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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The remarks filed 12/19/2025 reference a terminal disclaimer, see pg. 7. However, a terminal disclaimer in compliance with MPEP 804.02 (V), MPEP 1490, and 37 C.F.R. 1.321 has not been filed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10-11 and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,810,788. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant application claims 10-11 and 13-15; claims 10-11 and 13 are not patentably distinct from Chen. More specifically, although the combination of limitations within amended claim 10 are not expressly combined within the claims at issue, this combination would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Chen patent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Chen separately provides combinations of claims: 1 with 4; 1 with 5; 1 with 12; and 1 with 10; these combinations separately describing features that perform the same function alone as in combination (i.e., a first reactant species, a second reactant species, a deposition process species, and a third reactant species, with respect to claims 4, 5, 12, and 10).
Regarding claim 11 of the instant application, Chen discloses in claim 1 the transition metal niobium nitride film may be formed by a method including only one deposition cycle (i.e., repeating the deposition cycle only one time to achieve a predetermined thickness of a single deposition cycle), therefore only including a single film rather than a lamination of a plurality of deposition cycles. Therefore, claim 1 encompasses nanolaminate films and non-nanolaminate films.
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have readily recognized the combination of limitations included within claims 10-11 and 13-15 of the instant application as obvious variations encompassed within the claims of the Chen patent because they appear to be mere combinations of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Instant Application: 18/376,597
U.S. Patent No. 11,810,788
Claim 10
Claim 1
A method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising: performing a deposition cycle, the deposition cycle comprising: contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprising a transition metal precursor, contacting the substrate with a second reactant comprising a niobium precursor,
A method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising: performing a deposition cycle, the deposition cycle comprising: contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprising a transition metal halide precursor, contacting the substrate with a second reactant comprising a niobium precursor to form a mixture of transition metal species and niobium species,
contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor,
contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor to react with the transition metal species and the niobium species to form a transition metal niobium nitride,
and removing unreacted third reactant from a surface of the substrate prior to contacting with the first reactant; and repeating the deposition cycle until the transition metal niobium nitride film reaches a predetermined thickness, wherein contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprises flowing the first reactant for a first reactant pulse period, wherein contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprises flowing the third reactant for a third reactant pulse period, wherein the first reactant pulse period and the third reactant pulse period at least partially overlap in the deposition cycle.
Claim 10
Claim 4
wherein the first reactant comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
The method of claim 1, wherein the transition metal halide comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group comprising, scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Claim 10
Claim 5
wherein the second reactant is selected from the group consisting of niobium pentaboride (NbB5), niobium pentaiodide (NbI5) and niobium pentabromide (NbBr5).
The method of claim 1, wherein the second reactant is selected from the group consisting of niobium pentafluoride (NbF5), niobium pentaboride (NbB5), niobium pentaiodide (NbI5) and niobium pentabromide (NbBr5).
Claim 11
Claim 1
wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film
repeating the deposition cycle until the transition metal niobium nitride film reaches a predetermined thickness
Claim 13
Claim 1
The method of claim 10, wherein the first reactant comprises a transition metal halide
contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprising a transition metal halide precursor
Claim 14
Claim 12
The method of claim 10, wherein the deposition cycle comprises a plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition process.
The method of claim 1, wherein the method is a plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition process.
Claim 15
Claim 10
The method of claim 10, further comprising selecting the nitrogen precursor to comprise at least one of ammonia salts, hydrogen azide (HN3), alkyl derivatives of hydrogen azide, hydrazine salts, alkyl derivatives of hydrazine, nitrogen fluoride (NF3) and plasma-excited species of nitrogen (N2).
The method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the nitrogen precursor to comprise at least one of ammonia (NH3), ammonia salts, hydrogen azide (HN3), alkyl derivatives of hydrogen azide, hydrazine (N2H4), hydrazine salts, alkyl derivatives of hydrazine, nitrogen fluoride (NF3) and plasma-excited species of nitrogen (N2).
Regarding instant application claims 16-19; for reasons consistent with the rejection of claim 10, claims 16-17 and 19 are not patentably distinct from Chen. More specifically, although the combination of limitations within claim 16 are not expressly combined within the claims at issue, this combination would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in the claims of the Chen patent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Chen separately provides combinations of claims: 1 with 10; 1 with 4; and 1 with 13; these combinations separately describing features that perform the same function alone as in combination (i.e., a third reactant species, a first reactant species, and a deposition process species, with respect to claims 10, 4, and 13).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses in claim 1 the transition metal niobium nitride film may be formed by a method including only one deposition cycle (i.e., repeating the deposition cycle only one time to achieve a predetermined thickness of a single deposition cycle), therefore only including a single film rather than a lamination of a plurality of deposition cycles. Therefore, claim 1 encompasses nanolaminate films and non-nanolaminate films.
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have readily recognized the combination of limitations included within claims 16-17 and 19 of the instant application as obvious variations encompassed within the claims of the Chen patent because they appear to be mere combinations of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Instant Application: 18/376,597
U.S. Patent No. 11,810,788
Claim 16
Claim 1
A method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising: performing a deposition cycle, the deposition cycle comprising: contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprising a transition metal precursor, contacting the substrate with a second reactant comprising a niobium precursor, and contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor,
A method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising: performing a deposition cycle, the deposition cycle comprising: contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprising a transition metal halide precursor, contacting the substrate with a second reactant comprising a niobium precursor to form a mixture of transition metal species and niobium species, contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor to react with the transition metal species and the niobium species to form a transition metal niobium nitride,
and removing unreacted third reactant from a surface of the substrate prior to contacting with the first reactant; and repeating the deposition cycle until the transition metal niobium nitride film reaches a predetermined thickness, wherein contacting the substrate with the first reactant comprises flowing the first reactant for a first reactant pulse period, wherein contacting the substrate with the third reactant comprises flowing the third reactant for a third reactant pulse period, wherein the first reactant pulse period and the third reactant pulse period at least partially overlap in the deposition cycle.
Claim 16
Claim 10
wherein contacting the substrate with the third reactant further comprises contacting the substrate with a plasma-excited species of nitrogen,
The method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the nitrogen precursor to comprise at least one of ammonia (NH3), ammonia salts, hydrogen azide (HN3), alkyl derivatives of hydrogen azide, hydrazine (N2H4), hydrazine salts, alkyl derivatives of hydrazine, nitrogen fluoride (NF3) and plasma-excited species of nitrogen (N2).
Claim 16
Claim 4
and wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
The method of claim 1, wherein the transition metal halide comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group comprising, scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
Claim 17
Claim 13
The method of claim 16, further comprising heating the substrate to a temperature of between approximately 250 °C and approximately 400 °C.
The method of claim 1, further comprising, heating the substrate to a temperature of between approximately 250 °C. and approximately 450 °C.
Claim 18
Claim 1
wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film
repeating the deposition cycle until the transition metal niobium nitride film reaches a predetermined thickness
Claim 19
Claim 4
The method of claim 16, wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
The method of claim 1, wherein the transition metal halide comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group comprising, scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), titanium (Ti), zirconium (Zr), hafnium (Hf), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), chromium (Cr), molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore (US 20090297696 A1) in view of Hudson (US 20160163558 A1) and Lee (KR 20170088114 A).
Regarding claim 1, Pore discloses a method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising:
providing the substrate in a reaction chamber ([0011]: “a substrate in a reaction chamber by atomic layer deposition”);
performing a deposition cycle ([0086]: “a particular deposition cycle”) to form a substantially continuous transition metal niobium nitride film ([0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy”), the deposition cycle comprising:
first, contacting the substrate with a first reactant ([0069]) comprising a transition metal precursor ([0073]: “TiCl4”) comprising at least one transition metal ([0073]: “titanium”) thereby forming chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal on a surface of the substrate ([0069]: “a titanium precursor…on the substrate”),
purging excess first reactant from the reaction chamber ([0070]: “removing excess first reactant”),
second, after purging excess first reactant, contacting the substrate with a second reactant ([0077]) comprising a niobium precursor ([0050]: “NbCl5, NbF5”; [0104]: “the niobium precursor… TaCl5, TaF5, and TaBr5” erroneously using Ta instead of Nb, as evidenced by [0103] only describing Ta), wherein the second reactant chemisorbs on the surface by one or more of insertion or displacement of the chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal thereby forming chemisorbed species of niobium on the surface ([0083]: “dopant… Ti1-xNbxNy”; where “dopant” indicates insertion into, or displacement of the prior-formed material, by being included as a dopant),
purging excess second reactant from the reaction chamber ([0080]: “removing excess first reactant”),
third, after purging excess second reactant, contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor (the nitrogen precursor selected from the finite selection of [0074]; the sequence of [0081]: “such that the nitrogen precursor reacts with”); and
heating the substrate to a temperature [range] during the step of performing the deposition cycle ([0063]: “less than about 300° C”), […].
Pore teaches a temperature range lower than the claimed temperature range. Thus, Pore fails to teach the temperature range being “between 350 °C and approximately 450 °C”.
Hudson discloses a method in the same field of endeavor (“ALD cycle” [0099]), wherein temperature values may be deliberately varied according to a method parameter (“a relatively higher temperature” [0049]), the temperature values including a range wholly encompassing the claimed range (“between about 150-500° C” [0099]). Hudson provides a teaching to motivate one to modify the temperature range of Pore to include greater values in that it would enable a method capable of producing enhanced film uniformity (“thermal (non-plasma) ALD methods” [0099], “more uniform deposition results” [0056]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed temperature range because Pore teaches temperature values may be deliberately varied according to a plurality of method parameters (Pore: [0063]: “may vary depending on a number of factors”) and teaches doing so would be a matter of routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art ([0063]: “routine experimentation”). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of forming a film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition to determine the workable or optimal value for the claimed temperature through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired film properties because the claimed temperature is a result–effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. MPEP 2143 (I)(G), MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Pore in view of Hudson teaches a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride, however, fails to teach “wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)”.
Lee discloses a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride (pg. 13 of translation: “a metal nitride including at least one metal” includes choosing two metals from the finite selection. Choosing Nb and one other metal meets the claim), wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg) (pg. 13: Ru, Ni, Co, Pt, and Pd are included in the finite selection). Modifying the transition metal of Pore in view of Hudson by choosing an element from the group disclosed by Lee would arrive at the claimed transition metal method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing an alternative element (from Lee) because both Pore and Lee teach the transition metal niobium nitride film performs the function of an electrode (Pore: [0103]: “electrode”; Lee: pg. 13: “electrode”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the electrode being used for an alternative purpose (pg. 13: “gate electrode”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed transition metal method configuration because it is a configuration chosen from a finite selection of suitable metals. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 2, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the deposition cycle consists of first contacting the substrate with the first reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), purging excess first reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), second contacting the substrate with the second reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), purging excess second reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), third contacting the substrate with the third reactant (as cited in the claim 1 rejection), and purging excess third reactant (Pore: [0082]: “removing excess second reactant”).
Regarding claim 3, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the deposition cycle is repeated two or more times (Pore: [0087]: “pattern”) and wherein a reaction with the third reactant leaves a termination on the substrate surface ([0007]: “self-limiting process”) that is further reactive with the first reactant ([0087]: “alternating layers”).
Regarding claim 4, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: after contacting the substrate with the third reactant, purging any unreacted third reactant (Pore: [0082]: “removing excess second reactant”),
Regarding claim 7, Pore in view of Hudson discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is a thermal atomic layer deposition process (Hudson: [0099]: “thermal (non-plasma) ALD methods”).
Regarding claim 8, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the nitrogen precursor reacts with the chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal and the chemisorbed species of niobium on the substrate surface during contacting the substrate with the third reactant (Pore: [0081]: “a second vapor phase reactant”).
Regarding claim 9, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film (Pore: [0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy” is directed to a ternary composition rather than a combination of multiple binary compositions).
Regarding claim 20, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg) (pg. 13: Ni, Co, Pt, and Pd are included in the finite selection).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore in view of Hudson, Lee, and Raaijmakers (US 20010024387 A1).
Note that claim 1 was previously address above, however, it’s being addressed differently here based on the reading of the primary reference (Pore), particularly to the reactant sequence in order to address interpretive differences of new limitation “wherein the second reactant chemisorbs on the surface by one or more of insertion or displacement of the chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal thereby forming chemisorbed species of niobium on the surface”.
Regarding claim 1, Pore discloses a method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising:
providing the substrate in a reaction chamber ([0011]: “a substrate in a reaction chamber by atomic layer deposition”);
performing a deposition cycle ([0086]: “a particular deposition cycle”) to form a substantially continuous transition metal niobium nitride film ([0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy”), the deposition cycle comprising:
first, contacting the substrate with a first reactant ([0069]) comprising a transition metal precursor ([0073]: “TiCl4”) comprising at least one transition metal ([0073]: “titanium”) thereby forming chemisorbed species of the at least one transition metal on a surface of the substrate ([0069]: “a titanium precursor…on the substrate”),
purging excess first reactant from the reaction chamber ([0070]: “removing excess first reactant”),
second, after purging excess first reactant, contacting the substrate with a second reactant ([0077]) comprising a niobium precursor ([0050]: “NbCl5, NbF5”; [0104]: “the niobium precursor… TaCl5, TaF5, and TaBr5” erroneously using Ta instead of Nb, as evidenced by [0103] only describing Ta), […],
purging excess second reactant from the reaction chamber ([0080]: “removing excess first reactant”),
third, after purging excess second reactant, contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor (the nitrogen precursor selected from the finite selection of [0074]; the sequence of [0081]: “such that the nitrogen precursor reacts with”); and
heating the substrate to a temperature [range] during the step of performing the deposition cycle ([0063]: “less than about 300° C”), […].
Pore teaches a temperature range lower than the claimed temperature range. Thus, Pore fails to teach the temperature range being “between 350 °C and approximately 450 °C”.
Hudson discloses a method in the same field of endeavor (“ALD cycle” [0099]), wherein temperature values may be deliberately varied according to a method parameter (“a relatively higher temperature” [0049]), the temperature values including a range wholly encompassing the claimed range (“between about 150-500° C” [0099]). Hudson provides a teaching to motivate one to modify the temperature range of Pore to include greater values in that it would enable a method capable of producing enhanced film uniformity (“thermal (non-plasma) ALD methods” [0099], “more uniform deposition results” [0056]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed temperature range because Pore teaches temperature values may be deliberately varied according to a plurality of method parameters (Pore: [0063]: “may vary depending on a number of factors”) and teaches doing so would be a matter of routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art ([0063]: “routine experimentation”). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of forming a film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition to determine the workable or optimal value for the claimed temperature through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired film properties because the claimed temperature is a result–effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. MPEP 2143 (I)(G), MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Pore in view of Hudson teaches a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride, however, fails to teach “wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)”.
Lee discloses a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride (pg. 13 of translation: “a metal nitride including at least one metal” includes choosing two metals from the finite selection. Choosing Nb and one other metal meets the claim), wherein the at least one of the transition metal is selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg) (pg. 13: Ru, Ni, Co, Pt, and Pd are included in the finite selection). Modifying the transition metal of Pore in view of Hudson by choosing an element from the group disclosed by Lee would arrive at the claimed transition metal method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing an alternative element (from Lee) because both Pore and Lee teach the transition metal niobium nitride film performs the function of an electrode (Pore: [0103]: “electrode”; Lee: pg. 13: “electrode”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the electrode being used for an alternative purpose (pg. 13: “gate electrode”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed transition metal method configuration because it is a configuration chosen from a finite selection of suitable metals. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Raaijmakers describes a 4-step deposition cycle may be modified by adjusting the provision of a precursor ([0066]: “both contribute the same element…either the second phase of the fourth phase can be omitted”), thus effecting the resultant amount of the precursor available for reaction ([0066]: “depending on the desired oxygen content”). Modifying the 4-step deposition cycle of Pore in view of Hudson and Lee, by omitting the third reactant between the steps of contacting the substrate with the first and second reactants would arrive at the claimed reactant, and therefore the claimed chemisorption configuration. Doing so would have the effective result of varying the resultant amount of the third reactant available for reaction, and thus adjusting the resultant film composition. It would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed deposition cycle because Pore ([0066]) teaches the sequence of providing a third reactant is varied to produce a desired resultant film composition. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed deposition cycle because it is routine optimization within a prior art condition.
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of manufacturing semiconductor devices before the effective filing date to determine the workable or optimal deposition cycle for the claimed film through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired film composition because the claimed deposition cycle is a result–effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results, and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation (the range being the duration or a lacking duration of the intervening third reactant). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore in view of Hudson and Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milligan (US 20080274617 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Pore in view of Hudson and Lee discloses the method of claim 1, however, fails to teach “the nitrogen precursor is selected from the list consisting of ammonia salts, hydrogen azide (HN3), alkyl derivatives of hydrogen azide, hydrazine salts, and nitrogen fluoride (NF3)”.
Milligan discloses a nitrogen precursor in the same field of endeavor ([0050]: “nitrogen source material”), and discloses the nitrogen precursor is selected from an alternative list overlapping the Pore list at least by hydrazine, and further expanding it by disclosing hydrogen azide (Milligan: [0050]: “hydrogen azide…hydrazine” overlaps with Pore: [0074]: “hydrazine”).
Since Milligan and Pore in view of Hudson and Lee are in the same field of endeavor, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have readily recognized the finite number of predictable solutions for nitrogen precursors. These predictable solutions include hydrogen azide as these may be chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (Milligan: [0050]). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because Pore teaches the nitrogen precursor is not limit to the disclosed list (Pore: [0074]: “but are not limited to”), and discloses the nitrogen precursor may be varied as a design choice according to reaction requirements ([0074]: “can be selected by the skilled artisan such that it reacts”).. Absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try using a different nitrogen precursor in the method of Pore in view of Hudson and Lee. Thus, the claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technique grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. __, 82USPQ2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR). MPEP 2143 (1)(E).
Claims 10-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore in view of Lee.
Regarding independent claim 10, Pore discloses a method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising:
performing a deposition cycle ([0086]: “a particular deposition cycle”), the deposition cycle comprising:
contacting the substrate with a first reactant ([0069]) comprising a transition metal precursor ([0073]: “TiCl4”),
contacting the substrate with a second reactant ([0077]) comprising a niobium precursor ([0050]: “NbCl5, NbF5”; [0104]: “the niobium precursor… TaCl5, TaF5, and TaBr5” erroneously using Ta instead of Nb, as evidenced by [0103] only describing Ta), wherein the second reactant is selected from the group consisting of niobium pentaboride (NbB5), niobium pentaiodide (NbI5) and niobium pentabromide (NbBr5) (as reasoned, NbBr5 is included in the disclosed precursors cited above),
contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor (the nitrogen precursor selected from the finite selection of [0074]; the sequence of [0081]: “such that the nitrogen precursor reacts with”), […].
Pore teaches a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride, however, fails to teach “wherein the first reactant comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)”.
Lee discloses a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride (pg. 13 of translation: “a metal nitride including at least one metal” includes choosing two metals from the finite selection. Choosing Nb and one other metal meets the claim), with the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg) (pg. 13: Ni, Co, Pt, and Pd are included in the finite selection). Modifying the transition metal of Pore in view of Hudson by choosing an element from the group disclosed by Lee would arrive at the claimed transition metal method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing an alternative element (from Lee) because both Pore and Lee teach the transition metal niobium nitride film performs the function of an electrode (Pore: [0103]: “electrode”; Lee: pg. 13: “electrode”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the electrode being used for an alternative purpose (pg. 13: “gate electrode”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed transition metal method configuration because it is a configuration chosen from a finite selection of suitable metals. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 11, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film (Pore: [0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy” is directed to a ternary composition rather than a combination of multiple binary compositions).
Regarding claim 12, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the step of performing a deposition cycle comprises at least one transition metal nitride sub-cycle (Pore: [0084]: “titanium nitride cycles”. Note: this sub-cycle is applied to the transition metal of Lee) and at least one niobium nitride sub-cycle ([0084]: “dopant nitride cycles”), wherein the transition metal nitride sub-cycle comprises contacting the substrate with the first reactant comprising the transition metal precursor (Pore: [0084]: “consisting of titanium-containing precursor”. Note: this sub-cycle is applied to the transition metal of Lee) and contacting the substrate with the third reactant comprising the nitrogen precursor ([0084]: “followed by nitrogen source pulses”), wherein the niobium nitride sub-cycle comprises contacting the substrate with the second reactant comprising the niobium precursor ([0084]: “consisting of a dopant source”) and contacting the substrate with the third reactant comprising the nitrogen precursor ([0084: “followed by the corresponding nitrogen source pulses”), and wherein the deposition cycle has a niobium nitride sub-cycle percentage of about 75% to about 85% ([0084]: “about 200:1 to about 1:20” completely encompasses the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the deposition cycle comprises a plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition process (Pore: [0089]: “plasma”).
Regarding claim 15, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising selecting the nitrogen precursor to comprise at least one of ammonia salts, hydrogen azide (HN3), alkyl derivatives of hydrogen azide, hydrazine salts, alkyl derivatives of hydrazine, nitrogen fluoride (NF3) and plasma-excited species of nitrogen (N2) (Pore: [0089]: “plasma”).
Regarding independent claim 16, Pore discloses a method for forming a transition metal niobium nitride film on a substrate by atomic layer deposition, the method comprising:
performing a deposition cycle ([0086]: “a particular deposition cycle”), the deposition cycle comprising:
contacting the substrate with a first reactant ([0069]) comprising a transition metal precursor ([0073]: “TiCl4”),
contacting the substrate with a second reactant ([0077]) comprising a niobium precursor ([0050]: “NbCl5, NbF5”; [0104]: “the niobium precursor… TaCl5, TaF5, and TaBr5” erroneously using Ta instead of Nb, as evidenced by [0103] only describing Ta), and
contacting the substrate with a third reactant comprising a nitrogen precursor (the nitrogen precursor selected from the finite selection of [0074]; the sequence of [0081]: “such that the nitrogen precursor reacts with”), wherein contacting the substrate with the third reactant further comprises contacting the substrate with a plasma-excited species of nitrogen (Pore: [0089]: “plasma”), and […].
Pore teaches a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride, however, fails to teach “wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg)”.
Lee discloses a group of transition metals useful with niobium nitride (pg. 13 of translation: “a metal nitride including at least one metal” includes choosing two metals from the finite selection. Choosing Nb and one other metal meets the claim), with the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium (Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), rhenium (Re), iron (Fe), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), cobalt (Co), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), nickel (Ni), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), copper (Cu), silver (Ag), gold (Au), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg) (pg. 13: Ru, Ni, Co, Pt, and Pd are included in the finite selection). Modifying the transition metal of Pore in view of Hudson by choosing an element from the group disclosed by Lee would arrive at the claimed transition metal method configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing an alternative element (from Lee) because both Pore and Lee teach the transition metal niobium nitride film performs the function of an electrode (Pore: [0103]: “electrode”; Lee: pg. 13: “electrode”). A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to do so because Lee teaches the electrode being used for an alternative purpose (pg. 13: “gate electrode”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed transition metal method configuration because it is a configuration chosen from a finite selection of suitable metals. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 17, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising heating the substrate to a temperature of between approximately 250 °C and approximately 400 °C (Pore: [0063]: “less than about 300° C”).
Regarding claim 18, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the transition metal niobium nitride film is not a nanolaminate film (Pore: [0083]: “a film of the desired composition… Ti1-xNbxNy” is directed to a ternary composition rather than a combination of multiple binary compositions).
Regarding claim 19, Proe in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the transition metal precursor comprises at least one of the transition metals selected from the group consisting of scandium(Sc), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), technetium (Tc), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd) and mercury (Hg) (Lee: pg. 13: Ni and Co are included in the finite selection).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pore and Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Park (US 20090166636 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Pore in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 10, and the first reactant. However, Pore only discloses a transition metal halides including titanium, tantalum, or niobium ([0102]-[0104]: “halides”). Lee has been relied upon to teach an alternative transition metal but fails to teach specific reactant compositions for these metals. Thus, Pore in view of Lee fails to teach “wherein the first reactant comprises a transition metal halide”.
Park discloses a first reactant including a transition metal overlapping in scope with the transition metals disclosed by Lee (Park: [0040]: “nickel”), wherein the first reactant comprises a transition metal halide ([0040]: “a nickel halide”). Modifying the first reactant of Pore in view of Lee by using the first reactant of Park would arrive at the claimed reactant configuration. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success because in each situation, an ALD technique is performed (Pore: [0057]: “the ALD type processes”; Lee: pg. 13 : “may be formed by ALD”; Park: [0040]: “the ALD technique”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to form a film of a desired composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the claimed reactant configuration because it selecting a known reactant from a finite selection, and is useful for the same purpose. MPEP 2143 (I)(E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues “Applicant herewith submits a terminal disclaimer”. Remarks at pg. 7.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner does not find a terminal disclaimer in compliance with MPEP 804.02 (V), MPEP 1490, and 37 C.F.R. 1.321 included with Applicant’s submission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817