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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 2/20/2026. Claims 1, 2, 6-15 & 21-28 are pending in this application. Claims 3-5 & 16-20 are canceled. Claims 24-28 are new.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 25, line 2: after “deposition”, delete “cycle” and insert --process--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 6-15 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes et al. (US 2023/0096838) in view of Kamepalli et al. (US 2009/0275198) (provided in IDS 2/20/2026).
Re claim 1, Maes teaches, under BRI, Figs. 2 & 5-7, claims 1, 6-8 & 12, [0007, 0011, 0016-0018, 0022, 0023, 0043, 0060, 0068, 0108-0109, 0135, 0158, 0162, 0166], a method comprising:
-forming dielectric material on a substrate (e.g., dielectric layer overlying bulk semiconductor material, [0042]);
-forming an opening (e.g., gap) within the dielectric material (e.g., gap can be comprised in one or more layers overlying substrate, [0042]) to form a first dielectric material portion and a second dielectric material portion (left & right portions of dielectric layer); and
-performing a deposition process to form a liner (620) for a semiconductor device, the liner (620) comprising molybdenum containing material cot along surfaces of the first dielectric material portion, the second dielectric material portion, and the opening, wherein a cycle of the deposition process comprises:
performing a reactant step of a deposition cycle of the deposition process to form a molybdenum (Mo)-based material (e.g., molybdenum-containing material 620) [0162], wherein performing the reactant step comprises introducing a reactant (e.g., halogen reactant);
performing a molybdenum (Mo) precursor step of the deposition cycle, wherein performing the Mo precursor step comprises introducing a Mo precursor (e.g., bis(ethylbenzene)molybdenum) that reacts with the reactant; and
performing a treatment step of the deposition cycle, wherein performing the treatment step comprises introducing a treatment gas (e.g., nitrogen reactant) that is configured to improve at least one of: adhesion of the molybdenum containing material or smoothness of the molybdenum containing;
wherein the deposition process is performed at a temperature that is less than or equal to about 450 °C (e.g., 300oC -400oC).
PNG
media_image1.png
447
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maes teaches similar used materials, but does not explicitly teach the liner comprising molybdenum nitride.
Kamepalli teaches the liner comprising molybdenum nitride (e.g., MoN) (abstract, [0047, 0066]).
As taught by Kamepalli, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the liner comprising molybdenum nitride as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired liner with improved quality and greater conformality with underlying and surrounding layers. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kamepalli in combination with Maes due to above reason.
Re claim 2, Maes teaches the reactant comprises at least one of: an alkyl halide [0018], an alkylene dihalide [0096], or iodine [0019].
Re claim 6, Maes teaches the Mo precursor comprises at least one of: a Mo-base amide, Mo(imido)2(amino)2, Mo(amino)4, bis(benzene)molybdenum, bis(ethylbenzene)molybdenum [0017], bis(trimethylsilyl)benzene-molybdenum, bis(propyl)benzene-molybdenum, or bis(isopropyl)benzene-molybdenum.
Re claim 7, Maes teaches the treatment gas comprises ammonia gas (e.g., NH3) [0109].
Re claims 8 & 9, Maes teaches the temperature that ranges from about 250oC to about 400oC (e.g., 280-325oC, [0163]), and from about 300oC to about 375oC (e.g., 325-350oC) [0164].
Re claim 10, Maes teaches the reactant step has an associated reactant pulse time that ranges from about 0.1 second to about 5 seconds (e.g. 0.5 seconds, [0166]).
Re claims 11-13, Maes/Kamepalli does not explicitly teach wherein the Mo precursor step has an associated Mo precursor pulse time that ranges from about 1 second to about 5 seconds; wherein the treatment step has an associated treatment gas pulse time that ranges from about 50 seconds to about 150 seconds, and wherein the treatment gas has an associated flow rate that ranges from about 400 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) to about 1000 sccm.
Maes does teach “The precursor pulse lasted 10 seconds, and it was followed by a 5 second purge. The halogen reactant pulse lasted 0.5 seconds, and it was followed by a 5 second purge. The nitrogen reactant pulse lasted 8 seconds, and was followed by a 5 second purge” [0166], and “The controller (312) can include control software to electrically or pneumatically control valves to control flow of metal precursors, one or more reactants and purge gases into and out of the reaction chamber (302)” [0154].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ/modify the teaching as taught by Maes to obtain the Mo precursor step has an associated Mo precursor pulse time that ranges from about 1 second to about 5 seconds; the treatment step has an associated treatment gas pulse time that ranges from about 50 seconds to about 150 seconds, and the treatment gas has an associated flow rate that ranges from about 400 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) to about 1000 sccm as claimed, because pulse time and flow rate are known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited pulse time and flow rate through routine experimentation to achieve desired characteristics of the formed device. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claims 14-15, Meas teaches, based on deposition cycle, [0166], performing the reactant step further comprises performing a first purge step after introducing the reactant (e.g., the halogen reactant pulse lasted 0.5 seconds, and it was followed by a 5 second purge);
performing the Mo precursor step further comprises performing a second purge step after introducing the Mo precursor (e.g., the precursor pulse lasted 10 seconds, and it was followed by a 5 second purge); and
performing the treatment step further comprises performing a third purge step after introducing the treatment gas (e.g., the nitrogen reactant pulse lasted 8 seconds, and was followed by a 5 second purge),
wherein the first purge step, the second purge step and the third purge step each have an associated purge gas pulse time that ranges between about 1 second to about 10 seconds (e.g., 5 seconds).
Re claim 21, Meas/Kamepalli teaches the molybdenum nitride has a resistivity less than or equal to about 200 microohm-centimeters (μΩ.cm) (e.g., about 100 μΩ.cm) [0121].
Re claim 22, Meas teaches, [0018, 0046, 0080-0083, 0096], the reactant (e.g., halogen reactant) comprises an alkyl halide having an alkyl group and an alkylene group, and wherein beta-hydride elimination enables transfer of hydrogen from the alkyl group or the alkylene group to Mo (of Mo precursor) (e.g., based on reaction between reactant and precursor).
Re claim 23, Maes teaches the deposition process is an area-selective deposition process (based on gap-filled material, Fig. 7, [0166]).
4. Claim 22 is, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes as modified by Kamepalli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalutarage et al. (US 2020/0071825).
The teachings of Maes/Kamepalli have been discussed above.
Re claim 22, Maes teaches the reactant comprises an alkyl halide having an alkyl group and an alkylene group [0018, 0096].
Maes/Kamepalli does not explicitly teach wherein a beta-hydride elimination enables transfers of hydrogen from the alkyl group or the alkylene group to Mo.
Kalutarage teaches β-hydride elimination [0014].
As taught by Kalutarage, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Maes to obtain a beta-hydride elimination enables transfers of hydrogen from the alkyl group or the alkylene group to Mo as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired metal film at predetermined thickness.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kalutarage in combination with Maes/Kamepalli due to above reason.
5. Claims 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes et al. (US 2023/0096838) in view of Kamepalli et al. (US 2009/0275198) (provided in IDS 2/20/2026) and Xu et al. (US 2016/0211216).
Re claim 24, Maes teaches, under BRI, Figs. 2 & 5-7, claims 1, 6-8 & 12, [0007, 0011, 0016-0018, 0022, 0023, 0043, 0060, 0068, 0108-0109, 0135, 0158, 0162, 0166], a method comprising:
-forming dielectric material on a substrate (e.g., dielectric layer overlying bulk semiconductor material, [0042]);
-forming an opening (e., gap) within the dielectric material to form a first dielectric material portion and a second dielectric material portion (left & right portions of dielectric layer) [0042]; and
-performing, at a temperature that ranges from about 250 °C to about 400 °C (e.g., 300oC -400oC), an area-selective deposition process to form a liner (620) comprising molybdenum containing material along surfaces of the first dielectric material portion, the second dielectric material portion, and the opening (e.g., gap), wherein performing the area-selective deposition process comprises causing a reactant (e.g., halogen reactant) and a molybdenum (Mo) precursor to react to form the molybdenum containing material.
PNG
media_image1.png
447
521
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maes teaches similar used materials, but does not explicitly teach the liner comprising molybdenum nitride.
Kamepalli teaches the liner comprising molybdenum nitride (e.g., MoN) (abstract, [0047, 0066]).
As taught by Kamepalli, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the liner comprising molybdenum nitride as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired liner with improved quality and greater conformality with underlying and surrounding layers. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Kamepalli in combination with Maes due to above reason.
Maes/Kamepalli does not explicitly teach forming conductive material on the liner within the opening and on the first dielectric material portion and the second dielectric material portion.
Xu teaches, Figs. 5-10, [0045, 0068, 0082], forming conductive material (137) on the liner (114) within the opening (516) and on the first dielectric material portion and the second dielectric material portion (of 105).
As taught by Xu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain conductive material on the liner within the opening and on the first dielectric material portion and the second dielectric material portion as claimed, because it aids in achieving conductive material resulting in an increase in cross section and aids in improving performance of the formed device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Xu in combination with Maes/Kamepalli due to above reason.
Re claim 25, in combination cited above, Maes teaches, [0166], performing the deposition cycle comprises performing a cycle by: introducing the reactant (e.g., halogen reactant); performing a first purge step after introducing the reactant (e.g., halogen reactant pulse lasted 0.5 seconds, and it was followed by a 5 second purge); after performing the first purge step, introducing the Mo precursor; performing a second purge step after introducing the Mo precursor (e.g., the precursor pulse lasted 10 seconds, and it was followed by a 5 second purge); after performing the second purge step, introducing a treatment gas that is configured to improve at least one of: adhesion of the molybdenum nitride or smoothness of the molybdenum nitride; and performing a third purge step after introducing the treatment gas (e.g., nitrogen reactant pulse lasted 8 seconds, and was followed by a 5 second purge); wherein the first purge step, the second purge step and the third purge step each have an associated purge gas pulse time that ranges between about 1 second to about 10 seconds (e.g., 5 seconds).
Re claim 26, in combination cited above, Maes teaches, [0166], the reactant comprises at least one of: an alkyl halide [0018], an alkylene dihalide [0096], or iodine [0019]; the Mo precursor comprises at least one of: Mo(imido)2(amino)2, Mo(amino)4, bis(benzene)molybdenum, bis(ethylbenzene)molybdenum [0017], bis(trimethylsilyl)benzene- molybdenum, bis(propyl)benzene-molybdenum, or bis(isopropyl)benzene-molybdenum; the reactant (e.g., halogen reactant) is introduced during a reactant step that has an associated reactant pulse time that ranges from about 0.1 second to about 5 seconds (e.g. 0.5 seconds); the Mo precursor is introduced during an Mo precursor step that has an associated Mo precursor pulse time that ranges from about 1 second to about 5 seconds (e.g., 10 seconds); and the treatment gas is introduced during a treatment gas step that has an associated treatment gas pulse time that ranges from about 50 seconds to about 150 seconds (e.g. 8 seconds).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Re claim 27, Maes/Kampalli/Xu does not explicitly teach wherein the treatment gas has an associated flow rate that ranges from about 400 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) to about 1000 sccm.
Maes does teach “The controller (312) can include control software to electrically or pneumatically control valves to control flow of metal precursors, one or more reactants and purge gases into and out of the reaction chamber (302)” [0154].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ/modify the teaching as taught by Maes to obtain the treatment gas has an associated flow rate that ranges from about 400 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) to about 1000 sccm as claimed, because flow rate is known to affect device properties and would depend on the desired device density and the desired device characteristics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited flow rate through routine experimentation to achieve desired characteristics of the formed device.
Re claim 28, in combination cited above, Meas teaches the molybdenum nitride has a resistivity less than or equal to about 200 microohm-centimeters (μΩ.cm) (e.g., about 100 μΩ.cm) [0121].
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action; and
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 2/20/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/2/26