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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear how the first metal layer can be removed from the top surface of the oligomer film when first metal layer is under the oligomer film.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (WO 2017/048268 A1).
Claims 1, 5:
Collins teaches a method for gap fill of a semiconductor feature using bottom-up fill materials (i.e., materials forming selectively on the bottom and filling a portion of the feature depth) (pg. 4). The process is CVD of monomer precursors to form an oligomer film (pg. 15).
Claim 4:
Combinations thereof (pg. 16).
Claim 6:
This claim only requires at least two features, not that the dimensions are different. (Fig. 4)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (WO 2017/048268 A1) in view of Moon (US 2018/0033688 A1).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the recited functional groups. However, Moon teaches the functional groups for silane-based gap fill oligomers including at least a methacrylate group [0016] and bifunctional alcohol groups (Formula 1a, 1b, and 1c). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Collins using monomers and oligomers having the functional groups taught by Moon. Moon establishes these functional groups are appropriate for the purpose of gap fill.
Claim(s) 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (WO 2017/048268 A1) in view of Clendenning (US 2018/0130707 A1).
Claims 7, 17
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach features having different critical dimensions. However, Clendenning teaches the formation of multiple features having different widths (Fig. 2B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Collins on features having different critical dimensions because Clendenning establishes the desire to incorporate multiple filled features having different widths in semiconductor manufacturing.
Claims 8, 18:
Clendenning teaches the same height (i.e., filled to the top) (Fig. 2B).
Claims 9, 12:
Clendenning teaches the first deposited conformal layer is a metal seed layer such as tungsten [0031]. Clendenning does not teach the specific deposition method, but PVD would have been obvious for depositing tungsten in the way.
Claims 10-11:
Clendenning teaches the top portion of the metal layer is removed (Fig. 2A, (b)) followed by the fill material (Fig. 2A, (c)).
Claims 13-14:
Clendenning teaches the feature is filled with a metal (Fig. 2A, (d)) such as nickel, titanium etc. [0036].
Claims 15-16:
Collins teaches the fill material is compatible with plasma etching (pg. 10) and goes on to explain that this includes non-removal of the oligomer or removal of the oligomer (i.e., sacrificial) (pg. 6).
Claims 19-20:
These claims are a combination of the limitations already addressed above, and are rejection for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights