Attorney’s Docket Number: 44022336US02
Filing Date: 01/26/2024
Claimed Priority Date: 05/04/2023 (PRO 63/464,041)
Applicants: Patel et al.
Examiner: Younes Boulghassoul
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Election filed on 08/07/2026.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 (reading of Figs. 4 and 5A-C), in the reply filed on 08/07/2026, is acknowledged. Applicant indicated that claims 9-14 read on the elected Species. The examiner agrees.
With regards to the Species restriction between Species 1-3, the traversal is on the grounds that “the Restriction Requirement does not sufficiently establish that the identified species are patentably distinct or that examination of the pending claims would impose a serious search or examination burden” (see, Remarks, page 6). These are not found persuasive.
As set forth in the restriction requirement mailed on 06/08/2026, the examiner set forth that the application contained several species including mutually exclusive features and associated method steps:
- Species 1 includes step 204 of forming a liner layer on inner sidewalls of the feature and an exposed surface of a conductive layer. However, this step is not present and/or illustrated in Species 2 and 3.
- Species 2 includes step 404 of forming an interruption layer on inner sidewalls of the feature and an exposed surface of a conductive layer. However, this step is not present and/or illustrated in Species 1 and 3.
- Species 3 includes step 604 of selectively forming an interruption layer on an exposed surface of a conductive layer. However, this step is not present and/or illustrated in Species 1 and 2
Accordingly, Species 1-3 are not obvious variants of each other as they are directed to methods including mutually exclusive method steps, and therefore the unpatentability of one species would not necessarily imply the unpatentability of the other species.
Because of the above, and because the applicant failed to distinctly and specifically point out that the species are not patentably distinct (emphasis added), and did not present evidence or identify evidence on record showing the species to be obvious variations of one another, the requirement is still deemed proper and is, therefore, made FINAL.
Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-20, with claims 1-8 and 15-20 standing withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: processing chamber 322 (see, Par. [0045], L. 10).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- Par. [0060], L. 5-6: the disclosure recites “In some embodiments, forming the interruption layer includes exposing the liner layer 310 to a precursor including MoCl5”. However, it is unclear to the examiner how such manufacturing step is possible, since selective interruption layer 702 is selectively forming on an exposed surface of a conductive layer 308 within the feature, and the liner layer 310 is formed after interruption layer 702 (see, e.g., Figs. 7A-C and associated disclosure).
- Par. [0061], L. 1: amend to -- forming the interruption layer 702 includes --
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. (US2022/0238373).
Regarding Claim 9, Chuang (see, e.g., Figs. 7-10 and Par. [0029]-[0032]) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a method of filling a feature in a semiconductor structure (e.g., filling opening 256 or 260 in workpiece 200), the method comprising:
- forming an interruption layer (e.g., layer 264 of molybdenum (Mo)) over sidewalls of the feature and an exposed surface of a conductive layer within the feature (e.g., metal fill layer 258 or metal contact 240, respectively), the feature being formed in a dielectric layer (e.g., interlayer dielectric layer 254) formed over the conductive layer, wherein the interruption layer comprises molybdenum (Mo) (see, e.g., Figs. 7-8 and Par. [0030])
- substantially filling the feature with a conductive material (e.g., metal fill layer 266) (see, e.g., Figs. 9-10 and Par. [0031])
Regarding Claim 12, Chuang (see, e.g., Figs. 9-10 and Par. [0031]) shows that the conductive material (e.g., 266) comprises tungsten (W).
Regarding Claim 13, Chuang (see, e.g., Figs. 7-8 and Par. [0030]) discloses that formed layer 264 has a thickness between about 1 Å and about 30 Å. Therefore, Chuang shows that a thickness of the interruption layer (e.g., 264) is less than 50 angstroms.
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.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US2022/0238373) in view of Ganguli et al. (US2022/0359281).
Regarding Claim 10, Chuang (see, e.g., Fig. 8 and Par. [0030]) discloses that layer 264 of molybdenum (Mo) is conformally deposited in openings 256 or 260 of dielectric 254 using CVD or ALD. Therefore, Chuang shows a step of depositing the interruption layer (e.g., 264) by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process or an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process.
However, Chuang is silent about a step of exposing the dielectric layer to a precursor comprising at least one of molybdenum (V) chloride (MoCl5), molybdenum oxytetrachloride (MoOCl4), molybdenum hexafluoride (MoF6), or a molybdenum carbonyl compound. Ganguli (see, e.g., Par. [0037]-[0040]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches that molybdenum halides, e.g., molybdenum chloride, are known in the semiconductor manufacturing art as suitable precursors for forming molybdenum layers by CVD or ALD deposition.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a step of exposing the dielectric layer to a precursor comprising at least one of molybdenum (V) chloride (MoCl5), molybdenum oxytetrachloride (MoOCl4), molybdenum hexafluoride (MoF6), or a molybdenum carbonyl compound, in the method of Chuang, because molybdenum chloride is a known suitable precursor for depositing molybdenum layers by CVD or ALD deposition, as suggested by Ganguli, and selecting a known precursor material based on its suitability for its intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. See, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 14, Chuang is silent about a step of delivering a first precursor comprising at least one of molybdenum (V) chloride (MoCl5), molybdenum oxytetrachloride (MoOCl4), or molybdenum hexafluoride (MoF6) to a substrate heated to a temperature of 100oC to 600oC and positioned in an environment maintained at a pressure of 1 mTorr to 500 Torr. Ganguli (see, e.g., Par. [0037]-[0040]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches exposing a substrate surface to a molybdenum halide precursor, wherein molybdenum chloride is known in the semiconductor manufacturing art as suitable precursor for forming a molybdenum layer.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a step of delivering a first precursor comprising at least one of molybdenum (V) chloride (MoCl5), molybdenum oxytetrachloride (MoOCl4), or molybdenum hexafluoride (MoF6) to a substrate, in the method of Chuang, because molybdenum chloride is a known suitable precursor for depositing molybdenum layer on a substrate, as suggested by Ganguli, and selecting a known precursor material based on its suitability for its intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. See, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Furthermore, Ganguli teaches that the substrate is heated to a temperature of 100oC to 600oC (see, e.g., Par. [0054]: 350°C to 550°C) and positioned in an environment maintained at a pressure of 1 mTorr to 500 Torr (see, e.g., Par. [0053]: 2 Torr to 60 Torr).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US2022/0238373) in view of Wu et al. (US2015/0050807).
Regarding Claim 11, Chuang (see, e.g., Fig. 9 and Par. [0031]) discloses that metal fill layer 266 of tungsten (W) is deposited by CVD. Therefore, Chuang shows a step of depositing the conductive material (e.g., 266) by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process.
However, Chuang is silent about a step of exposing the interruption layer to a precursor comprising at least one of tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) or tungsten (V) chloride (WCI5) and hydrogren (H2). Wu (see, e.g., Par. [0037-0053]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor, teaches exposing molybdenum layer 420 to a tungsten containing gas (e.g., tungsten hexafluoride (WF6)) and a hydrogen containing gas (e.g., hydrogen (H2)) during a CVD process, to form tungsten layer 460.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a step of exposing the interruption layer to a precursor comprising at least one of tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) or tungsten (V) chloride (WCI5) and hydrogren (H2), in the method of Chuang, because a gas mixture of tungsten hexafluoride (WF6) and hydrogren (H2) is a known suitable precursor for depositing tungsten on a molybdenum layer, as suggested by Wu, and selecting a known precursor gas mixture based on its suitability for its intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan. See, Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younes Boulghassoul at (571) 270-5514. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST (Eastern Standard Time), or by e-mail via younes.boulghassoul@uspto.gov. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at (571) 272-1705. 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.
/YOUNES BOULGHASSOUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
