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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/23/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgement
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 07/23/2026.
Claims 1, 7-11, and 13-24 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 16, and 17 have been amended, claims 2-6 and 12 remain canceled.
The amendments added into claim 1 is sufficient to overcome outstanding claim objection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts: “Independent claims 1, 16 and 17 each recite the feature of supplying a reducing gas including activated hydrogen to the substrate. This feature is neither disclosed nor suggested in the cited references”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described below, cited reference Zope discloses the feature of supplying a reducing gas including activated hydrogen (e.g., hydrogen radicals) to the substrate during the molybdenum-containing film formation (¶106).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Zope into the method of Thombare and used activated hydrogen as reducing gas.
One would have been motivated to utilize activated hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen as reducing gas in order to achieve a fast reaction (¶90 of Lim et al., US 20110049646 A1).
Hence, claims 1, 7-11, 13-24 are unpatentable over Thombare in view of Zope and Lim and stand rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-11, 13-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thombare et al. (US 20210140043 A1; hereinafter “Thombare”) in view of Zope et al. (US 20190067094 A1; hereinafter “Zope”) and Lim et at. (US 20110049646 A1; hereinafter “Lim”).
In re claim 1, Thombare discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B) comprising:
heating a substrate 102 (¶28) having an aluminum oxide film 104 (¶29) formed a surface thereof to a predetermined temperature (¶37-38; e.g., during deposition of pure metal films from metal oxohalide precursors, the substrate temperature during deposition is between 350° C. and 800° C);
supplying a molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate 102 (¶36);
supplying a reducing gas to the substrate 102 (¶6, 14, 37), and
forming a molybdenum-containing film 108, on the aluminum oxide film 104 by performing (b) and (c) one or more times after performing (a) (¶30, 49).
Thombare discloses wherein the reducing gas includes hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37).
Thombare does not expressly disclose the reducing gas includes activated hydrogen.
In the same field of endeavor, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), wherein a reducing gas used during molybdenum film 412 formation includes activated hydrogen (e.g., hydrogen radicals; ¶106).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Zope into the method of Thombare and used activated hydrogen as reducing gas.
One would have been motivated to utilize activated hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen as reducing gas in order to achieve a fast reaction (¶90 of Lim).
In re claim 7, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas comprises a gas containing molybdenum and oxygen (¶36, 44).
In re claim 8, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas comprises a gas containing molybdenum, oxygen and chlorine (¶36).
In re claim 9, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas comprises a molybdenum dichloride dioxide gas (¶36).
In re claims 10-11, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare discloses heating a substrate between 350° C. and 800° C (¶6), which encompasses a narrower claimed range of 445 °C or more and 470 °C or less (or 450 °C or more and 465 °C or less).
MPEP ¶2145.05-I states:
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare to control a thickness of the subsequently deposited film during the deposition process.
In re claim 13, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 10.
Zope further discloses wherein the molybdenum-containing film in (d) has an average roughness of 0.8 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
In re claim 14, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 10.
Zope further discloses wherein the molybdenum-containing film in (d) has an average roughness of 0.7 nm or less (¶123-124; e.g., the surface roughness is less than 2 Angstroms, i.e., 0.2 nm).
In re claim 15, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 1.
Thombare further discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the substrate processing method of claim 1.
In re claim 16, Thombare discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus (¶51-66), by a computer (figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B), to perform:
heating a substrate 102 (¶28) having an aluminum oxide film 104 (¶29) formed on a surface thereof to a predetermined temperature (¶37-38; e.g., during deposition of pure metal films from metal oxohalide precursors, the substrate temperature during deposition is between 350° C. and 800° C);
supplying a molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate 102 (¶36);
(c) supplying a reducing gas, comprising hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37) to the substrate 102 (¶6, 14, 37), and
(d) forming a molybdenum-containing film 108, on the aluminum oxide film 104 by performing (b) and (c) one or more times after performing (a) (¶30, 49).
Thombare discloses in step c, supplying a reducing gas, comprising hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37).
Thombare does not expressly disclose the reducing gas comprising activated hydrogen.
In the same field of endeavor, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), wherein a reducing gas used during molybdenum film 412 formation comprising activated hydrogen (e.g., hydrogen radicals; ¶106).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Zope into the method of Thombare and used activated hydrogen as reducing gas.
One would have been motivated to utilize activated hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen as reducing gas in order to achieve a fast reaction (¶90 of Lim).
In re claim 17, Thombare discloses a substrate processing apparatus (figs. 1B, 4, 6A-6B) comprising:
a heater capable of heating a substrate 102 having an aluminum oxide film 104 (¶29) formed on a surface thereof (¶66);
a molybdenum-containing gas supplier through which a molybdenum-containing gas is supplied to the substrate 102 (¶36, 51, 61);
a reducing gas supplier through which a reducing gas is supplied to the substrate wherein the reducing gas comprises hydrogen (¶37-39, 51-52); and
a controller 629 (¶53, 61-66) configured to be capable of controlling the heater, the molybdenum-containing gas supplier and the reducing gas supplier to perform:
(a) heating a substrate 102 (¶28) to a predetermined temperature (¶37-38; e.g., during deposition of pure metal films from metal oxyhalide precursors, the substrate temperature during deposition is between 350° C. and 800° C);
supplying a molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate 102 (¶36);
(c) supplying the reducing gas (e.g., H2) to the substrate 102 (¶6, 14, 37), and
(d) forming a molybdenum-containing film 108, on the aluminum oxide film 104 by performing (b) and (c) one or more times after performing (a) (¶30, 49).
Thombare discloses in step c, supplying a reducing gas, comprising hydrogen (H2) gas (¶37).
Thombare does not expressly disclose the reducing gas comprising activated hydrogen.
In the same field of endeavor, Zope discloses a substrate processing method (figs. 3-4), wherein a reducing gas used during molybdenum film 412 formation comprising activated hydrogen (e.g., hydrogen radicals; ¶106).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Zope into the method of Thombare and used activated hydrogen as reducing gas.
One would have been motivated to utilize activated hydrogen instead of molecular hydrogen as reducing gas in order to achieve a fast reaction (¶90 of Lim).
In re claim 18, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 7.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein in (d), the molybdenum-containing film is characterized as having at least 99 atomic % metal (see Table I and ¶45-46). As can be seen from Table I, the methods described herein (as exemplified by the Precursor 3 results) result in improved TiN attack, less Cl in the bulk film, and less oxygen in the bulk film, with the amount of oxygen measured in the film below or near the detection limit of the measurement and comparable to the oxygen-free precursor (¶45).
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare and tune in the process conditions to form the molybdenum-containing film free of oxygen and chlorine to uniformly deposit low resistivity metal films (¶3-14 of Thombare).
In re claim 19, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 10.
wherein the molybdenum-containing gas is a gas containing molybdenum and oxygen, and in (d), the molybdenum- containing film free of oxygen and chlorine is formed.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the molybdenum-containing gas is a gas containing molybdenum and oxygen (e.g., MoO2Cl2; ¶44) and wherein in (d), the molybdenum-containing film is characterized as having at least 99 atomic % metal (see Table I and ¶45-46). As can be seen from Table I, the methods described herein (as exemplified by the Precursor 3 results) result in improved TiN attack, less Cl in the bulk film, and less oxygen in the bulk film, with the amount of oxygen measured in the film below or near the detection limit of the measurement and comparable to the oxygen-free precursor (¶45).
Therefore, it 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 to employ the teachings of Thombare and tune in the process conditions to form the molybdenum-containing film free of oxygen and chlorine to uniformly deposit low resistivity metal films (¶3-14 of Thombare).
In re claims 20-21, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 7 (or claim 10).
Thombare further discloses,
wherein in (b), a layer containing molybdenum, oxygen, and chlorine is formed (based on fig. 6B, first precursor MoO2Cl2 is supplied; ¶49), and
wherein in (c), the oxygen and chlorine in the layer react with the reducing gas to generate reaction by-products, and the reaction by-products are discharged from the substrate (figs. 4, 6B; ¶39-44, 49).
In re claim 22, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 21.
Furthermore, based on Thombare’s precursor (MoO2Cl2) and reducing gas (H2) and the ratio of H2 to MoO2Cl2, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reaction by-products include H2O, HCl, and Cl2 (Table I, ¶39-44).
In re claim 23, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 10.
Thombare further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein in (c), a pressure in a space where the substrate exists is within a range from 1 to 3,990 Pa (for example, 1 to 100 torr, that is, 133.322 Pa to 133 Pa, which overlaps the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Therefore, it 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 to modify the teachings of Thombare and arrive at the claimed range to control to reduce the reducing agent: precursor ratio (¶38 of Thombare).
In re claim 24, Thombare, as modified by Zope and Lim, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein in (d), the molybdenum-containing film having a thickness of 0.5 nm to 20.0 nm is formed on the substrate (¶131 of Zope; for example, the surface roughness is 10% of the total thickness of the molybdenum-containing film, when surface roughness is 2 angstroms, the total thickness of the molybdenum-containing film is 20 angstroms, i.e., 2 nm).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights