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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20 are pending, claims 3-5, 12, 15 and 19 having been cancelled. Applicant's response filed March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 13, 14, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0366317 to Ke et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0056723 to Lazovsky et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0053659 to Chakraborty et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0350004 to Kaufman-Osborn et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0062614 to Ma et al.
As to claims 1 and 20, Ke discloses a method for processing a substrate comprising: removing residues or oxides from a surface of the substrate in a processing volume of a process chamber with radicals produced from a remote plasma source (see Ke paragraphs [0043]-[0047]); and forming a blocking layer or a gas phase surfactant with a first chemical on at least a portion of the surface of the substrate to protect at least one bottom portion of structure on the substrate during a subsequent reverse selective atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (see Ke paragraphs [0025]-[0028], [0048]-[0054], [0061], [0076]). Ke further discloses that the SAM can be formed in the same chamber as the pre-clean (read as within the process chamber) (see Ke paragraph [0048]).
Regarding the recitation “without an air break,” as discussed above, Ke discloses that the pre-clean and the SAM forming layer can be performed in the same chamber (see Ke paragraph [0048]). To the extent that it could be argued that Ke does not explicitly disclose “without an air break,” Lazovsky discloses a similar method wherein the processes are performed under vacuum pressure or the system can be controlled to be nitrogen or an inert gas (see Lazovsky paragraphs [0071]-[0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the SAM forming layer without an air break as disclosed by Lazovsky in order to reduce the occurrence of oxidation (see Lazovsky paragraph [0072]).
The combination of Ke and Lazovsky does not explicitly disclose that the first chemical flows directly into the processing volume of the process chamber from a first gas supply fluidly connected to the process chamber via a sidewall of the process chamber. Chakraborty discloses that it is known in the art that gas inlets may be provided on the sidewalls of the process chamber (see Chakraborty paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the first gas supply via a sidewall of the process chamber as disclosed by Chakraborty and the results would have been predictable as mere design choice known in the art.
The combination of Ke, Lazovsky and Chakraborty does not explicitly disclose that the first chemical is preheated to a temperature higher than room temperature before flowing the first chemical into the processing volume of the process chamber. Kaufman-Osborn discloses a similar method wherein the first chemical is provided in an ampoule and the first chemical is heated in the conduit leading to the chamber to maintain a temperature higher than room temperature (see Kaufman-Osborn paragraph [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ke/Lazovsky/Chakraborty to have the first chemical is heated to maintain a temperature higher than room temperature as disclosed by Kaufman-Osborn in order to prevent condensation on the various apparatus (see Kaufman-Osborn paragraph [0072]).
While the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty and Kaufman-Osborn discloses that the first chemical is heated in the conduit, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty and Kaufman-Osborn does not explicitly disclose that the first chemical is also heated in the ampoule. Ma discloses that it is known in the art that the chemicals provided to the chamber can be heated in the ampoule, delivery lines and valves (see Ma paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to heat the first chemical in the ampoule as well as the delivery lines as disclosed by Ma in order to prevent condensation on the various apparatus parts as well as provide the heated first chemical to the processing chamber. Regarding claim 20, Ke discloses the use of non-transitory, computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed, can cause the recited method to be performed (see Ke paragraphs [0080]-[0082]).
As to claim 2, the combination of Ke and Lazovsky does not explicitly disclose that the radicals from the RPS flow into the processing volume of the process chamber via a top of the process chamber. Kaufman-Osborn discloses a similar method wherein the radicals from the RPS flow into the processing volume of a process chamber via a top of the process chamber (see, e.g., Kaufman-Osborn Fig. 3, ref.#342 and paragraph [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cited prior art to have the RPS flow into the processing chamber via a top of the process chamber as is known in the art and the results would have been predictable (delivery of plasma radicals to processing chamber (see Kaufman-Osborn paragraph [0070]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty, Kaufman-Osborn and Ma discloses that the first chemical is selected based on a material on which the first chemical interacts with to form the blocking layer or the gas phase surfactant (see Ke paragraph [0025], [0051]).
As to claim 13, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty, Kaufman-Osborn and Ma discloses that the radicals can be hydrogen radicals (see Ke paragraph [0044]).
As to claim 14, Ke discloses a method for processing a substrate comprising: removing residues or oxides from a surface of the substrate in a processing volume of a process chamber with radicals produced from a remote plasma source (see Ke paragraphs [0043]-[0047]); and forming a blocking layer or a gas phase surfactant with a second chemical on at least a portion of the surface of the substrate to protect at least one bottom portion of structure on the substrate during a subsequent reverse selective atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (see Ke paragraphs [0025]-[0028], [0048]-[0054], [0061], [0076]). Ke further discloses that the SAM can be formed in the same chamber as the pre-clean (read as within the process chamber) (see Ke paragraph [0048]). Ke discloses that the radicals can be hydrogen radicals (see Ke paragraph [0044]) and that the cleaning process can include more than one gas (read as in combination with a first chemical) (see Ke paragraph [0044]).
Regarding the recitation “without an air break,” as discussed above, Ke discloses that the pre-clean and the SAM forming layer can be performed in the same chamber (see Ke paragraph [0048]). To the extent that it could be argued that Ke does not explicitly disclose “without an air break,” Lazovsky discloses a similar method wherein the processes are performed under vacuum pressure or the system can be controlled to be nitrogen or an inert gas (see Lazovsky paragraphs [0071]-[0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to perform the SAM forming layer without an air break as disclosed by Lazovsky in order to reduce the occurrence of oxidation (see Lazovsky paragraph [0072]).
The combination of Ke and Lazovsky does not explicitly disclose that the radicals from the RPS flow into the processing volume of the process chamber via a top of the process chamber. Kaufman-Osborn discloses a similar method wherein the radicals from the RPS flow into the processing volume of a process chamber via a top of the process chamber (see, e.g., Kaufman-Osborn Fig. 3, ref.#342 and paragraph [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ke and Lazovsky to have the RPS flow into the processing chamber via a top of the process chamber as is known in the art and the results would have been predictable (delivery of plasma radicals to processing chamber (see Kaufman-Osborn paragraph [0070]).
The combination of Ke, Lazovsky and Kaufman-Osborn does not explicitly disclose that the second chemical flows directly into the processing volume of the process chamber via a sidewall of the process chamber. Chakraborty discloses that it is known in the art that gas inlets may be provided on the sidewalls of the process chamber (see Chakraborty paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the second gas supply via a sidewall of the process chamber as disclosed by Chakraborty and the results would have been predictable as mere design choice known in the art.
The combination of Ke, Lazovsky and Chakraborty does not explicitly disclose that the second chemical is provided in a preheated to a temperature higher than room temperature before flowing the second chemical into the processing volume of the process chamber. Kaufman-Osborn discloses a similar method wherein the second chemical is provided in an ampoule and the second chemical is heated to maintain a temperature higher than room temperature (see Kaufman-Osborn paragraph [0065]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ke/Lazovsky/Chakraborty to have the second chemical heated to maintain a temperature higher than room temperature as disclosed by Kaufman-Osborn in order to prevent condensation on the various apparatus (see Kaufman-Osborn paragraph [0072]).
While the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty and Kaufman-Osborn discloses that the second chemical is heated in the conduit, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty and Kaufman-Osborn does not explicitly disclose that the second chemical is also heated in the ampoule. Ma discloses that it is known in the art that the chemicals provided to the chamber can be heated in the ampoule, delivery lines and valves (see Ma paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to heat the second chemical in the ampoule as well as the delivery lines as disclosed by Ma in order to prevent condensation on the various apparatus parts as well as provide the heated second chemical to the processing chamber.
As to claim 16, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Kaufman-Osborn, Chakraborty and Ma discloses that the second chemical is selected based on a material on which the second chemical interacts with to form the blocking layer or the gas phase surfactant (see Ke paragraph [0025], [0051]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0366317 to Ke et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0056723 to Lazovsky et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0053659 to Chakraborty et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0350004 to Kaufman-Osborn et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0062614 to Ma et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0108320 to Lazovsky et al. (“the ‘320 application”).
Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty, Kaufman-Osborn and Ma are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 7, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty, Kaufman-Osborn and Ma does not explicitly disclose that the first chemical is an unsaturated carbon compound. The ‘320 application discloses a similar method wherein the first chemical can include an alkenyl group (read as unsaturated carbon compound) (see the ‘320 application paragraph [0079]). Simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)) and applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is also prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a chemical including an alkenyl group and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 8-11, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0366317 to Ke et al. in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0056723 to Lazovsky et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0053659 to Chakraborty et al., U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0350004 to Kaufman-Osborn et al. and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0062614 to Ma et al. as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0098540 to Xie et al.
Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty, Kaufman-Osborn and Ma are relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 8-10, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Chakraborty, Kaufman-Osborn and Ma does not explicitly disclose that the removing residue or oxides from the surface of the substrate further comprises using a second chemical, such as methanol or ethanol, in conjunction with the radicals from the RPS. Xie discloses the inclusion of a second chemical, such as methanol or ethanol, to expose the substrate in order to reduce a contaminated surface of the conductive material (see Xie claims 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a second chemical, such as methanol or ethanol, in conjunction with the radicals from the RPS of the cited prior art in order to reduce the contaminated surface and restore damaged surfaces and reduce or prevent carbon depletion from the surfaces (see Xie paragraph [0026]).
As to claim 11, Chakraborty discloses that it is known in the art that gas inlets may be provided on the sidewalls of the process chamber (see Chakraborty paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the first gas supply via a sidewall of the process chamber as disclosed by Chakraborty and the results would have been predictable as mere design choice known in the art.
As to claim 17, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Kaufman-Osborn, Chakraborty and Ma does not explicitly disclose that the removing residue or oxides from the surface of the substrate further comprises that the first chemical is methanol or ethanol. Xie discloses the inclusion of a first chemical, such as methanol or ethanol, to expose the substrate in order to reduce a contaminated surface of the conductive material (see Xie claims 1 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a first chemical, such as methanol or ethanol, in conjunction with the radicals from the RPS of the cited prior art in order to reduce the contaminated surface and restore damaged surfaces and reduce or prevent carbon depletion from the surfaces (see Xie paragraph [0026]).
As to claim 18, the combination of Ke, Lazovsky, Kaufman-Osborn and Xie does not explicitly disclose that the first chemical flows directly into the processing volume of the process chamber from a first gas supply fluidly connected to the process chamber via a sidewall of the process chamber. Chakraborty discloses that it is known in the art that gas inlets may be provided on the sidewalls of the process chamber (see Chakraborty paragraph [0035]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the first gas supply via a sidewall of the process chamber as disclosed by Chakraborty and the results would have been predictable as mere design choice known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument since Ma is now relied upon for the newly added claim recitation as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights