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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0061663A1) (of record) in view of Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record) and Kang (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0106574).
Regarding claim 1, Chandrashekar teaches a method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of gap filling [see fig. 3, 0051], the method (200) comprising:
exposing a substrate (303) fig. 3 [0051] having a substrate surface (top of 303) to a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0043] process (200) [0040, 0080] comprising a pulsed high-frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma [0069, 0077, 0080] having a plurality of HFRF pulses [0077, 0080] to deposit a conformal liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070], the substrate surface (top of 303) having a plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] formed therein, each of the plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] extending a distance (“depth”) [0033, 0104] into the substrate (303) from the substrate surface (top of 303) and having a bottom and at least one sidewall, the conformal liner (313, 325) comprising a metal carbide (313, 325 could be composed of titanium carbide WC [0041, 0070]).
However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the chemical vapor deposition process (200) is a plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) process (only CVD mentioned [0043]), and
the conformal liner having a conformality in a range of 40% to 70% (degree of conformality not specified), and
exposing the substrate (303) having the conformal liner (313, 325) thereon to the pulsed high- frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma having a second plurality of HFRF pulses to deposit a seam-free gap fill film on the conformal liner (313, 325) and fill the plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] (seam/air gap is present).
Sims teaches a method [see title] wherein the chemical vapor deposition process is a plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) process [0064, 0067], and
the conformal liner (deposited by PECVD) [0064] having a conformality in a range of 40% to 70% (at least about 50%) [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CVD-formed conformal liner of Chandrashekar to be formed by plasma enhanced CVD in order to yield a liner having relatively-high, 50% + conformality [0064, 0067] and effective barrier abilities at low thicknesses [0067], as taught by Sims.
However, Chandrashekar in view of Sims does not explicitly disclose exposing the substrate (303) having the conformal liner (313, 325) thereon to the pulsed high- frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma having a second plurality of HFRF pulses to deposit a seam-free gap fill film on the conformal liner (313, 325) and fill the plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] (seam/air gap is present).
Kang teaches a method [see fig. 1, fig. 8, 0046, 0119] comprising exposing the substrate (“substrate”) annotated fig. 8 below [0120] having the conformal liner (804) fig. 8 [0119] thereon to the pulsed high- frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma [0119] having a second plurality of HFRF pulses (high-frequency RF plasma [0119] may be pulsed [0049] over repeated deposition cycles [0048]) to deposit a seam-free gap fill film (fill-material over 804) annotated fig. 8 below [0119] on the conformal liner (804) and fill the plurality of features (see fig. 9 [0120] for plurality of filled features) (gap completely filled [0119]; seam/void not shown) [0120] (see annotated fig. 8 of Kang below).
[AltContent: textbox (Gap-Fill material )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Conformal liner )][AltContent: textbox (Substrate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
1132
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 8 of Kang
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the features of Chandrashekar in view of Sims to be completely gap-filled so as to eliminate the presence of seams in the features [0119-0120] using the cyclic HFRF deposition process [0048-0049, 0119] of Kang in order to compacity device dimensions [0002] and improve aspect-ratio properties [0004, 0119-0122] of the features, as taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 3, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein each of the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] independently has a pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 8 kHz (0.01kHz-100kHz [0077]).
While Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose “wherein each of the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] independently has a pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 8 kHz”, [0077] of Chandrashekar teaches RF pulsing “between about 10 Hz and about 100 kHz” [0077 Chandrashekar]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized RF pulse frequency range for the gapfill process of Chandrashekar to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding claim 4, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein each of the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] are independently generated at a power in a range of from 500 W to 1500 W (50-3000W [0077]).
While Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose “wherein each of the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] are independently generated at a power in a range of from 500 W to 1500 W”, [0077] of Chandrashekar teaches RF pulsing “between about 50 W and about 3000 W” [0077 Chandrashekar]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized RF pulse frequency range for the gapfill process of Chandrashekar to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Regarding claim 5, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077, 0080] have a duty cycle up to and including 99% (1-99% [0077]).
Regarding claim 6, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein the each HFRF pulse has a pulse width in a range of 1 msec to 100 microsec (could be <, >, or = to about 100 microseconds depending on selected frequency [0069]).
Regarding claim 10, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein the conformal liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070] has a thickness [0033-0034], the thickness has a variation in the range of 25% to 75% relative to an average thickness (could be about 50%) [0033] of the conformal liner (comprising 313).
Regarding claim 11, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein the substrate (303) fig. 3 [0051] is maintained at a liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070] temperature in the range of 300 °C to 500 °C (200-500C, or about 300C) [0049].
Regarding claim 12, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar in view of Sims also teaches wherein the PECVD process (200) fig. 2 [0040] is performed at a pressure in a range of from 1 Torr to 10 Torr (could be about 0.5-3 Torr or 5 Torr [0090, 0096]).
Regarding claim 14, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein the metal carbide film (comprising 313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0070] comprises tungsten carbide (313, 325 could be composed of titanium carbide WC [0041, 0070]).
Regarding claim 15, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 14. Chandrashekar in view of Sims also teaches wherein PECVD process (200) fig. 2 [0040, 0044, 0047] comprises a metal precursor comprising tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) [0044, 0047].
Regarding claim 16, Chandrashekar teaches a method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of using HFRF [0069, 0077, 0080] to form a conformal liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070], the method (200) comprising:
forming a conformal metal carbide liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070] (313, 325 could be composed of titanium carbide WC [0041, 0070] on sidewalls of a plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] formed in a substrate surface (top of 303) fig. 3 [0051], each feature (gap in 303) extending a distance (“depth”) [0033, 0104] into a substrate from the substrate surface (top of 303) and having at least one sidewall, forming the conformal metal carbide liner (313, 325) comprising exposing the substrate (303) to a chemical vapor deposition [0043] process with a plurality of liner HFRF pulses [0069, 0077, 0080], the conformal metal carbide liner (313, 325) [0041, 0070] having a conformality (unspecified).
However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the chemical vapor deposition process (200) is a plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) process (only CVD mentioned [0043]), and
the conformality of the liner in a range of 40% to 70% (degree of conformality not specified); and
exposing the substrate (303) having the conformal liner (313, 325) thereon to the pulsed high- frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma having a second plurality of HFRF pulses to deposit a seam-free gap fill film on the conformal liner (313, 325) and fill the plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] (seam/air gap is present).
Sims teaches a method [see title] wherein the chemical vapor deposition process is a plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) process [0064, 0067], and
the conformality of the liner (deposited by PECVD) [0064] in a range of 40% to 70% (at least about 50%) [0064 Sims].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CVD-formed metal-carbide liner of Chandreshekar to be formed by plasma enhanced CVD in order to yield a liner having relatively-high, 50% + conformality [0064, 0067] and effective barrier abilities at low thicknesses [0067], as taught by Sims.
However, Chandrashekar in view of Sims does not explicitly disclose exposing the substrate (303) having the conformal liner (313, 325) thereon to the pulsed high- frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma having a second plurality of HFRF pulses to deposit a seam-free gap fill film on the conformal liner (313, 325) and fill the plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] (seam/air gap is present).
Kang teaches a method [see fig. 1, fig. 8, 0046, 0119] comprising exposing the substrate (“substrate”) annotated fig. 8 below [0120] having the conformal liner (804) fig. 8 [0119] thereon to the pulsed high- frequency radio-frequency (HFRF) plasma [0119] having a second plurality of HFRF pulses (high-frequency RF plasma [0119] may be pulsed [0049] over repeated deposition cycles [0048]) to deposit a seam-free gap fill film (fill-material over 804) annotated fig. 8 below [0119] on the conformal liner (804) and fill the plurality of features (see fig. 9 [0120] for plurality of filled features) (gap completely filled [0119]; seam/void not shown) [0120] (see annotated fig. 8 of Kang below).
[AltContent: textbox (Gap-Fill material )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Conformal liner )][AltContent: textbox (Substrate)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
1132
846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 8 of Kang
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the features of Chandrashekar in view of Sims to be completely gap-filled so as to eliminate the presence of seams in the features [0119-0120] using the cyclic HFRF deposition process [0048-0049, 0119] of Kang in order to compacity device dimensions [0002] and improve aspect-ratio properties [0004, 0119-0122] of the features, as taught by Kang.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (of record) in view of Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record) modified by Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record) and Kang (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0106574), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Aleptekin (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0099763A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 2, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the conformal liner (comprising 313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051] has a tensile stress greater than or equal to 1.5 GPa (tensile stress not disclosed).
Aleptekin teaches a method [see title, 0036-0037] wherein the conformal liner (410) fig. 5 [0037] has a tensile stress greater than or equal to 1.5 GPa (2-4GPa) [0037].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chandrashekar such that the liner is provided with a tensile stress greater than 2 Gigapascals in order to improve the matching of the lattice of the liner to surrounding materials [0036-0037] so as to improve certain conduction properties [0003], as taught by Aleptekin.
Claims 7, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0061663A1) (of record) modified by Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record) and Kang (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0106574), as applied in claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Roy (U.S. PG Pub No US2019/0080915A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. However, Chandrashekar in view of Sims does not explicitly disclose wherein the PECVD process (200) [0043, 0080] comprises flowing a metal precursor onto the substrate surface at a dose in a range of from 20 sccm to 200 sccm (only CVD mentioned [0043]).
Roy teaches a method [0023, 0028-0029] wherein the deposition process (of 104) fig. 1A [0028] (WC layer 104 formed by WF6 precursor) [0030, 0027] comprises a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process [0028], the PECVD [0028] process comprises flowing a metal precursor (WF6[0027-0028] onto the substrate surface (top of 102) fig. 1A [0027] at a dose in a range of from 20 sccm to 200 sccm (100-2000sccm, which overlaps 20-200sccm) [0028].
While Roy does not explicitly disclose “flowing a metal precursor onto the substrate surface at a dose in a range of from 20 sccm to 200 sccm”, [0028] of Roy teaches flowing the metal-comprising precursor “about 100 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) and about 2,000 sccm” [0028 Roy]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized PECVD metal-comprising precursor flow rate of Roy to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chandrashekar in view of Sims such that the CVD process used to form the tungsten carbide layer [0027-0030] is a plasma-enhanced CVD process [0027-0028] in order to reduce resistivity and surface roughness [0005, 0022, 0030, 0036-0038] of the deposited metal-carbide films, as taught by Roy.
Regarding claim 17, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 16. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein forming the metal carbide liner (313, 325 composed of titanium carbide WC [0041, 0070]) comprises exposing the substrate (303) fig. 3 [0040] to a metal precursor comprising tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) [0044, 0047], a temperature in the range of 300 °C to 500 °C (200-500C, or about 300C) [0049], the plurality of liner HFRF pulses having a gapfill pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 8 kHz (0.01kHz-100kHz [0077]), a gapfill duty cycle up to an including 99% (1-99% [0077]) at a gapfill power in the range of 500 W to 1500 W (50-3000W [0077]).
While Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose “wherein each of the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] independently has a pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 8 kHz”, [0077] of Chandrashekar teaches RF pulsing “between about 10 Hz and about 100 kHz” [0077 Chandrashekar]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized RF pulse frequency range for the gapfill process of Chandrashekar to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
While Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose “wherein each of the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] are independently generated at a power in a range of from 500 W to 1500 W”, [0077] of Chandrashekar teaches RF pulsing “between about 50 W and about 3000 W” [0077 Chandrashekar]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized RF pulse frequency range for the gapfill process of Chandrashekar to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose exposing the substrate (303) fig. 3 [0040] to a metal precursor comprising tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) [0044, 0047] at a flow rate in the range of 20 sccm to 200 sccm
Roy teaches a method [0023, 0028-0029] comprising exposing the substrate (top of 102) fig. 1A [0027] to a metal precursor (WF6) [0027-0028] comprising tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) [0044, 0047] at a flow rate in the range of 20 sccm to 200 sccm (100-2000sccm, which overlaps 20-200sccm) [0028] (to form WC layer 104 [0030, 0027]).
While Roy does not explicitly disclose using tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) “at a flow rate in the range of 20 sccm to 200 sccm”, [0028] of Roy teaches flowing the WF6 precursor [0027] “about 100 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm) and about 2,000 sccm” [0028 Roy]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized WF6 precursor flow rate in the PECVD process [0027-0028] of Roy to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chandrashekar such that the CVD process used to form the tungsten carbide layer [0027-0030] is a plasma-enhanced CVD process [0027-0028] which supplies the WF6 precursor at the claimed flow rate [0027-0028] in order to reduce resistivity and surface roughness [0005, 0022, 0030, 0036-0038] of the deposited metal-carbide films, as taught by Roy.
Regarding claim 19, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 18. Chandrashekar also teaches wherein the gapfill deposition process (200) fig. 2 [0040] comprising repeatedly depositing (203) fig. 2 [0051] a non-conformal film (325 material) fig. 3 [0041] (“non-conformal to an extent” [0054]) in the feature (gap in 303) fig. 3 [0040, 0051] and etching (205) fig. 2 [0054] a portion of the non-conformal film (WC material) [0043, 0051], and etching (in 205 process) [0054] the non-conformal film (WC material) comprises exposing the non-conformal film (325) to an etch plasma comprising a plurality of etch HFRF pulses [0077, 0080] with an etch pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 10 kHz (0.01kHz-100kHz [0077]) at an etch radio frequency in a range of from 5 MHz to 15 MHz (could be 13.56 MHz) [0128] and an etch duty cycle in a range of from 1% to 20% (1-99% [0077]) at an etch power in a range of from 100 W to 300 W (50-3000W [0077]) with the each of the etch HFRF pulses having an etch pulse width in a range of from 1 msec to 100 microsec (could be <, >, or = to about 100 microseconds depending on selected frequency [0069]).
While Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] have “a pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 10 kHz”, [0077] of Chandrashekar teaches RF pulsing “between about 10 Hz and about 100 kHz” [0077 Chandrashekar]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized RF pulse frequency range for the etching portion of the gapfill process of Chandrashekar to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
While Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of HFRF pulses [0077] are “HFRF pulses are generated at a power in a range of from 100 W to 300 W”, [0077] of Chandrashekar teaches RF pulsing “between about 50 W and about 3000 W” [0077 Chandrashekar]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized RF pulse frequency range for the etching portion of the gapfill process of Chandrashekar to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose depositing (203 process) the non-conformal film comprises a plurality of gapfill HFRF pulses having a gapfill pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 10 kHz at a gapfill radio frequency in a range of from 5 MHz to 15 MHz and a gapfill duty cycle in a range of from 1% to 20% at a gapfill power in the range of 50 W to 500 W with the each of gapfill HFRF pulses having a gapfill pulse width in a range of from 100 psec to 1 microsec (only CVD mentioned for WC depositon) [0041-0043].
Roy teaches a method [0023, 0028-0029] wherein depositing the non-conformal film (104) fig. 1A [0028] (WC layer 104 formed by WF6 precursor) [0030, 0027] comprises a plurality of gapfill HFRF pulses [0028] at a gapfill power in the range of 50 W to 500 W (100-2000 Watts [0028]).
Further, Chandrashekar in view of Roy (with reference to Chandrashekar) teaches the RF plasma being formed:
at a pulse frequency in a range of from 1 kHz to 10 kHz (0.01kHz-100kHz [0077]) at a radio frequency in a range of from 5 MHz to 15 MHz (could be 13.56 MHz) [0128] and a duty cycle in a range of from 1% to 20% (1-99% [0077]), with the each of the HFRF pulses having an pulse width in a range of from 1 msec to 100 microsec (could be <, >, or = to about 100 microseconds depending on selected frequency [0069] (when the RF plasma parameters disclosed by Chandrashekar are applied to the PECVD process of Roy).
While Roy does not explicitly disclose a plurality of gapfill HFRF pulses formed at a “power in the range of 50 W to 500 W”, [0028] of Roy teaches a plasma power of 100-2000 Watts [0028 Roy]. These ranges overlap. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the art-recognized PECVD process plasma power [0027-0028] of Roy to arrive at the claimed range - in the absence of any evidence of criticality for the claimed range (See MPEP 2144.05, I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chandrashekar such that the CVD process used to form the tungsten carbide layer [0027-0030] is a plasma-enhanced CVD process [0027-0028] which supplies the WF6 precursor under the claimed plasma parameters [0027-0028] in order to reduce resistivity and surface roughness [0005, 0022, 0030, 0036-0038] of the deposited metal-carbide films, as taught by Roy.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0061663A1) (of record) modified by Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record) and Kang (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0106574), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Manna (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0286674A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 1. However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose further comprising depositing a second material (air in gap 363) fig. 3 [0104] in the plurality of features (303) to cover the conformal liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070].
Manna teaches a method (100) fig. 1 [see title, 0016] further comprising depositing a second material (222) fig. 2C [0022] in the plurality of feature (212s) fig. 2B [0017] to cover the conformal liner (220) fig. 2C [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chandrashekar such that silicon material is deposited over the liner material [0021-0022] in order to improve the quality of the gapfill [0030, 0037] by eliminating seams/voids [0030, 0037] that detrimentally effect device performance [0004], as taught by Manna.
Regarding claim 9, Chandrashekar teaches the method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of claim 8. However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the second material (air in gap 363) fig. 3 [0104] comprises amorphous silicon (air gap instead).
Manna teaches a method (100) fig. 1 [see title, 0016] wherein the second material (222) fig. 2C [0022] (filling the feature (212s) fig. 2B [0017]) is amorphous silicon [0021-0022].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chandrashekar such that silicon material is deposited over the liner material [0021-0022] in order to improve the quality of the gapfill [0030, 0037] by eliminating seams/voids [0030, 0037] that detrimentally effect device performance [0004], as taught by Manna.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0061663A1) (of record) in view of Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record).
Regarding claim 20, Chandrashekar teaches a method (200) fig. 2 [0040] of gap filling [see fig. 3, 0051], the method (200) comprising method of forming a liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070] in a semiconductor device, the method (200) comprising:
forming a conformal metal carbide liner (313, 325) fig. 3 [0041, 0051, 0070] (313, 325 could be composed of titanium carbide WC [0041, 0070] on sidewalls of a plurality of features (gaps in 303) [0040] formed in a substrate surface (top of 303) fig. 3 [0051], each feature (gap in 303) extending a distance (“depth”) [0033, 0104] into a substrate (303) from the substrate surface (top of 303) and having at least one sidewall, forming the conformal metal carbide liner (313, 325) comprising exposing the substrate (303) to a chemical vapor deposition process [0043] using one or more of a tungsten-containing precursor (WF6) [0044, 0047] and a plurality of liner HFRF pulses [0069, 0077, 0080] to form the conformal metal carbide liner (313, 325) with a tensile stress (must have some non-zero tensile stress).
However, Chandrashekar does not explicitly disclose wherein the chemical vapor deposition process [0043] is a plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) process (only CVD mentioned [0043]), and
the conformal liner having a conformality in a range of 40% to 70% (degree of conformality not specified).
Sims teaches a method [see title] wherein the chemical vapor deposition process is a plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) process [0064, 0067], and
the conformal liner (deposited by PECVD) [0064] having a conformality in a range of 40% to 70% (at least about 50%) [0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the CVD-formed conformal liner of Chandreshekar to be formed by plasma enhanced CVD in order to yield a liner having relatively-high, 50% + conformality [0064, 0067] and effective barrier abilities at low thicknesses [0067], as taught by Sims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-6, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12, 14-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kang (U.S. PG Pub No US2014/0106574) under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have not specifically pointed out the supposed deficiencies with respect the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record of claim 20 using over Chandrashekar (U.S. PG Pub No US2018/0061663A1) (of record) in view of Sims (U.S. PG Pub No US2020/0066987A1) (of record), and claim 20 has not been amended. Therefore, the rejection of claim 20 from the Final-Rejection mailed 11/28/2025 has been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Newly-added Tang (U.S. PG Pub No US2016/0314964A1) teaches another example of a plurality of features being filled by an HFRF deposition process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 02/28/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892