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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
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) 1-7 and 15-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (Patent No.: US 12000044).
Re claim 1, Yu teaches a process for depositing a metal-containing film onto a microelectronic device substrate, wherein the metal is chosen from tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, ruthenium, and copper, and wherein the substrate is chosen from titanium nitride, tungsten nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, and copper, which comprises:
a. introducing an oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material into a reaction zone containing the substrate, under atomic layer deposition, until the ruthenium-containing film is about 3 to about 15 Å [0.3 to 1.5 mm] in thickness (“the thickness of the seed layer is in a range of about 1 nm to about 5 nm, or in a range of about 1 nm to about 4 nm. In some embodiments, the seed layer comprises a ruthenium layer deposited by a known atomic layer deposition method. In some embodiments, the seed layer is deposited by an ALD cycle comprising a ruthenium precursor exposure and an alkyl halide exposure with intervening purges”, col. 22, lines 50-60, FIGS. 8-9), followed by
b. introducing a tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, ruthenium, or copper metal- containing precursor into the reaction zone, under vapor deposition conditions, until a tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, ruthenium, or copper metal-containing film of a desired thickness has been obtained (“Next, at 850, the substrate is exposed to a second process gas for a second period of time. The second process gas comprises a metal precursor which reacts with the adsorbed layer of alkyl halide or halogen on the substrate surface to deposit a metal film. The second reactive gas may also be referred to as the metal precursor gas”, col. 23, lines 35-40, note that this “metal precursor corresponds to the metal of the deposited metal film. In some embodiments, the metal is selected from molybdenum, ruthenium, cobalt, copper, platinum, nickel or tungsten”, col. 17, lines 27-34).
Yu, one embodiment, FIGS. 8-9 fails to teach the method of introducing an oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material into a reaction zone containing the substrate, in the presence of a reducing gas, under vapor deposition conditions.
Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the method of introducing an oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material into a reaction zone containing the substrate, in the presence of a reducing gas, under vapor deposition conditions (“In some embodiments a hydrogen gas exposure is introduced into the CVD deposition cycle described above. Stated differently, a substrate may be soaked with the alkyl halide, exposed to hydrogen gas and exposed to the metal precursor. In some embodiments, the substrate is exposed to the hydrogen gas before exposure to the metal precursor. In some embodiments, the hydrogen gas and the metal precursor are flowed simultaneously”, col. 27, lines 15-20).
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 utilizing the flexibility of depositing the ruthenium metal layer as taught by Yu, col. 27, lines 15-20.
Re claim 2, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the ruthenium precursor material in (a) is introduced into a reaction zone under chemical vapor deposition conditions (col. 1, lines 45-50).
Re claim 3, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, ruthenium, or copper metal-containing precursor is introduced into the reaction zone under chemical vapor deposition conditions (col. 17, lines 27-34 & col. 1, lines 45-50).
Re claim 4, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, ruthenium, or copper metal-containing precursor is introduced into the reaction zone under atomic layer deposition or pulsed CVD conditions (col. 17, lines 27-34 & col. 1, lines 45-50).
Re claim 5, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein tungsten, molybdenum, cobalt, ruthenium, or copper metal-containing precursor is chosen from
a. MoCl5, MoOCl4, MoO2Cl2 (“a metal precursor which reacts with the adsorbed layer of halogen on the substrate surface to deposit a metal film”, col. 16, lines 51-56); Mo(CO)6MoH2(iPrCp)2;
b. WF6, W(t-butyl-N)2(N(CH3)2)2, WCl5WCl6and WOCl4; W(CO)6WH2('PrCp)2;
c. Co(t-Butyl-NCHCHN-t-Butyl)2, Co2(CO)6(HCCCF3), and Co2(CO)6(HCC(CH3)3); and
d. Copper (I) 2-methoxy-1,3-diisopropylamidinate; copper (I) 2-ethoxy-1,3- diisopropylamidinate; copper (I) 2-t-butoxy-1,3-diisopropylamidinate; copper (I) 2-isopropyl-1,3-diisoproylamidinate; and copper (I) 2-dimethylamino-1,3- diisopropylamidinate.
Re claim 6, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum metal-containing precursor is chosen from MoCl5, MoOCl4, or MoO2Cl2 (“a metal precursor which reacts with the adsorbed layer of halogen on the substrate surface to deposit a metal film”, col. 16, lines 51-56).
Re claim 7, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the tungsten metal-containing precursor is chosen from WF6 (“a metal precursor which reacts with the adsorbed layer of halogen on the substrate surface to deposit a metal film”, col. 16, lines 51-56) and W(t-butyl-N)2(N(CH3)2)2.
Re claim 15, in the combination, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen, ammonia, hydrazine, methyl hydrazine, t-butyl hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl hydrazine, and 1,1-dimethyl hydrazine (“In some embodiments, the hydrogen gas and the metal precursor are flowed simultaneously”, col. 27, lines 15-20, and hydrogen gas is considered as a reducing gas).
Re claim 16, in the combination, Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the reducing gas in step (a) is hydrogen (“In some embodiments a hydrogen gas exposure is introduced into the CVD deposition cycle described above. Stated differently, a substrate may be soaked with the alkyl halide, exposed to hydrogen gas and exposed to the metal precursor. In some embodiments, the substrate is exposed to the hydrogen gas before exposure to the metal precursor. In some embodiments, the hydrogen gas and the metal precursor are flowed simultaneously”, col. 27, lines 15-20).
Re claim 17, in the combination, Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the reducing gas is introduced into the reaction zone simultaneously with the oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material as a co-reactant (col. 27, lines 15-20) in step (a) (of the seed layer of FIGS. 8-9).
Re claim 19, in the combination, Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the gases introduced into the reaction zone in step (a) consist of the oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material, the reducing gas (col. 27, lines 15-20), and optionally, an inert carrier gas (none).
Re claim 20, in the combination, Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the process of claim 19, wherein the inert carrier gas is present (704 of FIG. 7).
Re claim 21, in the combination, Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the process of claim 19, wherein the inert carrier gas is absent (col. 27, lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Lansalot-Matras et al. (Patent No.: US 8349738) (hereinafter Lansalot-Matras).
Re claim 8, Yu teaches all the limitation of claim 1 and wherein the copper metal-containing precursor is the copper react with akylehalide group, col. 15, lines 1-30.
Yu fails to teach wherein the copper metal-containing precursor is copper (I) N', N"-diisopropyl-N, N-dimethyl guanidate.
Lansalot-Matras teaches wherein the copper metal-containing precursor is similar with copper (I) N', N"-diisopropyl-N, N-dimethyl guanidate (col. 3-4, pages 1-67).
Lansalot-Matras differs from the claim invention by not disclosing wherein the copper metal-containing precursor is copper (I) N', N"-diisopropyl-N, N-dimethyl guanidate.
However, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).”
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 enhancing the connectivity by ultilizing the appropriate copper-containing precursor as taught by Lansalot-Matras, BACKGROUND.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu.
Re claim 14, Yu teaches the process of claim 1, wherein the ruthenium-containing film of step a. exhibits an electrical resistivity of about 7.1 μΩ·cm for a film having a thickness of about 5.3Å (col. 22, lines 50-60).
In re claim 14, Yu differs from the claim invention by not disclosing wherein the ruthenium-containing film of step a. exhibits an electrical resistivity of about 450 µΩ-cm.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above said teaching, 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Li (Pub. No.: US 2011/0027977).
Re claim Yu teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Yu fails to teach the limitation of claim 18.
Li teaches 18 wherein step of forming ruthenium film is performed without introducing an alkyl halide into the reaction zone ¶ [0052].
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 provide a high-quality thin film on a substrate as taught by Li, [0005].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because Yu, one embodiment, FIGS. 8-9 fails to teach the method of introducing an oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material into a reaction zone containing the substrate, in the presence of a reducing gas, under vapor deposition conditions.
Yu, another embodiment, FIG. 10C-10D teaches the method of introducing an oxygen-free ruthenium precursor material into a reaction zone containing the substrate, in the presence of a reducing gas, under vapor deposition conditions (“In some embodiments a hydrogen gas exposure is introduced into the CVD deposition cycle described above. Stated differently, a substrate may be soaked with the alkyl halide, exposed to hydrogen gas and exposed to the metal precursor. In some embodiments, the substrate is exposed to the hydrogen gas before exposure to the metal precursor. In some embodiments, the hydrogen gas and the metal precursor are flowed simultaneously”, col. 27, lines 15-20).
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 utilizing the flexibility of depositing the ruthenium metal layer as taught by Yu, col. 27, lines 15-20.
For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
Conclusion
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