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 § 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.
Claim 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (2018/0312966, from hereinafter “Chan”), and further in view of Thombare et al. (2018/0294187, from hereinafter “Thombare”).
Re Claim 1. Chan discloses, a semiconductor device structure comprising:
a substrate (substrate) comprising a dielectric surface ([006]-[0007] and [0016]);
a nucleation film (nucleation layer) disposed directly on the dielectric surface, wherein the nucleation film comprises a compound material [0028]; and
a molybdenum metal film (metal layer) disposed directly on the nucleation film [0033]-[0034].
Chan fails to disclose:
wherein the nucleation film has a thickness of less than 10 Angstroms.
However, Chan discloses:
The nucleation film can be formed to any suitable thickness, and the thickness is in a range of 20-60 Angstroms [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Chan fails to disclose:
wherein the nucleation film comprises a compound material comprising molybdenum
However, Thombare discloses:
wherein the nucleation film (Mo layer 108 may include Mo nucleation layer and bulk Mo layer) comprises a compound material comprising molybdenum [0020].
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 2. Chan discloses, wherein the nucleation film is a discontinuous film.
Re Claim 3. Chan discloses, wherein the nucleation film comprises a binary compound material [0028].
Re Claim 4. Chan fails to disclose, wherein the binary compound material comprises a silicon binary compound material.
However, Thombare discloses:
wherein a nucleation layer (Mo nucleation layer) comprises a silicon binary compound material [0045].
Re Claim 5. Thombare discloses, wherein the nucleation film comprises at least one of a silicon nitride, a silicon carbide, or a silicon oxide.
Re Claim 6. Chan discloses, wherein the binary compound material comprises a molybdenum binary compound material.
Re Claim 7. Thombare discloses, wherein the nucleation film comprises at least one of a molybdenum nitride, a molybdenum carbide, a molybdenum oxide, or a molybdenum silicide [0045].
Re Claim 8. Thombare discloses, wherein the nucleation film comprises at least one of a molybdenum nitride, a molybdenum carbide, or a molybdenum oxide [0045].
Re Claim 9. Chan fails to disclose, wherein the molybdenum binary compound material consists essentially of molybdenum, an element from the group consisting of oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen, and trace quantities of impurity elements.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 10. Thombare discloses, wherein the nucleation film comprises a molybdenum ternary compound material [0045].
Re Claim 11. Chan fails to disclose, wherein the molybdenum metal film has an electrically resistivity of less than 40 Q-cm at a thickness of less than 60 Angstroms.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since the claimed molybdenum metal film and the prior art’s molybdenum metal film have similar chemical compositions; therefore their chemical properties are also similar.
Re Claim 12. Chan fails to disclose, wherein the molybdenum metal film has an impurity concentration of less than 2 atomic-%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re Claim 14. Chan discloses:
the nucleation film can be formed to any suitable thickness, and the thickness is in a range of 20-60 Angstroms [0029].
Chan fails to disclose, wherein the nucleation film has a thickness of less than 5 Angstroms.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claim 15. Chan discloses, wherein the molybdenum metal film has a thickness of between 50 Angstroms and 200 Angstroms [0029].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of Thombare, and further in view of Lehn et al. (2020/0283894, from hereinafter “Lehn”).
Re Claim 13. Chan fails to disclose, wherein the molybdenum metal film has a r.m.s. surface roughness (Ra) of less than 5 percent of the total thickness of the molybdenum metal film.
However, Lehn discloses in Fig. 58a:
wherein the molybdenum metal film has a r.m.s. surface roughness (Ra) of less than 5
percent of the total thickness of the molybdenum metal film [0289].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 16-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al. (2022/0195598, from hereinafter “Collins”).
Re Claim 16. Collins discloses, a high purity molybdenum metal film forming compound comprising, a molybdenum chalcogenide halide ([0028]-[0031]).
Re Claim 17. Collins fails to disclose:
the molybdenum metal film forming compound of claim 16, wherein a molybdenum metal film formed from the molybdenum metal film forming compound comprises an impurity concentration of less than 2 atomic-%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
/MARVIN PAYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights