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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 13, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0067014) in view of Zierath et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0393156).
Regarding claim 1, Shrestha teaches a method to reduce bending of features on a surface of a substrate, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber, the substrate comprising a plurality of features, wherein at least two features of the plurality of features are adjacent features [fig. 4a, substrate 402 has two features, one on either side of filled opening 406];
using a cyclic deposition process, forming a layer comprising one or more of molybdenum, tungsten, and ruthenium [fig. 3, molybdenum film formed using cyclic deposition process];
repeating the step of using the cyclic deposition process [fig. 3, 330 determines thickness and if process is repeated].
Shrestha fails to specifically teach providing a nitrogen containing reactant to the reaction chamber to form a transient surface species. However, Zierath teaches forming a molybdenum layer by cyclical deposition process, as well as providing a nitrogen containing reactant to the reaction chamber after the formation of a molybdenum layer, the nitrogen reactant treatment passivates the top of the structure which is interpreted as forming a transient surface species [paragraph [0120] teaches molybdenum by ALD, paragraphs [0124 and 0125] teach an anneal with forming gas nitrogen present, passivating the top surface].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zierath into the method of Shrestha by providing a nitrogen-containing reactant to the reaction chamber to form a transient surface species. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Shrestha in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing a process that prevents or reduces corrosion [Zierath, paragraph [0125]].
Regarding claim 3, Shrestha in view of Zierath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cyclic deposition process comprises:
providing a metal precursor comprising one or more of molybdenum, tungsten, and ruthenium to the reaction chamber [Shrestha, fig. 3, 310, molybdenum halide]; and
providing a reducing reactant to the reaction chamber [Shrestha, fig. 3, 320, reducing agent].
Regarding claim 4, Shrestha in view of Zierath teaches the method of claim 3, wherein a duration of the step of providing the metal precursor is greater than zero seconds and less than one second [Shrestha, paragraph [0062], 0.1 seconds to 2 seconds encompasses greater than 0 and less than 1].
Regarding claim 5, Shrestha in view of Zierath discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a duration of the step of providing the reducing reactant is greater than zero seconds and less than 30 seconds or between about one second and about three seconds, or between about two seconds and about four seconds [Shrestha, paragraph [0066], 0.01 seconds to 30 seconds encompasses greater than 0 and less than 30].
Regarding claim 6, Shrestha in view of Zierath fails to teach the steps of proving the metal precursor and providing the reducing reactant are repeated two or more times prior to the step of proving the nitrogen reactant, instead teaching the repetition the cycle is one or more times to a desired thickness. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited number of cycle repetitions to achieve a desired layer thickness Applicant has not disclosed that the number of cycle repetitions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 13, Shrestha in view of Zierath teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cyclic deposition process is a thermal process [Shrestha, paragraph [0052] teaches elevated temperatures for the substrate during deposition making it a thermal process].
Regarding claim 14, Shrestha in view of Zierath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a temperature of the substrate during the cyclic deposition process is between 500C and 600C [Shrestha, paragraph [0052], between 400C and 600C is taught].
Regarding claim 16, Shrestha in view of Zierath teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the nitrogen-containing reactant comprises one or more of nitrogen (N2), ammonia (NH3), hydrazine (N2H4), and an alkyl hydrazine derivative, in any combination [Zierath, paragraph [0124] teaches nitrogen gas which would be N2.].
Regarding claim 20, Shrestha in view of Zierath teaches a structure comprising:
A substrate comprising a plurality of features, wherein at least two features of the plurality of features are adjacent features [Shrestha, fig. 4, substrate 402, features are adjacent each other on either side of opening filled with 406]; and
A metal fill between the adjacent features [Shrestha, fig. 4a, 406],
Wherein the metal fill comprises a plurality of layers formed according to the method of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above, the metal fill is formed by steps shown in fig. 3 and the nitrogen reactant step of Zierath].
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha in view of Zierath as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 13, 14, 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Zope et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0067094).
Regarding claim 7, Shrestha in view of Zierath fail to teach the use of a nucleation layer. However, Zope teaches forming a nucleation layer on features of a substrate [fig.4b, nucleation layer 406].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zope into the method of Shrestha in view of Zierath by forming a nucleation layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Shrestha in view of Zierath in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the material qualities of subsequently deposited molybdenum films [Zope, paragraph [0096]].
Regarding claim 8, Shrestha in view of Zierath and Zope discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the nucleation layer comprises one or more of a molybdenum nitride, a tungsten nitride and a ruthenium nitride [Zope, paragraph [0061]].
Regarding claim 9, Shrestha in view of Zierath and Zope teaches the method of claim 7, wherein a thickness of the nucleation layer is greater than zero and less than 30 angstroms [Zope, paragraph [0093]].
Regarding claim 10, Shrestha in view of Zierath and Zope discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the step of forming the nucleation layer is a thermal process [Zope, paragraph [0061] teaches an elevated temperature for forming the nucleation layer, making it a thermal process].
Regarding claim 11, Shrestha in view of Zierath and Zope teaches the method of claim 7, wherein a temperature of the substrate during the step of forming the nucleation layer is less than one of 450C, 400C or 300C [Zope, paragraph [0061]].
Regarding claim 12, Shrestha in view of Zierath and Zope discloses the method of claim 7, wherein a temperature of the substrate during the cyclic deposition process is higher than a temperature during the step of forming the nucleation layer [Shrestha, paragraph [0052] teaches less than 800C and Zope, paragraph [0061] teaches less than 700C].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 are allowed.
Claims 2, 15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 18, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the method as claimed. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach repeating the steps of using the cyclic deposition process and providing the nitrogen containing reactant, wherein the first substrate temperature is lower than the second substrate temperature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-8794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 3:30pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/JOHN M PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2899