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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-23 are pending in this application.
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, 3-4, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al (US20200075333A1) in view of Fu et al (US 20170194156A1) (based on the IDs references filed on 05/05/2026).
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) [0021] of a substrate (220, fig 2) [0021] by:
forming a layer (240, fig 2) [0022] comprising elemental boron (B) [0030] on the surface (222, 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) [0045], wherein the pulsed CVD process comprises exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) [0006,0047]
Roy does not teach exposing the substrate of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals.
Fu teaches exposing the substrate of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals.( Cyclical deposition, The cycle exposes the substrate surface to a first precursor, a purge gas, a second precursor and the purge gas. The first and second precursors react to form a product compound as a film on the substrate) [0002-0005].
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 Fu into the structure of Roy to include exposing the substrate of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy based on the teaching of Fu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving the desired thickness of the layer [0005].
Re claim 3 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the layer (240, fig2) [0009] comprising elemental boron is between 10 to 50 Angstrom (about 10A to about 200A) [Roy, 0009].
Re claim 4 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the layer (240, fig 2) comprising elemental boron consists essentially of boron [Roy, 0009].
Re claims 5 and 6 Roy in view Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy do not teach the surface is a nitride surface (claim 5) and the surface is a titanium nitride surface (claim 6)
Fu does tech the surface is a nitride surface (surface substrate) (claim 5) [Fu 0054] and the surface is a titanium nitride surface (claim 6) [Fu 0054]
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 Fu into the structure of Roy to include the surface is a nitride surface (claim 5) and the surface is a titanium nitride surface (claim 6) as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy based on the teaching of Fu in the above manner for the purpose of cost effective.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 7 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the surface (222, fig 2) [Roy 0021] is an oxide surface [Roy, 0021].
Re claim 8 Roy in view of Fu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein forming the layer (240, fig2) [Roy, 0022]comprising elemental boron comprises exposing the surface to diborane (BeH6). [Roy, 0022-0023].
Re claim 9 Roy in view of Fu 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 [Roy, 0022-0024].
Re claim 20 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy do not teach the pulsed CVD process is performed at a temperature of no more than 3500C.
Roy teaches the pulsed CVD process is performed at a temperature of no more than 3500C. (1000C to about 7000C).[Roy, 0049].
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 Roy to include the pulsed CVD process is performed at a temperature of no more than 3500C as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy and Fu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving the desired temperature.
Re claim 21 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the pulsed CVD process is performed at a temperature of no more than 3000C. (Roy, 1000C to about 7000C).[0049].
Re claim 22 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1, wherein the layer of tungsten is between 10 and 50 Angstroms thick. (10A and 200A) [Roy, 0009].
Re claim 23 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy does not tach an interval: tungsten precursor duration ratio ranges from 2:1 to 8:1.
Fu does teach an interval: tungsten precursor duration ratio ranges from 2:1 to 8:1. (flow rates and/or duration of each pulse may be the same or may vary over the course of the total cycles required to form particular tungsten-containing layer) [0090].
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 Fu into the structure of Roy to include an interval: tungsten precursor duration ratio ranges from 2:1 to 8:1 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy based on the teaching of Fu in the above manner for the purpose of achieving a film with the desired thickness.[0056]
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy modified by Fu applied to claim 1 and further in view of Miyagaki et al (EP0388154A2).
Re claim 2 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy and Fu 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 the interface of the elemental tungsten bulk layer and surface is no more than 1021 atoms/cm3 (boron concentration, about 1 x 10¹⁴ atoms/cm³) [0010].
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 Miyagki into the structure of Roy and Fu to include the B content at the interface of the elemental tungsten bulk layer and the surface is no more than 1021 atoms/cm3 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy and Fu based on the teaching of Miyagaki in the above manner for the purpose of improving the adherence of the layer [0014].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy modified by Fu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bamnolker et al (US20150179461A).
Re claim 15 Roy in view of Fu teaches the method of claim 14,
Roy and Fu do not teach, the ALD process is performed in a different chamber as the pulsed CVD process.
Bamnolker teaches 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 Roy and Fu 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 Roy and Fu based on the teaching of Bamnolker in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve better adhesion to surface, thereby reducing the resistivity and providing smoother, more uniform tungsten layer [0043].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy modified by Fu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Lai et al (US20040014315A1).
Re claim 19 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy and Fu do not teach the duration of pulses of tungsten precursor is less than the duration of the pulses of the intervals between pulses.
Lai teaches the duration of pulses of tungsten precursor is less than the duration of the pulses 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 Roy and Fu to include the duration of pulses of tungsten precursor is less than the duration of the pulses of the intervals between pulses as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy and Fu based on the teaching of Lai in the above manner for the purpose of achieve desired thickness of the film [0010].
Claims 10-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy modified by Fu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chandrashekar et al (US 20190019725A1).
Re claim 10 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy and Fu do not teach forming the layer 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.
Chandrashekar teaches forming the layer (1325, fig 13) [0124] 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.[0124].
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 into the structure of Roy and Fu to include forming the layer 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 as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy and Fu based on the teaching of Chandrashekar in the above manner for the purpose of to improve adhesion of tungsten to the substrate [0084].
Re claim 11 Roy in view of Fu teach the method of claim 1,
Roy and Fu do not teach the substrate comprises one or more features to be filled with tungsten.
Chandrashekar does teach the substrate comprises one or more features to be filled with tungsten. (filling a feature with tungsten) [0004].
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 into the structure of Roy and Fu to include the substrate comprises one or more features to be filled with tungsten as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy and Fu based on the teaching of Chandrashekar in the above manner for the purpose of to improve adhesion of tungsten to the substrate [0084].
Re claim 12 Roy in view of Fu and Chandrashekar teach 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 Roy in view of Fu and Chandrashekar teach, 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 claim 14 Roy in view of Fu and Chandrashekar teach, 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 Roy in view of Fu teach, the method of claim 14,
Roy and Fu do not teach the ALD process is performed in the same chamber as the pulsed CVD process.
Chandrashekar teaches teach the ALD process is performed in the same chamber as the pulsed CVD process. (same chamber) [Chandrashekar, 0174].
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 into the structure of Roy and Fu to include the ALD process is performed in the same chamber as the pulsed CVD process as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Roy and Fu based on the teaching of Chandrashekar in the above manner for the purpose of to improve adhesion of tungsten to the substrate [0084].
Re claim 17 Roy in view of Fu and Chandrashekar teach the method of claim 14 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 Roy in view of Fu and Chandrashekar teach the method of claim 14, the inhibition chemistry is nitrogen-containing (inhibition chemistries may be nitrogen-containing) [Chandrashekar, 0186].
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bamnoker et al (US20150325475A1) in view of Fu et al (US20170194156A1).
Re claim 1 Bamnolker teaches, a method comprising:
depositing a tungsten bulk layer (0002) without depositing a tungsten nucleation layer on a surface (TiN , fig 5) [0027] of a substrate (substrate) [0027] by:
forming a layer (thin layer of elemental boron) [0032] comprising elemental boron (B) on the surface [0032]; and
after forming the layer (thin layer ) [0032], performing a pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process [0044] to convert the layer comprising elemental boron to a tungsten layer (tungsten layer),
wherein the pulsed CVD process (step, 105) comprises exposing the substrate [0034] to a continuous flow of hydrogen (H2) [0034].
Bamnolker does not teach exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2, exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals.
Fu teaches exposing the substrate to a continuous flow of H2 [0078-0079], exposing the substrate to pulses of a tungsten precursor separated by intervals [0089].
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 Fu into the structure of Bamnolker to include 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 Bamnolker based on the teaching of Fu in the above manner for the purpose000 in order to produce a desired layer of uniform thickness [0004].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-23 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al (US20200027738A1) teaches methods of depositing tungsten or tungsten-containing films, exposing a substrate surface to a boron precursor to form an amorphous boron layer.
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 8/23/26
Prosecution Insights