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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “the first conductive layer is formed at temperature of less than 50C” and the claim also recites “the first conductive layer is formed at a temperature of about 15C to 40C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 is indefinite due to it dependence on indefinite claim 18.
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 1-5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike (US 2011/0057317) in view of Liu (US 2018/0012797) and Mebarki (US 2021/0391176).
Regarding claim 1, Koike discloses a method, comprising: forming a first conductive layer (Fig.19, numeral 608a) via physical vapor deposition (PVD) in an opening of a substrate ([0129]),; forming a second conductive layer (608b) via PVD on the first conductive layer ([0219]), wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are formed at a temperature of less than 50°C ([0210); and annealing at least a portion of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer ([0220]).
Koike does not explicitly disclose (1) wherein the first conductive layer has a thickness of less than 20 angstroms and the first conductive layer is formed with a bias between 0W and 50W applied to the substrate; (2) and the second conductive layer is formed with a bias of 150W or less applied to the substrate.
Regarding elements (1), Koike however discloses that the first conductive layer is a barrier layer and has a thickness of 20 angstroms ([0220]). And Liu discloses that the thickness of the first conductive layer can less than 20 angstroms ([0057]). Liu further discloses first conductive layer is formed with a bias of 0W ([0056]).
It would have therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koike with Liu to have first conductive layer having a thickness of less than 20 angstroms and with a bias of 0 W for the purpose of reducing damage to the underlaying metal layer (Liu, [0056]).
Regarding element (2), Mebarki discloses the second conductive layer is formed with a bias of 150W or less applied to the substrate ([0028]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koike with Mebarki to form the second conductive layer with a bias of 150W or less applied to the substrate for the purpose of reducing the damage to the base material (Mebarki, [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the first conductive layer has a thickness of 4 to 12 angstroms ([0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses wherein the first conductive layer has a thickness of about 8 angstroms ([0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses wherein the first conductive layer has a thickness of about two monolayers ([0057]; note: 3 angstroms).
Regarding claim 5, Koike discloses wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise at least one of tungsten, cobalt, titanium, copper, nickel, ruthenium, aluminum, tantalum, molybdenum ([0219]).
Regarding claim 21, Koike discloses wherein the annealing is performed at a temperature of about 150°C to about 350C ([0105]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fu (US 2010/0105203)
Regarding claim 6, Koike does not disclose wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise tungsten.
Koike however discloses that the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are barrier layers. Fu however discloses wherein a barrier layer comprise tungsten ([0022]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise tungsten because this one of the typical materials for forming barrier layers.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher (US 2008/0157208).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Koike does not disclose wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are formed at a temperature of about 25 C.
Koike however discloses that the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are formed by sputtering at a temperature below 50 °C ([0219]). And Fisher discloses that sputtering is performed at room temperature ([0087]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the temperature to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing deposition of the conductive layers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakano (US 2019/0071767).
Regarding claim 11, Koike does not disclose a spacing between a sputtering target and the substrate is from 130mm to 160mm when forming the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer.
Nakano however discloses a spacing between a sputtering target and the substrate is from 130mm to 160mm ([0052]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koike with Nakano to have a spacing between a sputtering target and the substrate to be in the claimed range for the purpose of productivity optimization (Nakano, [0052]).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chung (US 2023/0360969).
Regarding claim 13, Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki does not discloses etching at least a portion of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer from one or more sidewalls of the opening; and after etching, selectively forming a bulk layer of a conductive material on the second conductive layer.
Chung however discloses etching at least a portion of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer from one or more sidewalls of the opening (Figs. 1H, 1I), numerals 108, 110); and after etching, selectively forming a bulk layer of a conductive material (Fig.1L, numeral 122A) on the second conductive layer (110) ([0027]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koike with Chung to perform etching at least a portion of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer from one or more sidewalls of the opening; and after etching, selectively forming a bulk layer of a conductive material on the second conductive layer for the purpose of lowering resistance in contact structures (Chung, [0010]).
Claim(s) 14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Koike and Mebarki.
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses a method, comprising: forming a first conductive layer (Fig.3C, numeral 316) via physical vapor deposition (PVD) in an opening of a substrate (304) ([0057]), wherein the first conductive layer (316) has a thickness of less than 20 angstroms ([0057]) and the first conductive layer is formed with a bias between 0W and 50W applied to the substrate ([0056]) ; forming a second conductive layer (326) via PVD on the first conductive layer (316) ([0057]), wherein the second conductive layer (326) has a thickness of greater than 20 angstroms ([0058]);
Liu does not disclose (1) and the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are formed at a temperature of less than 50°C; (2) and the second conductive layer is formed with a bias of 150W or less applied to the substrate
Regarding element (1), Koike however discloses that the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer are formed at a temperature of less than 50°C.
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with Koike to form the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer at a temperature of less than 50°C for the purpose of effectively forming barrier layers (Koike, [0219]).
Regarding element (2), Mebarki discloses the second conductive layer is formed with a bias of 150W or less applied to the substrate ([0028]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Liu with Mebarki to form the second conductive layer with a bias of 150W or less applied to the substrate for the purpose of reducing the damage to the base material (Mebarki, [0030]).
Regarding claim 16, Liu discloses wherein the first conductive layer has a thickness of 4 to 12 angstroms ([0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Liu discloses wherein the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer comprise at least one of tungsten, cobalt, titanium, copper, nickel, ruthenium, aluminum, tantalum, molybdenum ([0057]).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki and further in view of Shen (US 2021/0351136).
Regarding claim 22, Koike does not disclose the annealing is performed for about 5 seconds to about 30 seconds.
Shen discloses wherein the annealing is performed for about 5 seconds to about 30 seconds ([0051]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Koike with Shen to perform annealing for about 5 seconds to about 30 seconds for the purpose of optimization film properties (Shen, [0051]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike in view of Liu and Mebarki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha (US 2012/0108058).
Regarding claim 23, Koike does not disclose wherein forming the first conductive layer comprises a processing pressure of about 250 mTorr to about 400 mTorr.
Ha however discloses that forming conductive layer comprises a processing pressure of about 250 mTorr to about 400 mTorr ([0026]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Koike with Ha to have a pressure in the claimed range for the purpose of improving deposition process (Ha, [0033]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, and 20 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest forming depositing a third conductive layer via chemical vapor deposition (CVD) on the second conductive layer while simultaneously annealing at least a portion of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, wherein the annealing is performed for about 5 seconds to about 30 seconds as required by claim 18.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest annealing at least a portion of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer, the annealing is performed for about 5 seconds to about 30 seconds and the annealing is performed at a temperature of about 150°C to about 350°C, wherein the CVD and the annealing occurs simultaneously as required by claim 24.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights