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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 6 – 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette [US 20220093597].
Claim 1: Ouellette teaches a fabrication method of gate all around circuit [title], wherein the method includes the method depositing a bulk layer (P-type conductive layer, 224) [Fig. 2E] of molybdenum (Mo) [0031; 0042] in a structure including a plurality of features (plurality of horizontal nanowires) to at least partially fill the plurality of features with Mo [Fig. 2E], and depositing a bulk layer of tungsten (W) on the bulk layer of Mo (N-type conductive layer, 226) [Fig. 2E] [0031; 0042]. Furthermore, Ouellette teaches two-step metallization for circuit and gate fill devices is well known in the art [0024] and using ALD Mo containing layer + CVD W fill can reduce cost with two passes and reduce defect susceptibility and avoid chemical attacks [0031]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit Mo with ALD and W by CVD for the aforementioned benefits. Ouellette also teaches the bulk layer of W is deposited over the top of the plurality of features and not within the plurality of features [Fig. 2E].
Claim 3: Ouellette teaches filling at least of the some of the features is completed by the bulk of layer of W [Fig. 2E].
Claim 6: Ouellette teaches the plurality of features comprises oxide surface prior to Mo deposition (starting structure comprises amorphous oxide [0049].
Claim 7: Ouellette teaches the Mo is formed in the feature without a barrier layer [Fig. 2E].
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen [US 9269612].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach a first set of features having a smaller dimension than of a second set of features for claim 2. Chen is provided.
Claim 2: Chen teaches an interconnect structure with a first trench and second trench, wherein the second trench is wider than the first trench [abstract]. Chen also teaches depositing a layer of molybdenum in the first trench to be completed [Fig. 2K; col 5, ln 9], and the second set is completed by bulk layer [Fig. 2K], where the bulk layer can include tungsten [col 5, ln 26]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Ouellette to deposit Mo layers and W layers into interconnect features of Chen since both are directed to PVD, CVD ALD deposition of these layers [col 5, ln 20-35].
Claim 5: Chen teaches removing bulk layer [col 5, ln 40].
Claim(s) 8-10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zope [US 20190067094].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the nucleation layer prior to Mo deposition is Mo nitride or Mo oxynitride. Zope is provided.
Claims 8-9: Zope, directed for depositing Molybdenum metal film [abstract] teaches depositing a nucleation film direction onto the surface and then depositing Mo thereon [abstract]. Zope further teaches the nucleation film comprises molybdenum nitride [0079]. As for claim 23, Ouellette teaches depositing a bulk of molybdenum by ALD to partially fill with Mo and depositing a bulk of tungsten on the Mo by CVD or PVD [0031].
Claim 10: Zope teaches the nucleation layer may be converted to Mo [0025].
Claim(s) 11, 13 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu [US 20190067095].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach performing the layers in the same or different chambers. Zhu is provided.
Claims 11 and 13: Zhu teaches a method of depositing first a metal seed layer and then depositing a second metal onto the seed layer [abstract]. Zhu further teaches the first metal seed layer may be deposited by ALD [0017] and may be of Mo [0024], and the second metal onto the seed layer may be deposited by CVD [0016] wherein the second metal may be of tungsten (W) [0066-0067], Zhu teaches depositing the first and second metals can be done in the same or different chambers [0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the layers in the same or different chambers since Zhu teaches such technique and system arrangements are operable and well known in the electronic device field.
Claim 17: Zhu teaches the bulk layer of Mo is by ALD using alternating pulses of Mo precursor and co-reactant [0024, 0029].
Claim 18: Zhu teaches the Mo precursor is molybdenum halide [0024].
Claim 19: Zhu teaches the Mo precursor can be molybdenum hexachloride [0024].
Claim(s) 12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of Zhu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Krotov [US 7993457].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using different stations or a common vacuum environment or not a common vacuum environment. Krotov is provided.
Claim 12: Krotov teaches performing deposition if in the same chamber it may be at a different station or same station [col 5, ln 20-28]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art deposit the layers in the same or different chambers since Krotov teaches such technique and system arrangements are operable and well known in the electronic device field.
Claim 14-15: Krotov teaches the different chambers may be coupled to a common vacuum environment or not a common vacuum (having one or more vacuum lines) [col, ln 5-15].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of Zhu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roy [WO 2019036214].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the treating the surface of the Mo layer with metal halide. Roy is provided.
Claim 16: Roy teaches exposing a metal surface to a metal halide can reduce the surface oxides to be volatile until the all the oxide is removed [0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to expose the metal layer such as Mo layer to a metal halide in order to reduce any superficial oxides from the layer as taught by Roy.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouellette in view of Zhu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thombare [US 20180294187].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach Mo precursor is organometallic precursor. Thombare is provided.
Claim 20: Thombare teaches some precursors that deposit Mo includes Mo containing precursors such as molybdenum pentachloride and organometallic precursors such as molybdenum silylcyclopentadienyl and etc. [0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use organometallic Mo precursors since Thombare teaches these are another operable Mo precursors for depositing Mo containing film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-20 and 23 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718