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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II: Figure 2 to prosecute in the above-identified patent application. Claims 20, 22-24, 26-28, and 56-57 read on or are generic to the elected species in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 22-24, 26-28 and 56-65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASUKI (Pub. No.: US 2020/0111675) in view of Mullick (Pub. No.: US 2019/0189546) and further in view of Zope (Pub. No.: US 2019/0067003).
Re claim 20, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches a method comprising:
providing a substrate comprising a feature having a feature bottom and feature sidewalls, wherein the feature bottom comprises an oxidized surface of a non-molybdenum material (102a, FIG. 7A, ¶ [0069], note that 102a is a tungsten oxide film);
soaking the feature in a tungsten halide precursor to remove oxide from the oxidized surface to leave an unoxidized surface (102 of FIG. 7B, [0081]); and
depositing tungsten into the feature, including directly on the unoxidized surface, using the tungsten halide precursor and a reducing agent (102’ of FIG. 7C or step S14 of FIG. 6, [0086]).
TAKASUKI fails to teach soaking the feature in a molybdenum halide precursor to remove oxide from the oxidized surface to leave an unoxidized surface.
Mullick teaches soaking the feature in a molybdenum halide precursor to remove oxide from the oxidized surface to leave an unoxidized surface (“the substrate 110 is exposed to a metal halide to etch or remove a portion of the oxidized metal layer 130”, ¶ [0026], note that “The metal element of the metal halide may include one or more of titanium, hafnium, zirconium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum”, [0027]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of effectively removing the predetermined thickness of the oxidized metal layer as taught by Mullick, [0032].
Moreover, TAKASUKI/Mullick fails to teach depositing molybdenum into the feature.
Zope teaches depositing molybdenum into the feature (140 of FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of effectively depositing the molybdenum layer as taught by Zope, [0002].
Re claim 22, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 20, wherein depositing molybdenum into the feature comprises selectively depositing a molybdenum layer (102’) on the unoxidized surface (102) relative to the feature sidewalls.
Re claim 23, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 22, further comprising, after depositing the molybdenum (102’) into the feature depositing a bulk molybdenum layer (210, note that ruthenium material of 210 of TAKASUKI is substitute by molybdenum material of Zope after the combination) in the feature using a molybdenum oxyhalide precursor.
Re claim 24, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 20, wherein:
the feature bottom comprises a metal-containing surface (102/102’),
the feature sidewalls comprise a dielectric surface (110), and
depositing molybdenum further comprises selectively depositing molybdenum (210) on the metal-containing surface relative to the dielectric surface.
Re claim 26/56, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to wherein the feature bottom comprises an oxidized metal [silicide or nitride] surface such that the molybdenum is deposited directly on the metal silicide surface since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Re claim 27, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 20, wherein soaking the feature in the molybdenum halide precursor is performed in a first chamber (11, [0082]) and depositing molybdenum into the feature is performed in a second chamber 14 (step 15) of FIG. 6, [0085]), wherein the first chamber and the second chamber are different chambers.
Re claim 28, TAKASUKI differs from the claim invention by not showing wherein soaking the feature in the molybdenum halide precursor and depositing the molybdenum into the feature are performed in the same chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the teaching because forming in the same or different chamber is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results or proven to be critical otherwise. In re Gibson, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930).
Re claim 57, in the combination, Mullick teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the molybdenum is deposited in the feature using the molybdenum halide precursor and a reducing agent (¶¶ [0030]-[0031]).
Re claim 58, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 57, further comprising, after depositing the molybdenum into the feature (step 120) depositing a bulk molybdenum layer (step 140) in the feature using a molybdenum oxyhalide precursor.
Re claim 59, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 20, wherein depositing molybdenum into the feature comprises depositing a non-selective molybdenum layer in the feature (210).
Re claim 60, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 20, wherein depositing molybdenum into the feature comprises depositing a bulk molybdenum layer (210) in the feature using the molybdenum halide precursor.
Re claim 61, in the combination, Mullick teaches the method of claim 20, wherein soaking the feature in a molybdenum halide precursor comprises cycling the molybdenum halide precursor with an inert gas [0031].
Re claim 62, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 61, wherein soaking the feature in the molybdenum halide precursor lasts at least 10 seconds in duration [0055].
Re claim 63, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 61, wherein soaking the feature in the molybdenum halide precursor lasts at least 60 seconds in duration [0055].
Re claim 64, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the molybdenum layer is no more than five nanometers thick [0072].
Re claim 65, in the combination, TAKASUKI, FIGS. 7A-7D teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the oxidized surface is oxidized silicon (210a), the molybdenum halide precursor is molybdenum pentachloride [0058], and soaking the feature in the molybdenum halide precursor removes oxide from the oxidized silicon (of layer 110), leaving silicon.
Claim(s) 66-67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASUKI in view of Mullick/Zope and further in view of LEHN (Pub. No.: US 2020/0283894).
TAKASUKI/ Mullick/Zope teaches all the limitation of claim 20.
TAKASUKI/ Mullick/Zope fails to teach the material etching away is silicon germanium or titanium nitride.
LEHN teaches the material etching away is silicon germanium or titanium nitride (115/120/110, ¶¶ [0017]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of enhancing the etching technique as taught by LEHN, BACKGROUND.
Moreover, after the combining of TAKASUKI/Zope and LEHN would teach wherein the oxidized surface is oxidized silicon germanium, the molybdenum chloride precursor is molybdenum pentachloride, and soaking the feature in a molybdenum halide precursor removes oxide from the silicon germanium, leaving silicon germanium (claim 66); and wherein the feature has a titanium nitride layer, the molybdenum chloride precursor is molybdenum pentachloride, and soaking the feature in a molybdenum halide precursor etches the titanium nitride layer (claim 67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 68 allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In the claim 68 that is written, the prior arts fail to show or fairly suggest the process steps of: “soaking the feature in a molybdenum pentachloride precursor in a chamber, at a substrate temperature of at least 300° Celsius and no more than 500° Celsius, at a chamber pressure of at least 30 Torr, and for a total precursor exposure time of at least 60 seconds, to remove oxide from the oxidized titanium nitride surface and to reduce a thickness of the titanium nitride liner layer, leaving an unoxidized titanium nitride surface” in context with the other limitation as stated in claim 68.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot due to a new ground of rejection. Please see the details of rejection as listed above.
For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained.
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 TONY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/TONY TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights