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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
The Amendment filed on 5/6/2026, responding to the Office action mailed on 2/27/2025, has been entered into the record. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 19-25 are pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 14, 15, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1).
Re Claim 1 Seo teaches a method for processing a semiconductor device (FIG. 2C), the method comprising:
generating a hydrogen plasma [0025] within a processing region (region under arrows, FIG. 2C), the hydrogen plasma formed from a hydrogen gas ([0025] last sentence) (H2)
exposing a first portion (31b) [0026] of a metal layer (31) on a dielectric layer (27) [0023] on a semiconductor substrate (21) [0022] to the hydrogen plasma (FIG. 3C) to treat the first portion (31b) of the metal layer (31) without treating a second portion (31a) of the metal layer (31), the dielectric layer (27) comprising a feature extending a depth from a top surface to a bottom surface and having sidewall surfaces therebetween, the metal layer (31) formed on the sidewall surfaces and on the bottom surface (31 does not directly contact 27 without intervening layer between 31 and 27, but 31 is on the sidewalls and the surface of 23 in FIG. 2C); and
selectively forming a metal film (33) [0027] on the second portion (31a) of the metal layer (31).
Seo does not explicitly teach the hydrogen plasma is provided at a flow rate of at least 300 sccm and a partial pressure of at least 100 mTorr.
Seo does teach hydrogen gas is provided at 1500 sccm and a pressure of 5 Torr [0034].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Seo into the structure of Seo.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seo in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal hydrogen gas flow rate and pressure. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal hydrogen gas flow rate and pressure.
Seo does not teach a thickness in a range of about 30 A to about 50 A of the metal film forms on the second portion of the metal layer before the metal film forms on the first portion.
Yoon teaches a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 10,000 Å [0113] of the metal film (1130) [0194] forms (2nd image in FIG. 11) on the second portion (integrating 1130 from Yoon FIG. 11 2nd image to Seo FIG. 2C 31a area) of the metal layer (Seo, 31) before the metal film (Yoon, 1130) forms on the first portion (Seo, 31b, FIG. 2, and Yoon FIG. 11 6th image).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Yoon into the structure of Seo to deposit the deal amount of metal film optimally over the metal layer.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoon in combination with Seo in the above manner for the motivation of depositing the optimal amount of the metal film over the metal layer to allow one to build a smaller semiconductor than previous generations. [0003] states, “The semiconductor industry continues to strive for continuous device miniaturization that is driven by the need for mobile and high-performance systems in emerging industries such as autonomous vehicles, virtual reality, and future mobile devices.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach optimal metal film thickness at the bottom of the trench.
Re Claim 7 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metal film (Yoon, 1130) comprises tungsten ([0123] states, “The first metal (of the metal film) and the second metal (of the substrate surface) may be the same metal or may be different metals. In some embodiments, the first metal is molybdenum, ruthenium, cobalt, copper, platinum, nickel or tungsten…”).
Re Claim 10 Seo teaches a method (FIG. 2C) of bottom-up metal gap fill, the method comprising:
exposing a metal nucleation layer (31, [0026] “metal layer”) to ions from a hydrogen-containing plasma (Fig. 2C, [0025] last sentence) to form a treated portion of the metal nucleation layer (31b), the metal nucleation layer (31a) being formed on sidewall surfaces and a bottom surface of a feature (trench), the feature extending a depth from a top to the bottom surface and having the sidewall surfaces therebetween (FIG. 2C), the treated portion (31b where it meets 31a) being located on the sidewall surfaces near the top (FIG. 2C), the hydrogen plasma formed from a hydrogen gas ([0025] last sentence) (H2), and
forming a metal film (33) [0027] on an untreated portion of the metal nucleation layer (31a) on the bottom surface (bottom of trench in FIG. 2D).
Seo does not explicitly teach a flow rate of at least 300 sccm and a partial pressure of at least 100 mTorr.
Seo does teach hydrogen gas is provided at 1500 sccm and a pressure of 5 Torr [0034].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Seo into the structure of Seo.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seo in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal hydrogen gas flow rate and pressure. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal hydrogen gas flow rate and pressure.
Seo does not teach a thickness in a range of about 30 A to about 50 A of the metal film forms.
Yoon teaches a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 10,000 Å [00113] of the metal film (1130) [0194] forms (2nd image in FIG. 11) on the second portion (integrating 1130 from Yoon FIG. 11 2nd image to Seo FIG. 2C 31a area) of the metal nucleation layer (Seo, 31) before the metal film (Yoon, 1130) forms on the treated portion (Seo, 31b, FIG. 2, and Yoon FIG. 11 6th image).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Yoon into the structure of Seo to deposit the deal amount of metal film optimally over the metal layer.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoon in combination with Seo in the above manner for the motivation of depositing the optimal amount of the metal film over the metal layer to allow one to build a smaller semiconductor than previous generations. [0003] states, “The semiconductor industry continues to strive for continuous device miniaturization that is driven by the need for mobile and high-performance systems in emerging industries such as autonomous vehicles, virtual reality, and future mobile devices.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach optimal metal film thickness at the bottom of the trench.
Re Claim 14 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the metal film (Yoon, 1130) comprises tungsten ([0123] states, “The first metal (of the metal film) and the second metal (of the substrate surface) may be the same metal or may be different metals. In some embodiments, the first metal is molybdenum, ruthenium, cobalt, copper, platinum, nickel or tungsten …”).
Re Claim 15 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the metal film (Yoon, 1130) contains substantially no seam or voids (FIG. 11 6th image).
Re Claim 23 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising repeating the method (Yoon, [0198] “In some embodiments, the feature 1105 is filled with the metal film 1130 to 1130 form an overburden 1133…”) to fill the feature with the metal film (1130, FIG. 11 5th and 6th images).
Re Claim 24 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the metal film (Yoon, 1130) fills the feature with substantially no seam or void (FIG. 11 6th image).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Mallick et al. (US 20180323068 A1).
Re Claim 2 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the hydrogen plasma is a conductively coupled plasma (CCP).
Mallick teaches the hydrogen plasma [0027] is a conductively coupled plasma (CCP) ([0025] last sentence).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Mallick into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon to integrate plasma into the semiconductor building process.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Mallick in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of optimizing the hydrogen plasma process to allow for chip designs that are as small as possible. [0004] states, “There is a need in the art for new methods for chip designs with smaller critical dimensions.”
Re Claim 11 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the hydrogen- containing plasma is a conductively coupled plasma (CCP).
Mallick teaches the hydrogen- containing plasma [0027] is a conductively coupled plasma (CCP) ([0025] last sentence).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Mallick into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon to integrate plasma into the semiconductor building process.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Mallick in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of optimizing the hydrogen plasma process to allow for chip designs that are as small as possible. [0004] states, “There is a need in the art for new methods for chip designs with smaller critical dimensions.”
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zope et al. (US 20210054500 A1).
Re Claim 6 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the metal layer is a tungsten nucleation layer.
Zope teaches the metal layer (512, FIG. 5C) is a tungsten nucleation layer ([0168] states, “512 comprises…a tungsten oxide nucleation film…”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Zope into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon to integrate tungsten as the material for a metal layer into the semiconductor building process.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zope in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of using a tungsten material for the nucleation layer as it desirable in the art of semiconductor processing. [0006] states, “In addition, in particular semiconductor fabrication processes, it may be desirable to form a metal film…”
Re Claim 13 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the metal nucleation layer is a tungsten nucleation layer.
Zope teaches the metal nucleation layer (512, FIG. 5C) is a tungsten nucleation layer ([0168] states, “512 comprises…a tungsten oxide nucleation film…”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Zope into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon to integrate tungsten as the material for a metal layer into the semiconductor building process.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Zope in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of using a tungsten material for the nucleation layer as it desirable in the art of semiconductor processing. [0006] states, “In addition, in particular semiconductor fabrication processes, it may be desirable to form a metal film…”
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 5948467 A).
Re Claim 8 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the metal film forms on the second portion of the metal layer for a time of less than 10 seconds before forming on the first portion of the metal layer.
Nguyen teaches col 3 lines 49-53 forming a first metal film before forming a second metal film, and col 3 line 59 teaches the first metal film takes about 10 seconds to 120 seconds to form. Therefore, the exposure time can potentially be under 10 seconds indicating the second portion of the metal film can be formed less than 10s after forming the first metal film. Use the first metal film as 1130 shown in Yoon FIG. 11 2nd image and the second metal film as the top part of 1130 shown in FIG. 11 6th image.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Nguyen into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon to find optimal time between depositing the metal film.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nguyen in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of depositing the metal film in stages with an optimal delay time between depositions. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal time to wait between forming portions of a layer.
Re Claim 21 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the metal film forms on the untreated portion of the metal nucleation layer for a time of less than 10 seconds before the metal film forms on the treated portion of the metal nucleation layer.
Nguyen teaches col 3 lines 49-53 forming a first metal film before forming a second metal film, and col 3 line 59 teaches the first metal film takes about 10 seconds to 120 seconds to form. Therefore, the exposure time can potentially be under 10 seconds indicating the second portion of the metal film can be formed less than 10s after forming the first metal film. Use the first metal film as 1130 shown in Yoon FIG. 11 2nd image and the second metal film as the top part of 1130 shown in FIG. 11 6th image.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Nguyen into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon to find optimal time between depositing the metal film.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nguyen in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of depositing the metal film in stages with an optimal delay time between depositions. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal time to wait between forming portions of a layer.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220068709 A1) and Mallick et al. (US 20180323068 A1) and Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1).
Re Claim 17 Seo teaches a method of forming a logic device (FIG. 2C), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (21, 23, and 227, [0022-0023], use dielectric 27 as part of substrate 21 as applied in FIG. 2G of enclosed invention) having a feature (trench in FIG. 2C) with a metal layer (31) [0024] thereon, the feature extending a depth (height of 27) and having a top surface, a bottom surface, and two sidewall surfaces, the metal layer (31) being formed on at least the two sidewall surfaces (of 27) and the bottom surface (31 is on 23) of the feature (FIG. 2C);
exposing the metal layer (31) to ions ([0025] last sentence) to treat a portion of the metal layer (31b exposed to plasma), on the sidewall surfaces (27) near the top surface thereby forming a treated portion (31b) of the metal layer,
Seo does not explicitly teach the hydrogen gas (H2) provided at a flow rate of at least 300 sccm and a partial pressure of at least 100 mTorr.
Seo does teach hydrogen gas is provided at 1500 sccm and a pressure of 5 Torr [0034].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Seo into the structure of Seo.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seo in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal hydrogen gas flow rate and pressure. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal hydrogen gas flow rate and pressure.
Seo does not teach depositing a tungsten film on an untreated portion of a tungsten layer on at least the bottom surface.
Wang teaches depositing a tungsten film (108) [0018] on an untreated portion of a tungsten layer (106) on at least the bottom surface (FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Wang into the structure of Seo since Wang integrates tungsten as the material for a metal layer into a semiconductor building process.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wang in combination with Seo in the above manner for the motivation of using a tungsten material for the nucleation layer as it desirable in the art of semiconductor processing. [0002] states, “Selectively depositing a film on one surface relative to a different surface is useful for patterning and other applications.”
Seo in view of Wang does not teach a hydrogen conductively coupled plasma (CCP).
Mallick teaches the hydrogen plasma [0027] is a conductively coupled plasma (CCP) ([0025] last sentence).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Mallick into the structure of Seo in view of Wang since Mallick integrates plasma into a semiconductor building process.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Mallick in combination with Seo in view of Wang in the above manner for the motivation of optimizing the hydrogen plasma process to allow for chip designs that are as small as possible. [0004] states, “There is a need in the art for new methods for chip designs with smaller critical dimensions.”
Seo in view of Wang and Mallick does not teach a thickness in a range of about 30 Å to about 50 Å of the tungsten film forms on the untreated portion of the tungsten layer before the tungsten film forms on the treated portion of the tungsten layer.
Yoon teaches a thickness in a range of about 10 Å to about 10,000 Å [0113] of the metal film (1130) [0194] forms (2nd image in FIG. 11) on the second portion (integrating 1130 from Yoon FIG. 11 2nd image to Seo FIG. 2C 31a area) of the metal layer (Seo, 31) before the metal film (Yoon, 1130) forms on the first portion (Seo, 31b, FIG. 2, and Yoon FIG. 11 6th image).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Yoon into the structure of Seo in view of Wang and Mallick to deposit the deal amount of metal film optimally over the metal layer.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yoon in combination with Seo in view of Wang and Mallick in the above manner for the motivation of depositing the optimal amount of the metal film over the metal layer to allow one to build a smaller semiconductor than previous generations. [0003] states, “The semiconductor industry continues to strive for continuous device miniaturization that is driven by the need for mobile and high-performance systems in emerging industries such as autonomous vehicles, virtual reality, and future mobile devices.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach optimal metal film thickness at the bottom of the trench.
Re Claim 20 Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the tungsten film (Yoon, 1130) fills the feature with substantially no seam or void (FIG. 11 6th image).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220068709 A1) and Mallick et al. (US 20180323068 A1) and Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Chandrashekar et al. (US 20130171822, IDS).
Re Claim 19 Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach the tungsten layer has an overhang of less than or equal to about 50 A.
Chandrashekar [0017] teaches, “In some embodiments, the feature hole 105 may have an aspect ratio of at least about 2:1, at least about 4:1, at least about 6:1 or higher. The feature hole 105 may also have a dimension near the opening, e.g., an opening diameter or line width, of between about 10 nm to 500 nm…” Set the width to form the overhang region (top, center, FIG. 1B)is than or equal to 50A (50A = 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Chandrashekar into the structure of Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar in combination with Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal tungsten layer overhang distance. [0002] states, “Deposition of tungsten-containing materials using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) techniques is an integral part of many semiconductor fabrication processes.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal tungsten layer overhang dimensions.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220068709 A1) and Mallick et al. (US 20180323068 A1) and Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 5948467 A).
Re Claim 22 Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach the tungsten film forms on the untreated portion of the tungsten layer for a time of less than 10 seconds before the tungsten film forms on the treated portion of the tungsten layer.
Nguyen teaches col 3 lines 49-53 forming a first metal film before forming a second metal film, and col 3 line 59 teaches the first metal film takes about 10 seconds to 120 seconds to form. Therefore, the exposure time can potentially be under 10 seconds indicating the second portion of the metal film can be formed less than 10s after forming the first metal film. Use the first metal film as 1130 shown in Yoon FIG. 11 2nd image and the second metal film as the top part of 1130 shown in FIG. 11 6th image.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Nguyen into the structure of Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon to find optimal time between depositing the metal film.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nguyen in combination with Seo in view of Wang and Mallick and Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of depositing the metal film in stages with an optimal delay time between depositions. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal time to wait between forming portions of a layer.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20040082167 A1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 20210285102 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Chandrashekar et al. (US 20130171822, IDS).
Re Claim 25 Seo in view of Yoon teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach the metal layer has an overhang over the feature of less than or equal to about 50 A.
Chandrashekar [0017] teaches, “In some embodiments, the feature hole 105 may have an aspect ratio of at least about 2:1, at least about 4:1, at least about 6:1 or higher. The feature hole 105 may also have a dimension near the opening, e.g., an opening diameter or line width, of between about 10 nm to 500 nm…” Set the width to form the overhang region (top, center, FIG. 1B)is than or equal to 50A (50A = 5 nm).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching as taught by Chandrashekar into the structure of Seo in view of Yoon.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar in combination with Seo in view of Yoon in the above manner for the motivation of finding optimal tungsten layer overhang distance. [0002] states, “Deposition of tungsten-containing materials using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) techniques is an integral part of many semiconductor fabrication processes.” Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In the instant case, process optimization will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to reach ideal tungsten layer overhang dimensions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17, 19-25 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hoshino et al. (US 20020009872 A1) teaches forming a conductive layer (22) [0039] around a trench (FIG. 5), treating the conductive layer (22) with hydrogen (FIG. 5), and then filling the trench with a metal film (26, FIG. 7) [0043].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MARK SIPLING whose telephone number is (571)272-3269. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/KENNETH MARK SIPLING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 8/6/26
Prosecution Insights