DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s Response
Acknowledged is the applicant’s request for reconsideration filed on July 1, 2026. Claims 1, 7-8, and 11-14 are amended; claims 15-20 are canceled.
The applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose the new material requiring a treatment plasma formed from “both a halogen-free gas and a halogen-containing gas.” Cen, the primary reference, merely discloses a halogen-free treatment plasma and, although Yang contemplates halogen and halogen-free source gases, the reference does not suggest “forming the treatment plasma in the first radical generator” from both species (p. 6).
In response, the examiner accepts Applicant’s characterization of Cen but traverses the characterization of Yang. As shown by the latter’s Figure 12, the reagents composing the treatment gas are fed to the same remote plasma generator (1206), thereby yielding the “activated treatment gas.” That is, in the language of claim 1, Yang’s “treatment plasma is formed from both a halogen-free gas and a halogen-containing gas.” (As elaborated in the rejection below, Yang discloses a treatment gas comprising plural non-inert components, including molecular nitrogen and nitrogen trifluoride [0049].)
Lastly, although Yang provides only a single radical generator, this generator is directed to the formation of an activated gas for treating a substrate. It may be concluded that Yang’s generator is analogous to Cen’s first radical generator (206A), i.e., the generator directed to substrate treatment. (Cen’s second radical generator (206B) is directed to chamber cleaning.) As such, one of ordinary skill would understand the aforementioned deliverances of Yang, directed to the various permutations of gas species supplied to the single radical generator, as being directly applicable to the strategies of gas provision relating to Cen’s first radical generator.
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 of this title, 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen et al., WO 2022/232955, whereby related application, US 2024/0209500, is being relied upon below for purposes of notation, in view of Yang et al., US 2019/0326168.
Claims 1, 5, 11: Cen discloses a substrate processing system, comprising:
A processing chamber (202), including (Fig. 2A):
A chamber lid assembly (210) [0038];
One or more chamber sidewalls (212);
A chamber base (214);
A gas delivery system (204) fluidly coupled to the processing chamber, including [0051]:
A first radical generator (206A);
A second radical generator (206B);
A non-transitory computer readable medium (208) having instructions stored thereon for executing a method by a processor [0061], said method comprising:
Receiving a substrate into the processing volume (301) (Fig. 3);
Forming a first tungsten nucleation layer (404) on the substrate ([0068]; Fig. 4A);
Exposing the substrate to an activated treatment gas (406) comprising a halogen-free effluent of a plasma formed in the first radical generator ([0071]; Fig. 4B);
Exposing the substrate to a first tungsten-containing precursor and a first reducing agent to deposit a tungsten gapfill material (408) ([0081]; Fig. 4C);
Transferring the substrate out of the processing volume (307) [0095].
Regarding the activated treatment gas, Cen does not disclose the provision of a “halogen-containing gas” in addition to the halogen-free gas. In supplementation, Yang describes an inhibition process for preventing nucleation of a priorly deposited tungsten layer, whereby a remote radical generator produces nitrogen radicals [0002, 0004, 0006]. As with Cen, Yang uses molecular nitrogen as a source gas for the inhibition process, but the reference also contemplates alternative treatment gases comprising multiple non-inert components [0040]. Paragraph [0049] attests that the treatment gas may be “nitrogen-containing…with one or more additional reactive species present in the plasma. For example…passivation of a tungsten surface by exposure to nitrogen trifluoride.” Collectively, the examiner understands these passages to suggest a treatment gas comprising both a halogen-free gas, molecular nitrogen, and a halogen-containing gas, nitrogen trifluoride, thereby satisfying the new material of claims 1 and 11. In view of this endorsement, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to supplement Cen’s treatment gas with a halogen-containing gas, like nitrogen trifluoride, since it is obvious to try an identified, predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Cen exposes the chamber surface to an activating cleaning gas comprising an effluent of a plasma formed in the second radical generator, after which the aforementioned method steps may be repeated [0096-98, 0115].
Claim 3: Cen’s halogen-free gas is diatomic nitrogen [0071].
Claim 4: The flow rate of Cen’s halogen-free gas may be “between about 1 sccm and about 50 sccm” [0074].
Claim 6: This limitation is directed to the intended use of the apparatus, whereby the prior art must merely demonstrate the structural capacity to reproduce the claimed function – it has been held that a recitation drawn to the intended manner of employing a claimed apparatus does not differentiate said apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). The operator can regulate the flow rate by controlling the valve opening.
Claims 7-8, 12-13: Cen’s treatment plasma may contain a carrier gas such as argon [0071]. Yang discloses a halogen-free treatment gas constituted by molecular hydrogen [0002].
Claim 9: This limitation pertains to the configuration of the substrate itself, which is not patentable material since this is the article worked upon by the apparatus – expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969)).
Claim 10: Arbitrarily, the gases supplied during a first cycle may be “first” gases and the gases supplied during the second cycle may be “second” gases.
Claim 14: As shown by Figure 5, Cen discloses an embodiment where a conformal tungsten layer (503) is formed on the first tungsten nucleation layer (502) before the plasma treatment (505). Further, a second tungsten nucleation layer (504) is formed on the conformal tungsten layer (503) [0110].
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record as being pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure, yet is not formally relied upon: Huang et al., US 2023/0002894. Huang discloses a substrate processing system comprising a processing chamber (102), a gas delivery system (104) including first and second radical generators (106A, 106B), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (108) ([0026, 0041, 0045]; Fig. 1A).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 NATHAN K FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1880. The examiner can normally be reached on 11-7:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, can be reached at 571 272 1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 273 8300.
/N. K. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 1716
/PARVIZ HASSANZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights