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
Due to amendments, the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. Regarding the prior art, Applicant’s arguments 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. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the third gas". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it depends from Claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elers (US 2008/0102613 A1) in view of Haukka et al. (US 2004/0104439 A1)
As to claim 1, Elers teaches a method for forming a film on patterned structures of a substrate (Figures), comprising: a step of loading a substrate onto a chamber (para 0042); a step of forming a film on the substrate (502-508 may be repeated sequentially and alternatingly as in Fig. 5 and para 0069); where the first gas comprises titanium and the second gas comprises nitrogen with a first plasma formed from the nitrogen in paras 0069-0071; and a step of unloading the substrate (inherently must occur to use the film/substrate); wherein the step of forming the film on the substrate comprises supplying a first gas and a second gas sequentially and alternately (Fig. 5, para 0069); and wherein the second gas is activated by RF power (Fig. 5, para 0071).
Though Elers teaches that the pulsing can be modified to include various pulses and orders in para 0069-0071, Elers does not explicitly teach a post treatment step with a post treatment plasma comprised of the second gas. It is noted that Elers uses RF power to activate its plasmas in para 0071. Haukka et al. teaches a similar TiN film created by a similar process that is post treated by a nitrogen plasma (para 0055) in order to remove any impurities during the film formation process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Elers to include a post treatment with nitrogen plasma as taught by Haukka in order to remove any impurities during the film formation process.
As to claim 2, three gases are used, the Ti precursor, N precursor and an excited gas in Elers para 0064-0066 that includes hydrogen.
As to claim 3, Haukka teaches the treatment gas includes the second and third gases in para 0055 (hydrogen and nitrogen/ammonia).
Claims 4-5 require differing flow rates of the second and third gases during the film forming and post treatment. Elers teaches modifying the flow rates of the gases per cycle (paras 0050, 0053, 0055, 0061, claims 1-2) in order to control and modify the stoichiometry of the film. This would extend to Haukka as far as the gas amount being effective for removing impurities in para 0055. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the relative flow rates by routine experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 6-9, Elers teaches a Ti precursor, N precursor and hydrogen gas that are claimed are used in paras 0061 and 0074-0075. Hydrogen may be introduced continuously in para 0074 of Elers.
As to claim 10, removing carbon is a naturally occurring result of the broadly claimed method. As the prior art teaches the same method, it follows that the result of removing carbon will inherently occur. Further, Haukka teaches using hydrogen plasma to remove impurities in para 0055.
As to claim 11, Elers does not teach a set number of cycles before annealing. However, paras 0069-0075 teach modifying the number of cycles to modify the grading of the film and the stoichiometry of the film. Haukka teaches the film is annealed when impurities need to be removed in para 0055. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the number of deposition pulses by routine experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 12, Elers does not explicitly teach the distance between features as shown in the Figures. However, these Figures are parts of devices with features within the relative sizes that would have features less than 40 nm (paras 0003, 0013, etc.) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance between patterned features by routine experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 13, the layer may be uniform in Elers paras 0069-0075.
Claims 14-17 require differing plasma powers during the film forming and post treatment. It is noted that plasma frequency as claimed is derived from plasma power and thus is similarly adjustable. Elers teaches modifying the flow rates of the gases per cycle (paras 0050, 0053, 0055, 0061, claims 1-2, Fig. 3) in order to control and modify the stoichiometry of the film. Haukka teaches the film is annealed when impurities need to be removed in para 0055.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the relative plasma power/frequencies by routine experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 18, the types of transistors and stacks shown in Elers Figs 1-2 and paras 0004-0005 would have these types of films.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima et al. (US 2010/0304561 A1) in view of Haukka et al. (US 2004/0104439 A1)
As to claim 1, Narushima teaches a method for forming a film on patterned structures of a substrate (Figures 6,7), comprising: a step of loading a substrate onto a chamber (para 0011, 0025); a step of forming a film on the substrate (Fig. 10, para 0019); and a step of unloading the substrate(inherently must occur to use the film/substrate); wherein the step of forming the film on the substrate comprises supplying a first gas and a second gas sequentially and alternately (Fig. 10); and wherein the second gas is activated by RF power (Fig. 10).
Narushima teaches an annealing step in para 0220 but not as claimed. It is noted that Narushima uses RF power to activate its plasmas in Fig 10. Haukka et al. teaches a similar TiN film created by a similar process that is post treated by a nitrogen plasma (para 0055) in order to remove any impurities during the film formation process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Narushima to include a post treatment with nitrogen plasma as taught by Haukka in order to remove any impurities during the film formation process.
As to claim 2, three gases are used, the Ti precursor, N precursor and an excited gas in Narushima Fig. 10.
As to claim 3 Haukka teaches the treatment gas includes the second and third gases in para 0055 (hydrogen and nitrogen/ammonia).
Claims 4-5 require differing flow rates of the second and third gases during the film forming and post treatment. Haukka teaches the gas amount being effective for removing impurities in para 0055. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the relative flow rates by routine experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 6-9, a Ti precursor, N precursor and hydrogen gas that are claimed are used in Narushima Fig. 10. Hydrogen may be continuous as in the Figures.
As to claim 10, removing carbon is a naturally occurring result of the broadly claimed method. As the prior art teaches the same method, it follows that the result of removing carbon will inherently occur. Further, an annealing step is taught to remove impurities in para 0220. Further, Haukka teaches using hydrogen plasma to remove impurities in para 0055.
As to claim 11, Narushima does not teach a set number of cycles before annealing. Haukka teaches the film is annealed when impurities need to be removed in para 0055. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the number of deposition pulses by routine experimentation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 13, the layer may be uniform in Narushima paras 0232-0235.
As to claim 18, the types of transistors and stacks shown in Narushima Figs 6-7 and paras 0048-0123 would have these types of films.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima et al. (US 2010/0304561 A1) and Haukka et al. (US 2004/0104439 A1) in view of Elers (US 2008/0102613 A1)
Narushima does not explicitly teach the plasma parameters as claimed. Elers, as discussed above, teaches that plasma parameters such as relative flow rates, spacing, cycle repetition and plasma frequencies are result effective (see above) modified to control the stoichiometry of the resulting films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Narushima et al. to include the result effective variables of Elers in order to modify the stoichiometry of their films.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2008/0102613 A1) in view of Haukka et al. (US 2004/0104439 A1) and in further view of Wu et al. (US 9129906 B2)
Elers does not teach the TiN film as a spacer for a double patterning process. Wu et al. teaches this use in col. 2 lines 58-65, col. 4 lines 56-65, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Narushima et al. or Elers to include their TiN layer as a spacer for a double patenting process as Wu et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima et al. (US 2010/0304561 A1) in view of Haukka et al. (US 2004/0104439 A1) and Elers (US 2008/0102613 A1) and in further view of Wu et al. (US 9129906 B2)
Narushima or Elers do not teach the TiN film as a spacer for a double patterning process. Wu et al. teaches this use in col. 2 lines 58-65, col. 4 lines 56-65, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Narushima et al. or Elers to include their TiN layer as a spacer for a double patenting process as Wu et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights