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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are pending
Claim 14 has been cancelled
Claims 1-12 have been withdrawn
Claims 1 and 13 has been amended
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (US 20160372351).
Regarding Claim 13:
Singh teaches a cluster processing system (processing platform system 100), comprising: a transfer chamber (transfer chamber 104); a first deposition chamber coupled to the transfer chamber and configured to form an organic film, wherein the first deposition chamber is an atomic layer deposition chamber (deposition chamber 200 may be suitable for use as processing chamber 112; the chamber 200 may be an ALD chamber); having a process gas source and a purge gas source (chamber 200 may have multiple process gas sources such as gas sources 220a-220d; the gas sources may include inert gases, non-reactive gases, and reactive gases if necessary); an annealing chamber coupled to the transfer chamber (chamber 110 may be an annealing chamber); a second deposition chamber (chamber 114 may be a CVD chamber) coupled to the transfer chamber; a pre-cleaning chamber (the substrates may be sequentially degassed and cleaned in the degas chamber 134 and in an optional pre-clean chamber) coupled to the transfer chamber [Fig. 1, 2 & 0023-0024, 0033, 0036]; a controller (controller 130) of the cluster processing system configured to cause the cluster processing system to: introducing a substrate into the first deposition chamber; forming an organic film from a two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide and a carbon containing process gas from a process gas source, the organic film formed on a substrate in a first processing chamber disposed in a cluster processing system (the processing chamber 112 may deposit a chalcogenide film over the first surface of the substrate. The metal chalcogenide material may comprise molybdenum hexacarbonyl) [Fig. 1-3 & 0032, 0035, 0049]; moving the substrate to the annealing chamber; thermally treating the organic film to form a treated metal layer in the annealing chamber, in response to thermally treating the organic film, converting the organic film into an inorganic film (the substrate may be exposed to at least one annealing process prior to, during, and/or subsequently to any of the deposition processes to form a metal silicide layer. Additional annealing chambers such as Rapid Thermal Annealing (RTA) and/or diffusionless annealing chambers may also be disposed on the first transfer chamber 102 of the processing platform system 100. The additional chambers may provide post deposition annealing processes prior to substrate removal from the processing platform 100, transfer to the second transfer chamber 104, or transfer from the second transfer chamber 104 to the first transfer chamber 102.) [Fig. 1-3 & 0020, 0025, 0029]; moving the substrate to the second deposition chamber; and form a capping layer on the treated metal layer in the second deposition chamber disposed in the cluster processing system (at operation 330, a third process may be performed within a third processing chamber, such as processing chamber 114. The third process may deposit a dielectric material layer over the chalcogenide film layer. The third processing chamber may be a dielectric deposition chamber configured to deposit the dielectric material over the chalcogenide film) [Fig. 1-3 & 0050].
It is noted that although Singh does not explicitly disclose “in response to thermally treating the organic film, converting the organic film into an inorganic film,” Singh does disclose annealing a metal chalcogenide material that may comprise of molybdenum hexacarbonyl, molybdenum (V) chloride, ammonium tetrathiomolybdate, sulfur, selenium, hydrogen sulfide, a thioether material, phosphine, ammonia, chlorine, dichloromethane, and/or mixtures and combinations thereof at about 600 degrees Celsius [0020, 0032, 0035, 0055]. The applicant’s disclosure also discloses annealing a metal dichalcogenide layer at about 600 degrees Celsius, wherein the dichalcogenide is formed from molybdenum (V) chloride (or molybdenum hexacarbonyl) and hydrogen sulfide [IA - 0093]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the organic film of Singh would also convert to an inorganic film. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 15:
Singh teaches wherein the two- dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide is at least one of MoS2, WS2, MoSe2 and WSe2 (the metal chalcogenide material may comprise molybdenum hexacarbonyl, molybdenum (V) chloride, ammonium tetrathiomolybdate, sulfur, selenium, hydrogen sulfide, a thioether material, phosphine, ammonia, chlorine, dichloromethane, and/or mixtures and combinations thereof; in one embodiment, a bulk molybdenum sulfide layer is deposited on the substrate material) [Fig 1-3 & 0020, 0046].
It is noted that instant application utilizes a precursor mixture of molybdenum (V) chloride (or molybdenum hexacarbonyl) and hydrogen sulfide to form the two-dimensional metal dichalcogenide layer [IA – 0092-0093]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that the deposition of Singh would also result in a two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide layer that comprises the same materials as claimed. The court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding Claim 16:
Singh teaches wherein the second deposition chamber is a chemical vapor deposition chamber (chamber 114 may be a CVD chamber) configured to deposit the capping layer, and wherein the chemical vapor deposition chamber is configured to deposit at least one of SiN, SiO2, SiON, SiC, SiOC, HfO2, ZrO2 and A12O3 (At operation 330, a third process may be performed within a third processing chamber, such as processing chamber 114. The third process may deposit a dielectric material layer over the chalcogenide film layer. The third processing chamber may be a dielectric deposition chamber configured to deposit the dielectric material over the chalcogenide film. In one embodiment, the dielectric material may be a silicon dioxide) [Fig. 1-3 & 0024, 0050].
Furthermore, although disclosed by the cited prior art, the limitations “configured to deposit the capping layer, and wherein the chemical vapor deposition chamber is configured to deposit at least one of SiN, SiO2, SiON, SiC, SiOC, HfO2, ZrO2 and A1203,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 17:
Singh teaches wherein the annealing chamber is operable to thermally treat the organic film at a substrate temperature of between about 600 degrees Celsius and about 1500 degree Celsius in the annealing chamber (the substrate temperature may range from about room temperature to approximately about 600 degrees Celsius. Such temperatures may assist deposition, annealing, and purging cycles) [Fig. 1-3 & 0055].
Furthermore, although disclosed by the cited prior art, the limitations “wherein the annealing chamber is configured to thermally treat the organic film at a substrate temperature of between about 600 degrees Celsius and about 1500 degree Celsius,” are merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding Claim 18:
Singh teaches wherein the first process gas source of the first processing chamber (processing chamber 112; the deposition chamber 200 may be chamber 112) is coupled to a supply of a metal containing precursor and a reacting gas (Etchant materials, for example NF.sub.3, may be delivered from an etchant supply 232 to the interior volume 210 of the deposition chamber 200 via an etchant supply line 240. Furthermore, precursor materials may be delivered from a precursor supply 234 to the interior volume 210 of the deposition chamber 200 via a precursor supply line 242) [Fig. 2 & 0033, 0039], wherein the metal containing precursor is selected from a group consisting of Mo(NMe2)4, MoCI5, MoF6, tetramethylheptane-3,5-dionato (Mo(thd)3), Mo(CO)6, WF6 and W2(NMe2)6, wherein reacting gas is selected from a group consisting of 1,2- ethanedithiol, dimethyldisulfide, diethyldisulfide and diethylsulfide, and wherein the deposition gas mixture includes Mo(CO)6 and H2S or diethylsulfide (the deposition chamber 200 comprises a CVD chamber capable of depositing, for example, nickel, titanium, gold, selenium, molybdenum hexacarbonyl, molybdenum (V) chloride, ammonium tetrathiomolybdate, sulfur, selenium, hydrogen sulfide, a thioether material, phosphine, ammonia, chlorine, dichloromethane, and/or mixtures and combinations thereof, on the substrate 216) [Fig. 1-3 & 0035].
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 is merely intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). It is noted that Singh discloses that the substrate may be exposed to at least one annealing process prior to, during, and/or subsequently to any of the deposition processes to form a metal silicide layer [Fig. 1-3 & 0020, 0029]. As such, the system of Singh would be capable of crystallizing a dichalcogenide to a crystalline state. It is also noted that the instant application discloses crystallization may be achieved through thermal annealing [IA - 0098].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 20160372351), as applied to claims 13, 15, and 16-19 above, and further in view of Balish et al. (US 6329297) and Fairbairn et al. (US 6152070).
The limitations of claims 13,15, and 16-19 have been set forth above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the pre-cleaning chamber comprises a remote plasma source.
Balish teaches wherein the pre-cleaning chamber comprises a remote plasma source (remote plasma generator 27) [Fig. 1A & Col. 4 lines 40-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pre-cleaning chamber of Singh to utilize a remote plasma generator, as in Balish, since an RPS provides a dry clean capability to a deposition system that does not have an in situ plasma system. Furthermore, a remote plasma system might be more efficient at converting cleaning plasma precursor gases or vapors into a plasma, and forming the plasma outside the chamber protects the interior of the chamber from potentially undesirable by-products of the plasma formation process, such as plasma heating and sputtering effects [Balish - Col. 4 lines Col. 1 lines 46-50].
Modified Singh does not specifically disclose wherein the pre-cleaning chamber comprises a remote plasma source coupled to a hydrogen containing gas mixture.
Fairbairn teaches wherein the pre-cleaning chamber comprises a remote plasma source coupled to a hydrogen containing gas mixture (the gas can be any appropriate nonreactive gas that is compatible with the particular cleaning process with which it is being used. For example, the minor carrier gas may be argon, nitrogen, helium, hydrogen, or oxygen, etc. In addition to aiding in the transport of activated species to the deposition chamber, the carrier gas may also assist in the cleaning process or help initiate and/or stabilize the plasma in the deposition chamber) [Fig. 19 & Col. 18 lines 52-64].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the remote plasma chamber of Modified Singh to be connected to a hydrogen-containing gas source, as in Fairbairn, to aid in the transport of activated species and to help initiate and/or stabilize plasma [Xia - Col. 18 lines 52-64].
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13 and 15-20 under 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of references does not specifically disclose “a controller of the cluster processing system configured to cause the cluster processing system to: introducing a substrate into the first deposition chamber; forming an organic film from a two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide and a carbon containing process gas from a process gas source, wherein the organic film is formed on a substrate in a first processing chamber disposed in a cluster processing system; moving the substrate to the annealing chamber; thermally treating the organic film to form a treated metal layer in the annealing chamber, in response to thermally treating the organic film, converting the organic film into an inorganic film; moving the substrate to the second deposition chamber; and form a capping layer on the treated metal layer in the second deposition chamber disposed in the cluster processing system,” because Singh et al. (US 20160372351) does not explicitly disclose a method for converting an organic film to an inorganic film.
Firstly, the examiner would like to note that the applicant has not provided enough of a proper description in the specification for the limitation “converting the organic film into an inorganic film; moving the substrate to the second deposition chamber.” There is no specific mention of the conversion of an organic to an inorganic film in the specification. Rather, the examiner believes paragraph [0095] to refer to this conversion, specifically “the thermal annealing process may also be performed to modify the composition of the two-dimensional metal dichalcogenide layer 706 by removing impurities or adding or removing chalcogenide to form the desired MX.sub.2 stoichiometry.” This description along with the limitations in the claims makes it unclear as to whether or not the conversion happens as a result of the thermal annealing, or if there is a separate process step in response to the annealing that results in the conversion (as such there may be a plurality of interpretations for the claim limitation); it is unclear exactly how the conversion occurs and what method the controller is specifically performing to make that conversion occur as the applicant’s disclosure has not sufficiently provided enough description to define this conversion as a separate step from thermal annealing. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the aforementioned limitation can include the conversion of an organic to an inorganic film as a result of the thermal annealing; since the disclosure as a whole does not recite, with any particularity, exactly what is happening in the conversion step, the examiner has construed the aforementioned limitation as being disclosed by Singh because Singh discloses all the other process steps listed. The examiner is interpreting, and has previous interpreted, the conversion step as a byproduct or an effect of the other recited method steps.
Furthermore, the applicant claims that there is no equivalency that confers the formation of an inorganic material upon heat treating. Even if this were to be the case, as previously mentioned the applicant has not provided specific description as to what actually causes this conversion. From the information provided in the specification, one possible interpretation is that it is the annealing step that specifically performs this conversion, and as such, annealing with same compounds and conditions as the instant application would necessarily result in the formation of the inorganic film.
Singh teaches annealing a metal chalcogenide material that may comprise of molybdenum hexacarbonyl, molybdenum (V) chloride, ammonium tetrathiomolybdate, sulfur, selenium, hydrogen sulfide, a thioether material, phosphine, ammonia, chlorine, dichloromethane, and/or mixtures and combinations thereof at about 600 degrees Celsius [0020, 0032, 0035, 0055]. The examiner would like to note that Singh explicitly discloses that annealing may occur prior to, during, and/or subsequently to any of the deposition processes [Singh - 0020]. Furthermore, additional annealing chambers such as Rapid Thermal Annealing (RTA) and/or diffusionless annealing (which may include laser annealing processes) chambers could also be used to provide post deposition annealing processes [Singh - 0025]. Singh discloses a deposition process of depositing a chalcogenide film layer in step 320 [Singh – Fig. 3 & 0048]. It is noted that the instant application also discloses RTA and laser annealing processes [IA - 0099].
As such, Singh discloses the same compounds, the same process steps, and the same conditions as in the claimed invention, and therefore would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably infer that an organic film would convert to an inorganic film. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) [MPEP 2144.01]. The examiner believes that a proper case of anticipation has been established since Singh discloses the same compounds, the same process steps, and the same processing conditions as recited in the claims and/or disclosure. Therefore the examiner has every expectation that Singh would necessarily perform organic to inorganic conversion during annealing even if that result is not explicitly disclosed.
Furthermore, the following evidentiary references disclose that annealing can remove organic components: Gaillard et al. (US 20040152338), Su et al. (US 20160068397); Robinson et al. (US 20170175258) [Gaillard – 0042; Su – 0020; Robinson - 0092]. As such, there is precedence in the art for one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably believe that performing annealing would convert organic layers to inorganic layers.
It’s further noted that currently, the claim limitation reads “in response to thermally treating the organic film, converting the organic film into an inorganic film.” Under the current interpretation, this limitation is indicating that the organic film is being converted to an inorganic film as a result of the annealing step. Therefore, a prior art performing the annealing step under the same conditions with the same compounds as the instant application could be reasonably interpreted to result in the same conversion even if not explicitly disclosed. The examiner recommends amending the aforementioned limitation with specific process steps for the controller (consistent with the specification) to further differentiate it from being a mere result of the annealing step.
The examiner also respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s claim that Singh never discloses annealing a metal dichalcogenide layer as Singh explicitly discloses that annealing may occur prior to, during, and/or subsequently to any of the deposition processes [Singh - 0020]. Furthermore, additional annealing chambers such as Rapid Thermal Annealing (RTA) and/or diffusionless annealing (which may include laser annealing processes) chambers could also be used to provide post deposition annealing processes [Singh - 0025]. Therefore it is unclear how exactly Singh never discloses annealing a dichalcogenide layer when it is clear that Singh can utilize an annealing step before or after any of the deposition processes listed.
The examiner would also like to note that the applicant’s arguments regarding an “obvious to try” rationale are not persuasive or relevant. The examiner has utilized Singh to make a rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and not under 35 USC 103. Specifically, Singh is being used to anticipate the aforementioned limitation; there is no obviousness rationale being used in regards to the 102 rejection under Singh. There are no finite number of predictable solutions being identified in the rejection that would warrant an argument against an “obvious to try” rationale; an “obvious to try” rationale has not been used in the previous rejection. Rather, Singh is being used to anticipate the limitations rather than using it as a basis for an “obvious to try” rationale, nor is Singh being used in combination with other references. Therefore, this argument does not apply to the current rejection; the applicant is arguing against a 103 rationale when no 103 has been applied for claim 1; the examiner is not attempting to claim that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to do extensive experimentation or testing to arrive at the claimed limitations, but rather that Singh readily anticipates the aforementioned limitation for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOSHUA NATHANIEL PINEDA REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-4693. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM to 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/J.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights