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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Drawings
Amendment of Claim 1 made in the Applicant’s Arguments of 07/22/2026 overcomes the drawing objection made in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 05/08/2026, therefore that prior drawing objection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 contains the typographical error “at” in the second line of the claim, “…is at greater…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Amendments of Claims 1 and 14 made in the Applicant’s Arguments of 07/22/2026 overcome the 35 USC § 112 rejections made in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 05/08/2026, therefore the prior 35 USC § 112 rejections are withdrawn
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 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar et al. (US 2012/0009785 A1) in view of Schloss et al. (US 2020/0211853 A1, hereinafter Schloss ‘853), in view of the following arguments.
PNG
media_image1.png
888
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
557
959
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 1 Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method (Fig 1-3) comprising:
exposing a substrate (103, Fig 1, Para [0023]) surface (surface of 103 as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, substrate surface hereinafter SUBSUR) with at least one feature (105, Fig 1, Para [0023]) therein to form a nucleation underlayer (113, Fig 1, Para [0024] discloses 113 as a nucleation layer, (Note that 113 is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321)), the at least one feature (105) extending a depth D (depth D disclosed in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) from the substrate surface (SUBSUR) to a bottom (bottom of 105 as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) and extending a width W (width W disclosed in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) between two sidewalls (sidewalls of 105 shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, hereinafter SW), depth D (depth D) and the width W (width W) defining an aspect ratio D:W (aspect ratio of depth D:width W as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, Para [0023] also discloses an aspect ratio for 105, hereinafter AR);
depositing a metal liner (323, Fig 3 cross section 321, Para [0035]) on the nucleation underlayer (113 which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321, Para [0035]) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (Para [0043] discloses PVD process for partial fill of the high aspect ratio feature); and
depositing a metal gapfill (bulk fill of Fig 3 cross section 361, Para [0061] discloses a final fill operation after deposition of metal liner 323, metal gapfill hereinafter MGF) on the metal liner (323) and the nucleation underlayer (313)(MGF on 323 and 313 shown in Fig 3).
But Chandrashekar ‘785 fails to expressly disclose exposing the substrate to a nucleation presoak to form a nucleation underlayer comprising silicon or boron.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig. 4-7 of Schloss ‘853), Schloss ‘853 discloses exposing the substrate (substrate shown in annotated Fig 4 of Schloss ‘853) to a nucleation presoak (disclosed in Para [0071-0074 and 0077] of Schloss ‘853) to form a nucleation underlayer (425, Fig 4 cross section 410 of Schloss ‘853, Para [0040 and 0042]) comprising silicon or boron. (Fig 6A and 6D of Schloss ‘853, Para [0071-0074 and 0077] discloses the process of a nucleation presoak on the substrate to form a boron nucleation underlayer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Schloss ‘853’s teaching of exposing the substrate to a nucleation presoak to form a nucleation underlayer comprising silicon or boron into Chandrashekar ‘785’s method. Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate. Chandrashekar ‘785 is open to the process of forming the nucleation underlayer as disclosed in Para [0032]. Schloss ‘853 also discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate and Schloss ‘853 provides details on a process to form the nucleation underlayer. The person of ordinary skill in the art would then have a reasonable expectation of success in using the nucleation underlayer formation process of Schloss ‘853. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar ‘785 in the manner set forth above, at least, because Schloss ‘853 teaches in Para [0072] that the using the presoak process to form the nucleation underlayer preconditions the substrate which promotes the growth of metal with no nucleation delay.
As incorporated, the nucleation presoak process to form a nucleation underlayer comprising boron (425) taught by Schloss ‘853 would be used to form the nucleation underlayer (113) of Chandrashekar ‘785 so that (113 of Chandrashekar ‘785) comprises boron.
With respect to Claim 2 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 further disclose wherein the aspect ratio D:W (AR) of the at least one feature (105) is at (note above claim objection, Examiner is treating the term “at” as a typographical error) greater than or equal to about 5:1 (Para [0023] discloses 105 has an aspect ratio of at least 4:1. MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
With respect to Claim 3 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 further discloses wherein the metal liner (323) and the metal gapfill (MGF) each comprise tungsten (Para [0035] discloses 323 as tungsten and Para [0034] disclose bulk deposition (MGF) as tungsten).
With respect to Claim 4 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and in another embodiment Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the nucleation presoak (Para [0075 and 0076] disclose a nucleation presoak) comprises exposing the substrate surface (substrate surface shown in annotated Fig 4 of Schloss ‘853) to a silicon compound (Para [0075 and 0076] of Schloss ‘853 disclose a silane used as a presoak) and the nucleation underlayer (425) comprises silicon (Para [0042] of Schloss ‘853 discloses that nucleation layer 425 is silicon when a silane precursor is used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Schloss ‘853’s further teaching of wherein the nucleation presoak comprises exposing the substrate surface to a silicon compound and the nucleation underlayer comprises silicon into Chandrashekar ‘785’s method. Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate. Chandrashekar ‘785 is open to the process of forming the nucleation underlayer as disclosed in Para [0032]. Schloss ‘853 also discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate and Schloss ‘853 provides details on a process to form the nucleation underlayer. The person of ordinary skill in the art would then have a reasonable expectation of success in using the nucleation underlayer formation process of Schloss ‘853. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar ‘785 in the manner set forth above, at least, because Schloss ‘853 teaches in Para [0072] that the using the presoak process to form the nucleation underlayer preconditions the substrate which promotes the growth of metal with no nucleation delay.
As incorporated, the nucleation presoak process using a silicon compound (silane) to form a nucleation underlayer comprising silicon (425) taught by Schloss ‘853 would be used to form the nucleation underlayer (113) of Chandrashekar ‘785 so that (113 of Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853) comprises silicon.
With respect to Claim 5 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 4, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the silicon compound consists essentially of silane (SiH4) (Para [0075 and 0076] of Schloss ‘853 disclose a silane used as the presoak compound).
With respect to Claim 6 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the nucleation presoak (disclosed in Para [0071-0074 and 0077] of Schloss ‘853) comprises exposing the substrate surface (substrate shown in annotated Fig 4 of Schloss ‘853) to a boron compound (Para [0072] of Schloss ‘853 discloses the use of a diborane in the presoak process) and the nucleation underlayer (425) comprises boron (Fig 6A and 6D of Schloss ‘853, Para [0071-0074 and 0077] discloses the process of a nucleation presoak on the substrate to form a boron nucleation underlayer).
With respect to Claim 7 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 6, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the boron compound consists essentially of diborane (B2H6) (Para [0071-0074 and 0077] of Schloss ‘853 discloses the use of a diborane in the presoak process).
With respect to Claim 8 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the nucleation underlayer (113 of Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853) is from one to two monolayers thick (Para [0050] of Schloss ‘853 discloses the nucleation layer is one to three monolayers thick. MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
With respect to Claim 9 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1,
But Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 fails to expressly disclose wherein the metal liner has an average thickness on the substrate surface outside of the at least one feature of less than or equal to about 50 Å. However, the examiner notes that the applicants disclosure, in Para [0035], teaches wherein the recited thickness has the advantage of preventing the nucleation underlayer from forming high resistance in the feature. Having this mind, Chandrashekar ‘785 teaches the disclosed method is directed to minimizing issues that cause high resistance (Para [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of preventing the nucleation underlayer from forming high resistance in the feature. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)(A),(B).
With respect to Claim 10 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 further discloses wherein the metal gapfill (MGF) is deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (Para [0032] disclose MGF (bulk deposition) as an ALD process).
With respect to Claim 11 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 further discloses wherein the metal gapfill (MGF) is deposited by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (Para [0032] disclose MGF (bulk deposition) as an ALD process).
With respect to Claim 12 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the metal gapfill (MGF) is deposited directly on the metal liner (323) and the nucleation underlayer (113 (which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) as modified by Schloss ‘853)(Fig 2 and Fig 3 and Para [0031]0032] disclose that MGF is deposited directly on metal liner and nucleation layer).
With respect to Claim 13 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 further discloses wherein the nucleation underlayer (113 (which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) as modified by Schloss ‘853) is continuous and formed on the substrate surface and within the at least one feature (105)(Fig 1 and Fig 3 and Para [0024-0025] discloses 113 as modified by Schloss ‘853 (313 in Fig 3) is continuous and formed on the substrate surface and formed on the substrate surface and within the at least one feature).
With respect to Claim 14 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Chandrashekar ‘785 further discloses wherein the nucleation underlayer (113 (which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321), as modified by Schloss ‘853) is substantially conformal (nucleation underlayer being conformal is disclosed in Para [0031] and Fig 1 and Fig 3).
With respect to Claim 15 Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method (Fig 1-3) comprising:
exposing a substrate surface (103, Fig 1, Para [0023]) surface (surface of 103 as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, substrate surface hereinafter SUBSUR) with at least one feature (105, Fig 1, Para [0023]) therein to form a nucleation underlayer (113, Fig 1, Para [0024] discloses 113 as a nucleation layer, (Note that 113 is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321)), the at least one feature (105) extending a depth D (depth D disclosed in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) from the substrate surface (SUBSUR) to a bottom (bottom of 105 as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) and extending a width W (width W disclosed in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) between two sidewalls (sidewalls of 105 shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, hereinafter SW), the depth D (depth D) and the width W (width W) defining an aspect ratio D:W (aspect ratio of depth D:width W as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, Para [0023] also discloses an aspect ratio for 105, hereinafter AR);
depositing a metal liner (323, Fig 3 cross section 321, Para [0035]) comprising tungsten (Para [0035] discloses 323 as tungsten) on the nucleation underlayer (113 which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (Para [0043] discloses PVD process for partial fill of the high aspect ratio feature); and
depositing a metal gapfill (bulk fill of Fig 3 cross section 361, Para [0061] discloses a final fill operation after deposition of metal liner 323, metal gapfill hereinafter MGF) comprising tungsten (Para [0034] disclose bulk deposition (MGF) as tungsten) on the metal liner (323) and the nucleation underlayer (313)(MGF on 323 and 313 shown in Fig 3).
But Chandrashekar ‘785 fails to expressly disclose exposing the substrate surface to a nucleation presoak comprising silane to form a nucleation underlayer comprising silicon.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig. 4-7 of Schloss ‘853), Schloss ‘853 discloses exposing the substrate (substrate shown in annotated Fig 4 of Schloss ‘853) to a nucleation presoak (disclosed in Para [0071-0077] of Schloss ‘853) comprising silane (Para [0075 and 0076] of Schloss ‘853 disclose a silane used as a presoak) to form a nucleation underlayer (425, Fig 4 cross section 410 of Schloss ‘853, Para [0040 and 0042]) comprising silicon (Para [0042] of Schloss ‘853 discloses that nucleation layer 425 is silicon when a silane precursor is used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Schloss ‘853’s teaching of exposing the substrate surface to a nucleation presoak comprising silane to form a nucleation underlayer comprising silicon into Chandrashekar ‘785’s method. Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate. Chandrashekar ‘785 is open to the process of forming the nucleation underlayer as disclosed in Para [0032]. Schloss ‘853 also discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate and Schloss ‘853 provides details on a process to form the nucleation underlayer. The person of ordinary skill in the art would then have a reasonable expectation of success in using the nucleation underlayer formation process of Schloss ‘853. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar ‘785 in the manner set forth above, at least, because Schloss ‘853 teaches in Para [0072] that the using the presoak process to form the nucleation underlayer preconditions the substrate which promotes the growth of metal with no nucleation delay.
As incorporated, the nucleation presoak process using a silicon compound (silane) to form a nucleation underlayer comprising silicon (425) taught by Schloss ‘853 would be used to form the nucleation underlayer (113) of Chandrashekar ‘785 so that (113) comprises silicon.
With respect to Claim 17 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 15, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the metal gapfill (MGF) is deposited directly on the metal liner (323) and the nucleation underlayer (113 (which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) as modified by Schloss ‘853)(Fig 2 and Fig 3 and Para [0031]0032] disclose that MGF is deposited directly on metal liner and nucleation layer).
With respect to Claim 18 Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method (Fig 1-3) comprising:
exposing a substrate (103, Fig 1, Para [0023]) surface (surface of 103 as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, substrate surface hereinafter SUBSUR) with at least one feature (105, Fig 1, Para [0023]) therein to form a nucleation underlayer (113, Fig 1, Para [0024] discloses 113 as a nucleation layer), the at least one feature (105) extending a depth D (depth D disclosed in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) from the substrate surface (SUBSUR) to a bottom (bottom of 105 as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) and extending a width W (width W disclosed in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785) between two sidewalls (sidewalls of 105 shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, hereinafter SW), the depth D (depth D) and the width W (width W) defining an aspect ratio D:W (aspect ratio of depth D:width W as shown in annotated Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘785, Para [0023] also discloses an aspect ratio for 105, hereinafter AR);
depositing a metal liner (323, Fig 3 cross section 321, Para [0035]) comprising tungsten (Para [0035] discloses 323 as tungsten) on the nucleation underlayer (113 which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) by physical vapor deposition (PVD) (Para [0043] discloses PVD process for partial fill of the high aspect ratio feature); and
depositing a metal gapfill (bulk fill of Fig 3 cross section 361, Para [0061] discloses a final fill operation after deposition of metal liner 323, metal gapfill hereinafter MGF) comprising tungsten (Para [0034] disclose bulk deposition (MGF) as tungsten) on the metal liner (323) and the nucleation underlayer (313)(MGF on 323 and 313 shown in Fig 3).
But Chandrashekar ‘785 fails to expressly disclose exposing the substrate surface to a nucleation presoak comprising diborane to form a nucleation underlayer comprising boron.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig. 4-7 of Schloss ‘853), Schloss ‘853 discloses exposing the substrate (substrate shown in annotated Fig 4 of Schloss ‘853) to a nucleation presoak (disclosed in Para [0071-0074 and 0077] of Schloss ‘853) comprising diborane (Para [0071-0074 and 0077] of Schloss ‘853 discloses the use of a diborane in the presoak process) to form a nucleation underlayer (425, Fig 4 cross section 410 of Schloss ‘853, Para [0040 and 0042]) comprising boron (Fig 6A and 6D of Schloss ‘853, Para [0071-0074 and 0077] discloses the process of a nucleation presoak on the substrate to form a boron nucleation underlayer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Schloss ‘853’s teaching of exposing the substrate surface to a nucleation presoak comprising diborane to form a nucleation underlayer comprising boron into Chandrashekar ‘785’s method. Chandrashekar ‘785 discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate. Chandrashekar ‘785 is open to the process of forming the nucleation underlayer as disclosed in Para [0032]. Schloss ‘853 also discloses a method for forming a substrate feature comprising a nucleation underlayer under a metal liner, under a metal gapfill in a high aspect feature on the substrate and Schloss ‘853 provides details on a process to form the nucleation underlayer. The person of ordinary skill in the art would then have a reasonable expectation of success in using the nucleation underlayer formation process of Schloss ‘853. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chandrashekar ‘785 in the manner set forth above, at least, because Schloss ‘853 teaches in Para [0072] that the using the presoak process to form the nucleation underlayer preconditions the substrate which promotes the growth of metal with no nucleation delay.
As incorporated, the nucleation presoak process using diborane to form a nucleation underlayer comprising boron (425) taught by Schloss ‘853 would be used to form the nucleation underlayer (113) of Chandrashekar ‘785 so that (113) comprises boron.
With respect to Claim 19 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 18, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the nucleation underlayer113 (which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) as modified by Schloss ‘853) is from one to two monolayers thick (Para [0050] of Schloss ‘853 discloses the nucleation layer is one to three monolayers thick. MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists”).
With respect to Claim 20 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 18, and Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 further discloses wherein the metal gapfill (MGF) is deposited directly on the metal liner (323) and the nucleation underlayer (113 (which is shown as 313 in Fig 3 cross section 321) as modified by Schloss ‘853)(Fig 2 and Fig 3 and Para [0031]0032] disclose that MGF is deposited directly on metal liner and nucleation layer).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar ‘785 in view of Schloss ‘853 in further view of Chandrashekar et al. (US 2010/0159694 A1, hereinafter Chandrashekar ‘694) in view of the following arguments.
With respect to Claim 16 Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 15, but Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 fails to expressly disclose wherein the nucleation underlayer is from one to two monolayers thick.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-2 of Chandrashekar ‘694), Chandrashekar ‘694 discloses wherein the nucleation underlayer (nucleation, Fig 1 of Chandrashekar ‘694, Para [0022] discloses using silane to deposit nucleation underlayer) is from one to two monolayers thick (Para [0016] of Chandrashekar ‘694 teaches the nucleation process comprised depositing > 1 monolayer per cycle and Para [0022] discloses silane used to form nucleation underlayer) MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Chandrashekar ‘694’s teaching of wherein the nucleation underlayer is from one to two monolayers thick into Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853’s method. Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853 teaches a method for forming a low resistivity metal feature in an interconnect structure that comprises a nucleation presoak, an initial metal formation and a bulk metal formation. Chandrashekar ‘694 teaches a method to form a low resistivity metal feature in an interconnect structure that comprises a nucleation presoak, and metal formation. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to further modify Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853, at least, because Chandrashekar ‘694 teaches in Para [0017] that the nucleation method results in “…good plugfill, have low resistivity and exhibit good micro-adhesion”.
As incorporated, the nucleation process taught by Chandrashekar ‘785 wherein the nucleation underlayer is from one to two monolayers thick would be used in the nucleation underlayer (113) of Chandrashekar ‘785 as modified by Schloss ‘853.
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 PAUL A. BERRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/PAUL A BERRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
