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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 13 and 20 have been considered as to the point that Hung et al. (US 2019/0103278, hereafter Hung ‘278) does not teach depositing a layer of molybdenum of claim 13 or that at least one of the forming molybdenum silicide on the cleaned surface and the depositing the layer comprising molybdenum is by a thermal process but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
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.
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) 13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0303195, hereafter Tapily ‘195) in view of Hung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0103278, hereafter Hung ‘278) and Ma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0018016, hereafter Ma ‘016).
Claim 13: Tapily ‘195 teaches a method of forming molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (abstract, [0006]) comprising:
providing a substrate (100, 102) comprising a surface within a reaction chamber (Fig. 1A, [0012], [0014]);
using a molybdenum containing metal precursor to deposit a layer of molybdenum (108) on the surface (Fig. 1C, [0020]); and
heating the substrate to a temperature of about 100°C to about 500°C to form the molybdenum silicide layer (110) (Fig. 1D, [0020], [0021]).
Tapily ‘195 further teaches that the method is for manufacturing semiconductor devices ([0002]), and that the deposition is a selective deposition (abstract, Fig. 1C, [0020]).
With respect to claim 13, Tapily ‘195 does not explicitly teach that the heating temperature is about 500°C to about 750°C.
However, the claimed temperature range of about 500°C to about 750°C is obvious over the temperature range of about 100°C to about 500°C taught by Tapily ‘195 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 13, Tapily ‘195 does not explicitly teach that the method includes cleaning the surface using activated species formed using a fluorine-containing gas and activated species formed using a hydrogen-containing or NH3 containing gas to form a cleaned surface, that the molybdenum precursor is oxygen-free, or that oxygen-free molybdenum precursor comprises an oxygen-free organometallic molybdenum compound.
Hung ‘278 teaches a method of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing ([0003]) comprising providing a substrate comprising a surface with a reaction chamber (abstract, [0008]), using a molybdenum precursor to deposit a layer comprising molybdenum on the surface (abstract, claim 6, [0008]), and heating the substrate to form molybdenum silicide ([0008], [0009]). Hung ‘278 teaches that the method can include, before depositing the layer comprising molybdenum, cleaning the surface using activated species formed from NF3 gas, which is a fluorine containing gas, and activated species formed from NH3 gas (claims 1 and 6, [0038], [0039]). Hung ‘278 teaches that this cleaning step prevents loss in deposition selectivity ([0039]). Both Hung ‘278 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (‘195, abstract, [0006]; ‘278, abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing (‘195, [0002]; ‘278, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of, before depositing the layer comprising molybdenum, cleaning the surface using activated species formed from NF3 gas and activated species formed from NH3 gas taught by Hung ‘278 to the method taught by Tapily ‘195 because this cleaning step prevents loss in deposition selectivity, as taught by Hung ‘278.
With respect to claim 13, the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 do not explicitly teach that the molybdenum precursor is oxygen-free, or that oxygen-free molybdenum precursor comprises an oxygen-free organometallic molybdenum compound.
Ma ‘016 teaches a method of depositing a molybdenum layer (abstract, [0008]) for semiconductor device manufacturing ([0003]). Ma ‘016 teaches that tetrachloro(cyclopentadienyl)molybdenum, which is an oxygen-free, organometallic molybdenum compound comprising cyclopentadienyl, is a suitable molybdenum precursor for depositing a molybdenum layer (claim 16, [0048], [0050]). Both Ma ‘016 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of depositing a molybdenum layer (‘195, abstract, [0020]; ‘016, abstract, [0008]) for semiconductor device manufacturing (‘195, [0002]; ‘016, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the tetrachloro(cyclopentadienyl)molybdenum taught by Ma ‘016 as the molybdenum metal precursor used in the method taught by the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 because it is a suitable molybdenum precursor for depositing a molybdenum layer. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 15: The modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 teach that the molybdenum precursor comprises tetrachloro(cyclopentadienyl)molybdenum, as discussed above, which is a compound comprising a cyclopentadienyl ligand.
Claim 17: Tapily ‘195 teaches that the step of depositing the layer of molybdenum can provide the molybdenum containing precursor ([0020]) and can be an atomic layer deposition ([0020]), which is a cyclic deposition which includes providing a precursor and reactant.
Claim 18: The modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 teach that the molybdenum precursor comprises tetrachloro(cyclopentadienyl)molybdenum, as discussed above, which is a compound comprising a halogen.
Claim 19: Tapily ‘195 teaches that the heating step can comprise a thermal annealing step ([0021]).
With respect to claim 19, the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 do not explicitly teach that the heating step comprises rapid thermal processing.
Hung ‘278 teaches a method of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing ([0003]) comprising heating the substrate for thermal annealing ([0070], [0082], [0084]). Hung ‘278 teaches that the thermal annealing can be a spike anneal ([0070], [0082], [0084]), which corresponds to the claimed rapid thermal processing. Both Hung ‘278 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (‘195, abstract, [0006]; ‘278, abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing (‘195, [0002]; ‘278, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the spike anneal taught by Hung ‘278 as the type of thermal annealing in the method taught by the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily ‘195 in view of Hung et al. ‘278 and Ma et al. ‘016 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Isobe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0362784, hereafter Isobe ‘784).
The modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 teach the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 14, they do not explicitly teach that the fluorine containing gas in the cleaning step comprises one or more of XeF3 or F2.
Isobe ‘784 teaches a method of making a semiconductor device comprising forming a molybdenum containing layer (abstract, [0138]). Isobe ‘784 teaches that F2 and NF3 are functional equivalents for the purposes of being a cleaning gas ([0134]). Both Isobe ‘784 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of making a semiconductor device comprising forming a molybdenum containing layer (‘195, abstract, [0002], [0006]; ‘784, abstract, [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the F2 taught by Isobe ‘784 for the NF3 used in the method taught by the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 because F2 and NF3 are functional equivalents for the purposes of being a cleaning gas, as taught by Isobe ‘784. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily ‘195 in view of Hung et al. ‘278 and Ma et al. ‘016 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hua et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0142483, hereafter Hua ‘483).
The modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 teach the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above.
With respect to claim 16, they do not explicitly teach that the activated species using the NF3 gas and the NH3 gas are formed using a remote plasma apparatus and are supplied to the remote plasma apparatus sequentially.
Hung ‘278 teaches a method of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing ([0003]). Hung ‘278 teaches that the activated species from the NF3 gas and NH3 gas can be formed using a remote plasma apparatus ([0041]). Both Hung ‘278 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (‘195, abstract, [0006]; ‘278, abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing (‘195, [0002]; ‘278, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the activated species from the NF3 gas and NH3 gas can be formed using a remote plasma apparatus as taught by Hung ‘278 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 because it would have been a combination of prior art elements that would have yielded predictable results.
With respect to claim 16, the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 do not explicitly teach that the NF3 and NH3 gases are supplied to the remote plasma apparatus sequentially.
Hua ‘483 teaches a method of making a semiconductor device ([0002]) comprising supplying activated species from NF3 gas and NH3 gas from a remote plasma system (abstract). Hua ‘483 teaches that the NF3 gas and NH3 gas can be separately, and therefore sequentially, supplied to the remote plasma system ([0059]). Both Hua ‘483 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of making a semiconductor device (‘195, [0002]; ‘483, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the NF3 gas and NH3 gas be separately, and therefore sequentially, supplied to the remote plasma system as taught by Hua ‘483 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapily ‘195 in view of Hung et al. ‘278 and Hua et al. ‘483.
Tapily ‘195 teaches a method of forming molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (abstract, [0006]) comprising:
providing a substrate (100, 102) comprising a surface within a reaction chamber (Fig. 1A, [0012], [0014]);
forming a molybdenum silicide layer (110) on the surface of the substrate (100, 102) (Fig. 1D, [0020], [0021]); and
depositing a layer comprising molybdenum (112) using atomic layer deposition, which is a cyclical deposition process (Fig. 1F, [0024]),
wherein forming the molybdenum silicide layer is by a thermal process ([0021]).
Tapily ‘195 further teaches that the method is for manufacturing semiconductor devices ([0002]), and that the deposition is a selective deposition (abstract, Fig. 1C, [0020]).
With respect to claim 20, Tapily ‘195 does not explicitly teach that the method includes cleaning the surface by separately providing activated species formed using a fluorine containing gas and activated species formed using a hydrogen containing gas to form a cleaned surface.
Hung ‘278 teaches a method of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing ([0003]) comprising providing a substrate comprising a surface with a reaction chamber (abstract, [0008]), using a molybdenum precursor to deposit a layer comprising molybdenum on the surface (abstract, claim 6, [0008]), and heating the substrate to form molybdenum silicide ([0008], [0009]). Hung ‘278 teaches that the method can include, before depositing the layer comprising molybdenum, cleaning the surface using activated species formed from NF3 gas, which is a fluorine containing gas, and activated species formed from NH3 gas, which is a hydrogen containing gas (claims 1 and 6, [0038], [0039]). Hung ‘278 teaches that this cleaning step prevents loss in deposition selectivity ([0039]). Both Hung ‘278 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of depositing molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate (‘195, abstract, [0006]; ‘278, abstract) for semiconductor manufacturing (‘195, [0002]; ‘278, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of, before depositing the layer comprising molybdenum, cleaning the surface using activated species formed from NF3 gas and activated species formed from NH3 gas taught by Hung ‘278 to the method taught by Tapily ‘195 because this cleaning step prevents loss in deposition selectivity, as taught by Hung ‘278.
With respect to claim 20, the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 do not explicitly teach that activated species from the NF3 and the activated species from the NH3 are provided separately.
Hua ‘483 teaches a method of making a semiconductor device ([0002]) comprising supplying activated species from NF3 gas and NH3 gas from a remote plasma system (abstract). Hua ‘483 teaches that the activated NF3 gas and the activated NH3 gas can be separately supplied to the reaction chamber ([0059]). Both Hua ‘483 and Tapily ‘195 teach methods of making a semiconductor device (‘195, [0002]; ‘483, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the activated NF3 gas and the activated NH3 gas be separately supplied to the reaction chamber as taught by Hua ‘483 in the method taught by the modified teachings of Tapily ‘195 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a method of selectively forming molybdenum silicide on a surface of a substrate comprising using a cyclical deposition process, selectively depositing a molybdenum silicide layer on the first surface relative to the second surface, and providing a silicon precursor to react with the molybdenum species to form the molybdenum silicide layer on the first surface, wherein the molybdenum silicide layer is in direct contact with the first surface and with the second surface as to the context of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713