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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/19/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0359532) in view of Chandrashekar et al (US Publication No. 2022/0349048).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a method of forming a transistor, the method comprising: depositing a liner layer Fig 8, 612 on a substrate Fig 8, 602, the substrate comprising at least one features thereon; and performing a process cycle Fig 5 comprising depositing a metal gap fill material Fig 10, 614 to form a bulk metal film Fig 10; depositing a metal material Fig 9, 613 to from a metal material within the bulk metal film Fig 10, 614.Yang discloses all the limitations but silent on the repeating process cycle. Whereas Chandrashekar discloses repeating the process cycle to form a nanolaminate of metal material layer and the metal gap fill material, the nanolaminate comprising a plurality of metal material nanolaminate layers Fig 4A-4B ¶0053-0055.Yang and Chandrashekar are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yang because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yang and incorporate the teachings of Chandrashekar to further provide an improve manufacturing step that would mitigate stress ¶0004-0005.
Regarding claim 2, Yang discloses wherein liner layer comprises one or more of titanium nitride (Tin), tantalum nitride (TaN), and titanium silicon nitride (TiSiN) ¶0111.
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses wherein the liner layer has a thickness in a range of from about 1 A to about 20 A ¶0112.
Regarding claim 5, Yang discloses, wherein the metal gap fill material comprises one or more of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), and cobalt (Co) ¶0113.
Regarding claim 6, Yang discloses wherein the metal gap fill material comprises molybdenum (Mo) ¶0113.
Regarding claim 9, Yang discloses all the limitations but silent on the thickness. Whereas Chandrashekar discloses wherein the metal material has a thickness in a range of about >0 A to about 15 A ¶0049. Yang and Chandrashekar are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yang because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness used since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 10, Yang discloses wherein depositing the metal gap fill material comprises exposing the substrate to a first metal precursor and a first reactant Fig 5 ¶0096-0101.
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses wherein depositing the metal gap fill material comprises exposing the substrate to a molybdenum precursor and hydrogen (H2) to fill the at least one feature with a bulk molybdenum film Fig 5 ¶ 0101.
Regarding claim 12, Chandrashekar discloses wherein depositing the metal material comprises exposing the substrate to a second metal precursor and a reactant Fig 4B.
. Regarding claim 13, Yang discloses repeating the process cycle to form a metal gap fill material having a thickness greater than or equal to above 90% of a depth of the at least one features Fig 9-10.
Regarding claim 14, Yang discloses annealing the substrate wherein there is substantially no delamination of the metal gap fill material, and the metal gap fill material has substantially no voids ¶0101-0102 Fig 7-8.
Regarding claim 17, Chandrashekar discloses the process cycle comprises depositing the metal gate fill material and the metal material at regular or semiregular interval Fig 4A-4B.
Claims 3, 7-8, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US Publication No. 2022/0359532) and Chandrashekar et al (US Publication No. 2022/0349048) in view of Lee et al (US Patent No. 7,723,755).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses all the limitations but silent on the material used for the liner. Whereas Lee discloses wherein the liner layer comprises titanium silicon nitride (TiSiN) (Column 8, lines 53-65). Yang and Lee are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yang because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material used since 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 use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses wherein the metal material comprises one or more of cobalt (Co), titanium (Ti), tungsten (W), tantalum (Ta), molybdenum (Mo), titanium nitride (TiN), tungsten nitride (WN), tantalum nitride (TaN),molybdenum nitride (MoN), TaN/TiN, or WN/TiN (Column 8, lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the metal material comprises titanium nitride (TiN) (Column 8, lines 45-52).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Yang discloses recessing a portion of the nanolaminate l to form a buried word line Fig 3D-Fig 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: After further search and consideration of Applicant's response, it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach or suggest "performing a process cycle comprising exposing the substrate to: a first molybdenum precursor and a reactant to form a bulk molybdenum film; and a second titanium precursor and a nitrogen- containing reactant to form a titanium nitride (TiN) layer within the bulk molybdenum film; and repeating the process cycle to form a nanolaminate of the titanium nitride (TiN) layer and molybdenum within the bulk molybdenum film, the nanolaminate comprising a plurality of titanium nitride (TiN) nanolaminate layers", as recited in independent claim 18.
Claims 19-20 are also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 pm.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights