hereafter Matthysse ‘119).
Claim 1: Haukka ‘555 teaches a processing method (abstract) comprising:
exposing a substrate to a constant flow of an inert carrier gas (300) (Fig. 7, [0075], [0085]) and co-flow of a pulse of a metal-containing precursor (302) (Fig. 7, [0085]), and a pulse of a reactant (304, 306) (Fig. 7, [0085]) to form a metal-containing film on the substrate (abstract, [0085], [0087]), the pulse of the metal-containing precursor and the pulse of the reactant interrupted by a purge (303) (Fig. 7, [0085]).
Haukka ‘555 further teaches that the duration of the purge affects the ability of the purge to remove reaction gases from the chamber ([0079]), and that the method can be an atomic layer deposition method for forming a semiconductor device (abstract, [0003]).
With respect to claim 1, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the purge is in a range of from greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds to less than or equal to 500 milliseconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the duration of the purge in the method taught by Haukka ‘555 because the duration of the purge affects the ability of the purge to remove reaction gases from the chamber, as taught by Haukka ‘555. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
With respect to claim 1, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that one of the metal-containing precursor or the reactant is charged during the purge.
Matthysse ‘119 teaches an atomic layer deposition method for forming a semiconductor device (abstract, [0003]). Matthysse ‘119 teaches that the method can include charging the precursor gases during period of a purge ([0045]). Matthysse ‘119 teaches that this allows for charging to occur without penalty in the overall cycle time ([0045]). Both Matthysse ‘119 and Haukka ‘555 teach atomic layer deposition methods for forming a semiconductor device (‘555, abstract, [0003]; ‘119, abstract, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to charging the precursor gases during period of a purge as taught by Matthysse ‘119 in the method taught by Haukka ‘555 because this allows for charging to occur without penalty in the overall cycle time, as taught by Matthysse ‘119.
Claim 2: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the method can comprise performing a purge (last 303) after forming the metal containing film (Fig. 7, [0085]), where the purge can be for 1 second (Table 1).
Claim 3: Haukka ‘555 teaches that a pulse of the metal-containing gas can be between about 0.1 second and 1 second ([0078]) and a pulse of the reactant can be between about 0.3 second and 0.7 second ([0079]).
With respect to claim 3, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the reactant pulse is greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds and less than or equal to 500 milliseconds. However, the claimed reactant pulse range is obvious over the reactant pulse range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
With respect to claim 3, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the metal-containing gas pulse is greater than or equal to 500 milliseconds and less than or equal to 1 second. However, the claimed metal-containing gas pulse range is obvious over the metal-containing gas pulse range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
Claim 5: Haukka ‘555 teaches that a pulse of the metal-containing gas can be between about 0.3 second and 0.7 second ([0078]) and a pulse of the reactant can be between about 0.1 second and 1 second ([0079]).
With respect to claim 5, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the metal-containing gas pulse is greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds and less than or equal to 500 milliseconds. However, the claimed metal-containing gas pulse range is obvious over the metal-containing gas pulse range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
With respect to claim 5, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the reactant pulse is greater than or equal to 500 milliseconds and less than or equal to 1 second. However, the claimed reactant pulse range is obvious over the reactant pulse range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
Claim 6: Haukka ‘555 teaches that a pulse of the metal-containing gas can be between about 0.3 second and 0.7 second ([0078]) and a pulse of the reactant can be between about 0.3 second and 0.7 second ([0079]).
With respect to claim 6, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the metal-containing gas pulse is greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds and less than or equal to 500 milliseconds. However, the claimed metal-containing gas pulse range is obvious over the metal-containing gas pulse range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
With respect to claim 6, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the reactant pulse is greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds and less than or equal to 500 milliseconds. However, the claimed reactant pulse range is obvious over the reactant pulse range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
Claim 7: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the reactant can comprise O2 ([0060]).
Claim 8: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the metal-containing precursor can comprise aluminum chloride (AlCl3) ([0102], [0103]).
Claim 9: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the reactant can comprise ammonia ([0082], [0088]).
Claim 10: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the inert gas can comprise argon ([0075]).
Claim 11: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the method can be performed at a temperature of between about 300°C and about 400°C ([0073]).
Claim 12: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the method can be performed at a pressure of between about 5 Torr and about 15 Torr ([0073]).
Claim 13: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the film can have a thickness of less than about 100 Å ([0015]).
With respect to claim 13, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the metal containing film has a thickness in a range from 3 Å to 200 Å. However, the claimed film thickness range is obvious over the film thickness range taught by Haukka ‘555 because they overlap.
Claim 14: With respect to claim 14, the modified teachings of Haukka ‘555 do not explicitly teach that the method includes charging the reactant during the purge.
Matthysse ‘119 teaches an atomic layer deposition method for forming a semiconductor device (abstract, [0003]). Matthysse ‘119 teaches that the method can include charging the process gases during period of a purge ([0045]). Matthysse ‘119 teaches that this allows for charging to occur without penalty in the overall cycle time ([0045]). Both Matthysse ‘119 and Haukka ‘555 teach atomic layer deposition methods for forming a semiconductor device (‘555, abstract, [0003]; ‘119, abstract, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to charge the processing gases, which would include the reactant, during period of a purge in the method taught by Haukka ‘555 because charging the process gases during period of a purge allows for charging to occur without penalty in the overall cycle time, as taught by Matthysse ‘119.
Claim 15: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the method can be repeated twice (Fig. 7).
Claim 16: Haukka ‘555 teaches a processing method (abstract) comprising:
exposing a substrate comprising a feature to a process cycle (abstract, Figs. 9 and 12), the at least one feature comprising surface defining a trench with a top surface, bottom surface, and opposing sidewalls (abstract, Fig. 9, [0022]), where the sidewalls can be comprising a dielectric material ([0110]),
the process cycle comprising:
exposing surfaces of the feature to a constant flow of an inert carrier gas (300) (Fig. 7, [0075], [0085]) and co-flow of a pulse of a metal-containing precursor (302) (Fig. 7, [0085]), and a pulse of a reactant (304, 306) (Fig. 7, [0085]) to form a metal-containing film on the feature (abstract, [0085], [0087]), the pulse of the metal-containing precursor and the pulse of the reactant interrupted by a purge (303) (Fig. 7, [0085]).
Haukka ‘555 further teaches that the duration of the purge affects the ability of the purge to remove reaction gases from the chamber ([0079]), and that the method can be an atomic layer deposition method for forming a semiconductor device (abstract, [0003]).
With respect to claim 1, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that the purge is in a range of from greater than or equal to 50 milliseconds to less than or equal to 500 milliseconds.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the duration of the purge in the method taught by Haukka ‘555 because the duration of the purge affects the ability of the purge to remove reaction gases from the chamber, as taught by Haukka ‘555. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
With respect to claim 16, Haukka ‘555 does not explicitly teach that one of the metal-containing precursor or reactant is charged during the purge.
Matthysse ‘119 teaches an atomic layer deposition method for forming a semiconductor device (abstract, [0003]). Matthysse ‘119 teaches that the method can include charging the precursor gases during period of a purge ([0045]). Matthysse ‘119 teaches that this allows for charging to occur without penalty in the overall cycle time ([0045]). Both Matthysse ‘119 and Haukka ‘555 teach atomic layer deposition methods for forming a semiconductor device (‘555, abstract, [0003]; ‘119, abstract, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to charging the precursor gases during period of a purge as taught by Matthysse ‘119 in the method taught by Haukka ‘555 because this allows for charging to occur without penalty in the overall cycle time, as taught by Matthysse ‘119.
Claim 17: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the metal-containing precursor can comprise aluminum chloride (AlCl3) ([0102], [0103]) and the reactant can comprise ammonia ([0082], [0088]).
Claim 18: Haukka ‘555 teaches that the dielectric material can be a silicon oxide ([0110]).
Claim 19: With respect to claim 19, the modified teachings of Haukka ’555 do not explicitly teach that the feature has an aspect ratio of 1:1 to 20:1.
However, the claimed method differs from the method taught by the modified teachings of Haukka ‘555 only in the aspect ratio of the feature, and it has been held that changes in size and proportion are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Conclusion
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 BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights