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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no unreasonable search and examination burden exist. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the previous office action -the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter-the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/31/2025.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaviv (US 2018/0323103) in view of Iacoponi (US 6, 228, 754).
Regarding claim 1, Shaviv discloses a method of filling a feature on a substrate, the method comprising: forming a metal seed layer (Fig. 2A, numeral 208a) on exposed top surface of the substrate (200), wherein the substrate has features in the form of trenches (202) or vias formed in the top surface of the substrate (200), the features having sidewalls and a bottom surface extending between the sidewalls ([0018]); performing a gradient oxidation process to oxidize exposed portions of the metal seed layer to form a metal oxide, wherein the gradient oxidation process preferentially oxidizes a field region of the substrate over the bottom surface of the features ([0026]; Fig. 2B; note: overhand portions; Fig. 1, numeral 103) , performing an etch back process to remove the oxidized portion of the seed layer (Fig.2C; ([0026]; note: removing oxidized layer) performing an etch process to remove portions of the seed layer (Fig.1, numeral 107) and performing a metal gap-fill process to fill or partially fill the features with a gap fill material ([0029]).
Shaviv does not disclose that etch process is an isotropic etch process.
Iacoponi however disclose performing an isotropic etch process to remove portions of the seed layer (column 4, lines 54-67).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shaviv with Iacoponi to perform an isotropic etch process to remove portions of the seed layer for the purpose of promoting conformal coverage (Iacoponi, column 4, lines 54-67).
Claims 2 -7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaviv in view of Iacoponi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zierath (US 2019/0393156).
Regarding claim 2, Shaviv in view of Iacoponi does not disclose wherein the seed layer is a molybdenum- containing layer, the metal oxide is molybdenum oxide, and the metal gap fill material contains molybdenum.
Zierath however discloses that the seed layer is a molybdenum- containing layer (Fig.1C, numeral 130; [0095]), and the metal gap fill material (Fig.1D, numeral 140) contains molybdenum ([0120]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shaviv with Zierath to have the seed layer is a molybdenum- containing layer, the metal oxide is molybdenum oxide, and the metal gap fill material contains molybdenum because molybdenum is a typical material for forming interconnect structures.
Regarding claim 3, Shaviv discloses wherein an overhang portion of the seed layer extends into an opening of one or more features formed along the field region of the substrate (Fig.2B), and the overhang portion is preferentially oxidized relative to the metal seed layer within the one or more features ([0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Shaviv does not disclose wherein the gradient oxidation process and the etch back process are performed in two separate chambers.
Shaviv however discloses that the method can be performed in individual processing chambers ([0031]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the gradient oxidation process and the etch back process are in two separate chambers for the purpose of optimizing etching process.
Regarding claim 5, Shaviv discloses forming a liner layer (217) on the top surface of the substrate, wherein the seed layer (208a) is formed on the liner layer and the liner layer extends into the features ([0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Shaviv discloses the etch back process and the isotropic etch process are performed in the same chamber ([0026]; note: etch chamber).
Regarding claim 7, Iacoponi discloses wherein the seed layer is removed from the field region and the overhang portion (column 4, lines 54-67).
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaviv in view of Iacoponi and Zierath.
Regarding claim 8, Shaviv discloses a method of filling a feature formed on a substrate, the method comprising: depositing a layer (Fig.2A, numeral 208a) over exposed top surface of a substrate (200), wherein the substrate comprises a plurality of features (202) formed in the top surface of the substrate, each of the plurality of features has a sidewall surface and a bottom surface ([0018]), and the deposited layer (208a) is formed over the top surface of the substrate (200), and the sidewall surface and the bottom surface of the plurality of features (202); exposing the top surface of the substrate to a gradient oxidizing process, wherein the gradient oxidizing process forms oxidized regions of the layer; preferentially etching the oxidized regions of the deposited layer ([0026]; note: overhang regions; Fig. 2B), wherein after preferentially etching the oxidized regions, a first portion of the deposited layer (208a) remains on the bottom surface and in the top surface around each of the plurality of features (202) ([0026]); Fig.1, numeral 102) performing an etch process to remove the layer along the top surface while maintaining the layer on the bottom surface in each of the plurality of features (Fig, 1, numeral 106); and filling the features with a second layer, wherein filling the features with the second layer comprises growing the second layer from the first portion of the deposited layer on the bottom surface in each of the features (Fig.1, numeral 108; Fig.2D).
Shaviv does not disclose that (1) the layer and the second layer is a molybdenum containing layer; (2) that etch process is an isotropic etch process.
Regarding element (1), Zierath however discloses that the layer is a molybdenum- containing layer (Fig.1C, numeral 130; [0095]), and the second layer is (Fig.1D, numeral 140) a molybdenum layer ([0120]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shaviv with Zierath to have the layer and the second layer is a molybdenum containing layer because molybdenum is a typical material for forming interconnect structures.
Regarding element (2), Iacoponi however disclose performing an isotropic etch process to remove portions of the seed layer (column 4, lines 54-67).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shaviv with Iacoponi to perform an isotropic etch process to remove portions of the seed layer for the purpose of promoting conformal coverage (Iacoponi, column 4, lines 54-67).
Regarding claim 9, Shaviv discloses wherein an overhang portion of the molybdenum- containing layer extends into an opening of one or more features formed along the top surface of the substrate, and the overhang portion is preferentially oxidized relative to the molybdenum-containing layer within the one or more features ([0026]; Fig.2B).
Regarding claim 10, Shaviv does not disclose wherein the gradient oxidation process and the etch back process are performed in two separate chambers.
Shaviv however discloses that the method can be performed in individual processing chambers ([0031]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the gradient oxidation process and the etch back process are in two separate chambers for the purpose of optimizing etching process.
Regarding claim 11, Shaviv discloses forming a liner layer (Fig.2A, numeral 217) on the top surface of the substrate (200), wherein the molybdenum- containing layer (208a) is formed on the liner layer (217) and the liner layer extends into the features (202).
Regarding claim 12, Shaviv discloses wherein the etch back process and the isotropic etch process are performed in the same chamber ([0026]; note: etch chamber).
Regarding claim 13, Iacoponi discloses wherein the molybdenum-containing layer is removed from the top surface and the overhang portion (column 4, lines 54-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891