DETAILED ACTION
Election
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, Species IA, and Species 1B in the reply filed on February 17, 2026, is acknowledged. After further review of Applicant’s specification, the examiner now understands the species restrictions to have been in error, and they have been retracted. Claims 15-20, however, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The traversal is on the grounds that examining all groups would not constitute a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the various groupings recite mutually exclusive content that, by definition, must be searched independently. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 [0002, 0004]. This process may avail a remote radical generator to yield nitrogen radicals [0006]. As with Cen, Yang contemplates using molecular nitrogen as a source gas for the inhibition process, but the reference also identifies nitrogen trifluoride as a suitable source [0040, 0049]. In view of this endorsement, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide a halogen-containing source gas, like nitrogen trifluoride, to the first radical generator 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].
Claims 3, 12: 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, 13: Cen’s treatment plasma may contain a carrier gas such as argon [0071].
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).
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
/KARLA A MOORE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights