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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement has been made to the amendment received on 11/04/2025. Claims 1-22 are pending in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Roy et al (KR-20180095946A). (based on the IDs references filed on 11/04/2025).
Re claim 1 Roy teaches, a method comprising: depositing a tungsten bulk layer (280, fig 2) [0040] without depositing a tungsten nucleation layer on a surface (222, fig 2) [0020] of a substrate (220, fig 2)[0021] by:
forming a layer (240, fig 2) [0028] comprising elemental boron (B) [0030] on the surface (top surface of 220, fig 2) [0031]; and
after forming the layer (240, fig 2) [0028], performing a pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0022] process to convert the layer comprising elemental boron to a tungsten layer (280, fig 2) [0040], wherein the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) [0006, 0047] and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals [0006].
Re claim 7 Roy teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the surface is an oxide surface (222, fig 1) [0020].
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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danek et al (US9953984 B2) (based on the IDs reference filed on 11/04/2025) in view of Raisanen et al (CN107305838A) (based on the IDs reference filed on 11/04/2025).
Re claim 1 Danek teaches, a method comprising:
depositing a tungsten bulk layer (11, fig 1) [col 3, lines 53-56] without depositing a tungsten nucleation layer on a surface of a substrate (9, fig 1) [col 3, lines 53-56] by:
forming a layer (12, fig 1) [col 4, lines 9-10] comprising elemental boron (B) on the surface [col 3, lines 10-15]; and
after forming the layer (12, fig 1), performing a pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [col 7 lines 30-35] process to convert the layer comprising elemental boron to a tungsten layer, [col 2, lines 12-1].
Danek does not teach the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals.
Raisanen teaches, the pulsed CVD process [page 1 para 3] comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) [page 3, para 5] and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals (exposing the structure to multiple deposition cycle, wherein each deposition cycle comprises exposure to a multiple alternating reducing compound pulse 120 and inert gas 220 and exposure of metal halide pulse 110 and then to an inert gas purge 120) [page 3, para 3-4].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Raisanen into the structure of Danek to include the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Danek based on the teaching of Raisanen in the above manner for the purpose of achieving desired thickness of the layer.
Re claim 8 Danek in view of Raisanen teach, forming the layer (12, fig 1) [col comprising elemental boron comprises exposing the surface to diborane [Danek, col 7, lines 57-63].
Re claim 9 Danek in view of Raisanen teach, the operations of forming the layer comprising elemental boron and performing the pulsed CVD process are performed in the same chamber [Danek, col 6, lines 30-35].
Re claim 11 Danek in view of Raisanen teach, wherein the substrate comprises one or more features to be filled with tungsten [Danek, lines 4-5].
Claims 1, 3-14, 16-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar et al (20190019725A1) Wu et al (US 2010067527A1).
Re claim 1 Chandrashekar teaches, a method comprising: depositing a tungsten bilk layer (1327, fig 13) [00149] without depositing a tungsten nucleation layer (fig 13A) without forming a tungsten nucleation [0149] on a surface (top surface of the substrate, fig 19)[0149] by:
forming a layer comprising elemental boron (B)(1325, fig 13A) on the surface (conformal Boron deposition) [0117]; and
after forming the layer (1325), a pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0018] converting the layer comprising elemental boron to a tungsten layer (followed by reduction of a tungsten-containing precursor (such as WF6) by boron to form a layer of tungsten [0117, 0118].
Chandrashekar does not teaches, the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals.
Wu teaches, para 0033 0040, fig 2, the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals. (the first bulk tungsten film may be deposited using pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and during the first bulk deposition, the substrate is exposed to a continuous flow of reducing gas, such as hydrogen gas (H2) and a pulsed-containing compound) [0040].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Wu into the structure of Chandrashekar to include the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) and while exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar based on the teaching of Wu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving improved resistivity and surface morphology [0020].
Re claim 3 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the layer comprising elemental boron is between 10 to 50 Angstrom (1.5 nm to 10 nm) thick. (1325, fig 13) [Chandrashekar, 0121].
Re claim 4 Chandrashekar teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the layer (1325, fig. 13) comprising elemental boron consists essentially of boron. (the boron containing compound undergoes thermal decomposition to form elemental boron (B) or a boron containing layer on the [Chandrashekar, 0124].
Re claim 5 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the surface is a nitride surface. (a thin conformal layer of boron 1325 is deposited in a feature 1301 over a titanium nitride layer 1313) [Chandrashekar, 0118].
Re claim 6 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the surface is a titanium nitride surface (a thin conformal layer of boron 1325 is deposited in a feature 1301 over a titanium nitride layer 1313) [Chandrashekar, 0118].
Re claim 7 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the surface is an oxide surface (oxide stack, fig 13) [Chandrashekar, 0130].
Re claim 8 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1 wherein forming the layer comprising elemental boron comprises exposing the surface to diborane.(B2H6) [Chandrashekar, 0125].
Re claim 9 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the operations of forming the layer comprising elemental boron and performing the pulsed CVD process are performed in the same chamber [Chandrashekar, 0174].
Re claim 10 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein
forming a layer (1325, fig 13) comprising elemental boron (B) on the surface comprises thermal decomposition of a boron-containing reducing agent without adsorption of the boron-containing reducing agent on the surface (the boron containing compound undergoes thermal decomposition to form elemental boron (B) or a boron containing layer on the surface. [Chandrashekar, 0124].
Re claim 11 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises one or more features to be filled with tungsten. (filling a feature with tungsten) Chandrashekar, 0004].
Re claim 12 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 11, wherein
the layer of elemental boron conforms to the surface topography. (a thin conformal layer of boron 1325 is deposited in a feature 1301 over a titanium nitride layer 1313) [Chandrashekar, 0118].
Re claim 13 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 11 further
comprising, after converting the layer comprising elemental boron to a tungsten layer, continuing the pulsed CVD process to deposited tungsten in the feature. (the boron deposition and conversion operations are repeated at 1330 and 1340 to form another conformal layer of boron 1325 that is then converted to tungsten, such that a tungsten layer 1327 grows) [Chandrashekar, 0118].
Re claim14 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 11 ,
further comprising, after converting the layer comprising elemental boron to a tungsten layer, performing an ALD process to deposit tungsten in the feature. (bulk deposition may also occur using other types of process including ALD process) Chandrashekar, 0163].
Re claim 16 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the ALD process is performed in the same chamber as the pulsed CVD process. (same chamber) [Chandrashekar, 0174].
Re claim 17 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches further comprising exposing the tungsten layer to an inhibition chemistry prior to the ALD process [Chandrashekar, 0185] (the tungsten (w) surface can be passivated by exposure to a nitrogen-based plasma) [Chandrashekar 0186].
Re claim 18 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches the inhibition chemistry is nitrogen-containing (inhibition chemistries may be nitrogen-containing) [Chandrashekar, 0186].
Re claim 20 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the pulsed CVD process is performed at a temperature of no more than 350°C. (for conversion at 300C to 400C) [Chandrashekar, 0122].
Re claim 21 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, wherein the pulsed CVD process is performed at a temperature of no more than 300°C (for conversion at 300C to 400C) [Chandrashekar, 0122].
Re claim 22 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1, Chandrashekar and Wu do not explicitly teach the layer of tungsten is between 10 and 50 Angstroms thick.
Chandrashekar does teach the tungsten layer having a thickness up to about 10 nm i.e about 100 Angstroms). Chandrashekar, 0118].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Chandrashekar to include the layer of tungsten is between 10 and 50 Angstroms thick as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar in the above manner for the purpose improving electrical performance [0091].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar modified by Wu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Miyagaki et al (EP0388154A2)
Re claim 2 Chandrashekar and Wu teaches the method of claim 1, Chandrashekar and Wu do not teach the B content at the interface of the elemental tungsten bulk layer and the surface is no more than 10²¹ atoms/cm³.
Miyagaki does teach the B content at the interface of the elemental tungsten bulk layer and the surface is no more than 10²¹ atoms/cm³ (col 6, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Miyagaki into the structure of Chandrashekar and Wu to include as the B content at the interface of the elemental tungsten bulk layer and the surface is no more than 10²¹ atoms/cm³ claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar and Wu based on the teaching of Miyagaki in the above manner for the purpose of improving the adherence of the layers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar modified by Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bamnolker et al (US20150179461A1).
Re claim 15 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches the method of claim 14,
Chandrashekar and Wu do not teach, the ALD process (204, fig 4) [0040] is performed in a different chamber (206, fig 4) [0045] as the pulsed CVD process. [0045]
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Bamnolker into the structure of Chandrashekar and Wu to include the ALD process is performed in a different chamber as the pulsed CVD process as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar and Wu based on the teaching of Bamnolker in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve better adhesion to the surface, thereby reducing the resistivity and providing a smoother, more uniform tungsten layer [0043].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar modified by Wu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Lai et al (US 20040014315A1).
Re claim 19 Chandrashekar in view of Wu teaches, the method of claim 1,
Chandrashekar and Wu do not teach the duration of the pulses of tungsten precursor is less than the duration of the intervals between pulses.
Lai does teach the duration of the pulses of tungsten precursor is less than the duration of the intervals between pulses. (Duration of the pulse of the tungsten-containing precursor may be shorter than the duration of the pulse of the reducing gas. For such the time interval for the pulse of the tungsten containing precursor is different than the time interval (T2) [0061].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lai into the structure of
Chandrashekar and Wu to include as the duration of the pulses of tungsten precursor s less than the duration of the intervals between pulses claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar and Wu in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve desired thickness of the film [0010].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim objections regarding to the minor corrections. Claims 1, 20, 13 and 14 have been amended to obviate the objection. Accordingly, the objection is reconsidered and withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 2 and 12 has been fully considered. The Applicant has amended theses clams to supply antecedent basis and overcomes the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection is reconsidered and withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument see page with respect to the pages 5-6 , filed 11/04/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1 and 2 has been fully considered but not persuasive, because
Applicant submits, “Chandrashekar and Wu disclose fundamentally different reaction mechanisms, such that the proposed combination would not have been obvious
PNG
media_image1.png
8
5
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and would not have been expected to work”.
The Examiner respectfully disagree,
In view of Chandrashekar para 0149 teaches deposing a tungsten bulk layer (1327, fig 13) in para [0149] without deposing a tungsten nucleation layer (fig 13A) on a surface of a substrate [0149], forming a layer comprising elemental boron 1325 para 0117. After forming the boron layer pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) converting boron layer into a tungsten layer 0117,0118. Further in Para [0163] Various tungsten containing gases including WF6, WCl6 can be used as the tungsten-containing precursor. In certain implementations, the reducing agent is hydrogen gas through another reducing agents may be used including Silane. Also in many implementations, hydrogen gas is used as the reducing agent in the CVD process. Further, in Wu reference para 0033 and 0040 teaches that a first bulk tungsten film may be deposited using pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (see para. 0033) and during the first bulk deposition, substrate is exposed to a continuous flow of reducing gas, such as hydrogen gas (He) and a pulse of tungsten containing compound [0040], and as cited in para 0040 reducing gas , such as hydrogen gas (H2)can be used, thereby arriving at the present claim.
Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’ s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP § 2143.02.
Hence, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, meets the claimed invention.
Applicant submits “semiconductor doping and band structure control in silicon and is not relevant to incorporated boron content in a metal tungsten layer”
The examiner respectfully disagrees,
Miyagaki in the column 6 , lines 23-24 teaches the Boron concentration (3x1016 atoms/cm3 ) at the interface of the elemental tungsten bulk layer and the surface is no more than 1021 atoms/cm3).
Normally, it is to be expected that a change in concentration would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may be impact patentability to process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the result of the prior art Miyagaki, such ranges are termed “critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality, More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”
See also in re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948): In re Scheri 70 USPQ204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945);
Hence, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, meets the claimed invention.
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.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 11/04/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. 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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 2/2/26