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 .
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, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Huang et al [US 2020/0335588] in view of Huang et al [US 2022/0254660]
► With respect to claim 1, Huang et al (‘588) (figs 1A-7B) discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising:
forming a contact (125, figs 1A, 1B) to a source/drain region (117), the contact being adjacent to a semiconductor fin (107);
depositing a dielectric layer (123/127, figs 1A, 1B) over the contact
exposing the contact through the dielectric layer (fig 2A);
oxidizing a first portion of the contact (fig 3A, text [0064-[0070]);
removing the first portion (fig 3A-4A, text [0071]-[0074]) with a plasma process, the plasma process utilizing a hydrogen plasma; and
depositing a conductive material (501, fig 5A) in physical contact with the contact.
Huang et al (‘588) does not expressly teach using a remote plasma process utilizing an inductively coupled hydrogen plasma.
However, using the remote plasma process utilizing then inductively coupled hydrogen plasma is a known technique for cleaning/removing oxide. Huang et al (‘660) (text [0026]-[0033]) [teaches using the remote plasma process utilizing the inductively coupled hydrogen plasma for effective cleaning process with minimized physical damage to a workpiece to be cleaned.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify process of Huang et al (‘588) by using the remote plasma process utilizing the inductively coupled hydrogen plasma as being claimed, per taught by Huang et al (‘660) to provide effective cleaning process with reason given above.
► With respect to claim 2, Huang et al (‘588) (text [0077]) discloses the depositing the conductive material deposits tungsten.
► With respect to claim 3, combination of Huang et al (‘588) in view of Huang et al (‘660) teaches the remote plasma process uses hydrogen as a precursor
► With respect to claims 4-5 and 7, the claimed parameters are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955)., the selection of reaction parameters such as temperature and concentration would have been obvious.
"Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may be impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."
See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
► With respect to claim 6, Huang et al (‘588) (text [0049]) discloses the contact comprises cobalt.
► With respect to claim 8, Huang et al (‘588) (figs 1A-7B) discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising:
forming an opening (203, fig 2A) through a dielectric layer (123/127) to expose a source/drain contact (125);
oxidizing a portion of the source/drain contact to form a base layer(311, fog 3A);
removing the base layer with a plasma process, the plasma process utilizing a hydrogen plasma (fig 3A-4A, text [0071]-[0074]);
depositing a conductive material (501, fig 5A) onto the source/drain contact.
Huang et al (‘588) does not expressly teach using a remote plasma process utilizing an inductively coupled hydrogen plasma.
However, using the remote plasma process utilizing then inductively coupled hydrogen plasma is a known technique for cleaning/removing oxide. Huang et al (‘660) (text [0026]-[0033]) [teaches using the remote plasma process utilizing the inductively coupled hydrogen plasma for effective cleaning process with minimized physical damage to a workpiece to be cleaned.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify process of Huang et al (‘588) by using the remote plasma process utilizing the inductively coupled hydrogen plasma as being claimed, per taught by Huang et al (‘660) to provide effective cleaning process with reason given above.
► With respect to claim 9, utilizing argon plasma together with hydrogen plasma is well known in the art since argon is conventional carrier gas remote inductive coupling plasma process. See Huang et al (‘660) (text [0026]-[0028]) teaches using hydrogen argon mixture for remote inductively coupling plasma process for effective cleaning process with minimized physical damage to a workpiece to be cleaned.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify process of Huang et al (‘588) by using the remote plasma process utilizing the inductively coupled hydrogen plasma as being claimed, per taught by Huang et al (‘660) to provide effective cleaning process with reason given above.
► With respect to claims 10-11, the claimed parameters are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955); In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
► With respect to claim 12, Huang et al (‘588) (text [0077]) discloses the depositing the conductive material deposits tungsten.
► With respect to claim 13, Huang et al (‘588) (text [0049]) discloses the contact comprises cobalt.
► With respect to claim 15, Huang et al (‘588) (figs 1A-7B) discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising:
recessing a source/drain contact (12, fig 2A) through an opening (203) in a dielectric layer (127/123);
oxidizing a top surface of the source/drain contact through the opening to form a base layer (311, fig 3A, text [0071]-[0074]);
removing the base layer with a hydrogen plasma (figs 3A-4A, text [0071]-[0074]);
depositing a conductive material (501, fig 5A) into the opening.
Huang et al (‘588) does not expressly teach using the hydrogen plasma and an argon plasma, wherein the hydrogen plasma and argon plasma are generated in a remote plasma unit.
However, Huang et al (‘660) (text [0026]-[0028]) teaches using the hydrogen plasma and the argon plasma, wherein the hydrogen plasma and argon plasma are generated in the remote plasma unit for effective cleaning process with minimized physical damage to a workpiece to be cleaned.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify process of Huang et al (‘588) by using the hydrogen and argon plasma remote inductively coupling process to provide effectively cleaning with reason given above.
► With respect to claim 16, Huang et al (‘588) (text [0077]) discloses the depositing the conductive material deposits tungsten.
► With respect to claim 17, Huang et al (‘588) (text [0049]) discloses the contact comprises cobalt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANHHA S PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/THANHHA S PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights