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 claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 28 August 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter is similar therefore the same references would be used in both group rejections. This is not found persuasive because different classification, divergent subject matter with respect to a product and process of making as well as a different field of search for the two claimed inventions is proof of serious burden in and of itself. As stated in MPEP 808.02, a serious burden is present when one or all of said criteria are met: this shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification or different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jezewski et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0151423).
Regarding claim 1, Jezewski teaches a method for processing a semiconductor device substrate, comprising:
exposing at least one feature formed in a dielectric layer to a grain modification layer deposition process to deposit a grain modification layer over at least a portion of the at least one feature, and the at least one feature is defined by sidewall surfaces formed in the dielectric layer and a bottom surface extending between the sidewall surfaces [fig. 5, grain modification layer 150 in feature 112 of dielectric layer 110]; and
exposing the at least one feature to a molybdenum deposition process to form a molybdenum-fill layer on the grain modification layer, wherein the grain modification layer comprises a metal different from molybdenum [fig. 6, 140, paragraph [0018] teaches 140 is molybdenum, paragraph [0017] teaches 150 is a metal different than molybdenum].
Regarding claim 3, Jezewski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum deposition process is a PVD process [paragraph [0018]].
Regarding claim 4, Jezewski teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum deposition process comprises a vapor deposition process performing in a deposition chamber [paragraph [0018] teaches a variety of vapor deposition processes and they would all require an appropriate chamber to be performed].
Regarding claim 10, Jezewski discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface is defined by a silicide layer, a metal silicide layer or a metal layer [fig. 3, 120, paragraph [0014] teaches a metal].
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jezewski as applied to claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 above, and further in view of the following arguments.
Regarding claim 2, Jezewski teaches the grain modification layer is formed by a PVD process [paragraph [0018]. Jezewski fails to teach the grain modification layer comprises tungsten, instead teaching a variety of metals including silver, gold nickel among others. However, Jezewski also teaches a metal layer formed in the structure showing tungsten as an alternative to silver, nickel or gold among other metals [paragraph [0014]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of metal alternatives of Jezewski into the method of Jezewski by forming the grain modification layer out of tungsten. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jezewski in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using known functional materials to ensure successful device fabrication. Furthermore, art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 5-9, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jezewski as applied to claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 above, and further in view of Zope et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0151352).
Regarding claim 5, while Jezewski teaches a PVD process they fail to teach the specifics of said process including precursors. However, Zope teaches forming a molybdenum metal layer over a dielectric using a PVD process in deposition chambers with precursors including molybdenum chloride, molybdenum oxyhalide [paragraphs [0052, 0071 and 0072]].
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 Jezewski by using a vapor deposition process that includes molybdenum chloride precursor, molybdenum oxyhalide precursor or combinations thereof. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jezewski in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing deposition processes that allow for lower effective electrical resistivity [Zope, paragraph [0039]].
Regarding claim 6, Jezewski in view of Zope discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the vapor phase deposition process further comprises introducing a reducing agent precursor gas into the deposition chamber [Zope, paragraph [0040]].
Regarding claim 7, Jezewski in view of Zope teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the reducing agent precursor gas is selected from molecular hydrogen (H2), hydrogen atoms, a hydrogen plasma, hydrogen radicals, hydrogen excited species or a combination thereof [Zope, paragraph [0106]].
Regarding claim 8, Jezewski in view of Zope discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the vapor deposition process comprises introducing H2 and MoCI5 into the deposition chamber [Zope, paragraphs [0101 and 0106]].
Regarding claim 9, Jezewski in view of Zope teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bottom surface is defined by the dielectric layer [Zope, fig. 4a-c, a molybdenum layer is deposited in a dielectric opening with a bottom defined by the dielectric layer].
Regarding claim 11, Jezewski teaches a method for processing a semiconductor device structure, comprising:
exposing at least one feature formed in a dielectric layer formed over a substrate to a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process to deposit a grain modification layer and the at least one feature is defined by sidewall surfaces formed in the dielectric layer and a bottom surface extending between the sidewall surfaces [fig. 5, grain modification layer 150 in feature 112 of dielectric layer 110]; and
exposing the feature to a vapor deposition process to form a molybdenum-fill layer on the grain modification layer within the at least one feature [fig. 6, 140, paragraph [0018] teaches 140 is molybdenum and formed by a vapor deposition process].
Jezewski fails to teach the grain modification layer comprises tungsten, instead teaching a variety of metals including silver, gold nickel among others. However, Jezewski also teaches a metal layer formed in the structure showing tungsten as an alternative to silver, nickel or gold among other metals [paragraph [0014]].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of metal alternatives of Jezewski into the method of Jezewski by forming the grain modification layer out of tungsten. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jezewski in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using known functional materials to ensure successful device fabrication. Furthermore, art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP 2144.07.
Jezewski also fails to teach the specifics of the deposition process including reaction chambers and precursors.
However, Zope teaches forming a molybdenum metal layer over a dielectric using a PVD process in deposition chambers with precursors including molybdenum chloride, molybdenum oxyhalide, transferring the structure between different processing regions/chambers without breaking vacuum [paragraphs [0052, 0055, 0071 and 0072], “the transfer of the substrate being performed under a controlled ambient to prevent oxidation/contamination”].
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 Jezewski by using a vapor deposition process that includes forms the grain modification layer in a first processing region of a first processing chamber and transferring the substrate to a second processing region of a second processing chamber without breaking vacuum, exposing the feature to a vapor deposition process comprising flowing a molybdenum-containing precursor gas to form a molybdenum fill layer . The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jezewski in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of utilizing deposition processes that allow for lower effective electrical resistivity [Zope, paragraph [0039]].
Regarding claim 12, Jezewski in view of Zope teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the molybdenum-containing precursor gas is selected from a molybdenum chloride precursor, a molybdenum oxyhalide precursor, or a combination thereof [Zope, paragraph [0071 and 0072]].
Regarding claim 13, Jezewski in view of Zope discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the vapor phase deposition process further comprises introducing a reducing agent precursor gas into the deposition chamber [Zope, paragraph [0040]].
Regarding claim 14, Jezewski in view of Zope teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the reducing agent precursor gas is selected from molecular hydrogen (H2), hydrogen atoms, a hydrogen plasma, hydrogen radicals, hydrogen excited species or a combination thereof [Zope, paragraph [0106]].
Regarding claim 15, Jezewski in view of Zope discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the vapor deposition process comprises introducing H2 and MoCI5 into the deposition chamber [Zope, paragraphs [0101 and 0106]].
Regarding claim 16, Jezewski in view of Zope teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the vapor deposition process is performed at a temperature in a range from about 400 C to about 500 C at a pressure in a range from about 1 Torr to about 100 Torr [Zope, paragraphs [0098 and 0099]].
Regarding claim 17, Jezewski in view of Zope discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the vapor deposition process is a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process, or a plasma-enhanced ALD process [Zope, paragraph [0098] ALD].
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