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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on December 26, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line, 2, “dielectric surface” should read --a dielectric surface--.
In claim 19, line, 2, “dielectric surface” should read --a dielectric surface--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maes et al. US 2020/0105515.
Regarding claim 1, Maes teaches a method for selectively forming a dielectric layer on a metallic surface relative to dielectric surface (e.g., second embodiment of Fig. 2, [90]-[97]; also see the first embodiment of Fig. 1 and the description thereof, closely related to the second embodiment, for additional details), the method comprising:
seating a substrate (e.g., 120, Fig. 5, [223]; substrate including a metallic surface such as a copper surface and a dielectric surface such as silicon oxide surface, Fig. 2A, [91]-[92]) including a metallic surface and a dielectric surface within a reaction chamber (e.g., 115, Fig. 5, [223]);
selectively passivating the metallic surface relative to the dielectric surface (e.g., selectively passivating through the passivation blocking layer, Fig. 2A; [91], [92], [50]);
selectively depositing a passivation layer (e.g., passivation layer, Fig. 2C; [94], [77], [78]) on the dielectric surface relative to the metallic surface; and
selectively depositing a dielectric layer (e.g., layer of interest X, Fig. 2D; [95], [50], [83]) on the metallic surface relative to the passivation layer.
Regarding claim 2, Maes teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a preclean of the substrate (e.g., [64]) prior to selectively passivating the metallic surface relative to the dielectric surface.
Regarding claim 17, Maes teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising selectively removing the passivation layer thereby re-exposing the dielectric surface (e.g., Fig. 2E, [97]; [85]).
Regarding claim 18, Maes teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the selectively removing the passivation layer comprises contacting the passivation layer with reactive species generated from a plasma formed from a gas comprising hydrogen and argon (e.g., [85]; [97]).
Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maes et al. US 2020/0105515 as evidenced by Tois et al. US 2017/0352533.
Regarding claim 8, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selectively forming the passivation layer on the dielectric surface relative to the metallic surface further comprises, performing a plurality of deposition cycles of a molecular layer cyclical deposition process in which the substrate is alternately and sequentially contacted with a first vapor phase organic precursor, and a second vapor phase organic precursor (e.g., Maes, [93], [77], [78]; Tois, [8]).
Regarding claim 9, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 8, further comprises, performing an etch back process for removing any contaminants from the metallic surface post passivation layer selective deposition (e.g., Maes, [81], [82], [197]).
Regarding claim 10, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the etch back process comprises, contacting the metallic surface with reactive species generated from a plasma formed from a gas comprising hydrogen and argon (e.g., Maes, [197], [219]).
Regarding claim 11, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selectively depositing a dielectric layer on the metallic surface relative to the passivation layer comprise, selectively depositing a metal oxide from vapor phase reactants on the metallic surface relative to the passivation layer (e.g., Maes, [11], [201]).
Regarding claim 12, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the metal oxide comprises aluminum oxide (e.g., Maes, [95], [50], [83], [11], [201]).
Regarding claim 13, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the aluminum oxide is deposited using an aluminum precursor comprising trimethyl aluminum (TMA), dimethylaluminumchloride, aluminum trichloride (AlCl3), dimethylaluminum isopropoxide (DMAI), tris(tertbutyl)aluminum (TTBA), tris(isopropoxide)aluminum (TIPA) or triethyl aluminum (TEA) (e.g., Maes, [11], [201]).
Regarding claim 14, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the aluminum oxide is deposited using an aluminum precursor comprising dimethylaluminum isopropoxide (DMAI) (e.g., Maes, [11], [201]).
Regarding claim 15, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the aluminum oxide is deposited by an ALD process comprising alternately and sequentially contacting the substrate with a first reactant comprising trimethyl aluminum (TMA), dimethylaluminumchloride, aluminum trichloride (AlCl3), dimethylaluminum isopropoxide (DMAI), tris(tertbutyl)aluminum (TTBA), tris(isopropoxide)aluminum (TIPA) or triethyl aluminum (TEA) and a second reactant comprising water (e.g., Maes, [10], [201]).
Regarding claim 16, Maes as evidenced by Tois teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the aluminum oxide is deposited by a chemical vapor deposition process comprising contacting the substrate with dimethylaluminum isopropoxide (DMAI) and a second reactant comprising water (e.g., Maes, [10], [201]; it noted that ALD is a type of CVD, thus, ALD of Maes teaches the claimed feature).
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 of this title, 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 3 and 4 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes et al. US 2020/0105515 in view of Tohnoe US 2011/0244680.
Regarding claim 3, Maes teaches the method of claim 2 as discussed above.
Maes does not explicitly teach wherein the preclean of the substrate comprises, removing a native oxide from the metallic surface.
Maes, however, recognizes that the cleaning includes exposing to hydrogen plasma (e.g., [64]). It has been well known in the art that a metallic surface such as a copper surface rapidly forms a native oxide layer (e.g., copper oxide) upon exposure to air. Tohnoe teaches copper oxide is reduced to copper by using reducing gases such as hydrogen (e.g., [49]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in Maes the cleaning of the metallic surface such as a copper surface may include removing a native oxide from the metallic surface, i.e., reducing copper oxide to copper for example.
Regarding claim 4, Maes in view of Tohnoe teaches the method of claim 3, wherein removing the native oxide comprises, contacting the substrate with a vapor phase etchant (e.g., Maes, [64]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 are 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, and if amended to overcome the claim objection to the base claim 1 above.
Claim 19 would be allowable if amended to overcome the claim objection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bo Bin Jang whose telephone number is (571) 270-0271. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) OR 571-272-1000.
/BO B JANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights