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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for making a TiN film on a patterned substrate, does not reasonably provide enablement for making any type of film on a patterned substrate as broadly claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The “Wands” factors used to determine if experimentation to make and use an invention is undue (See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and MPEP 2164.01(a)). These include
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Here, the breadth of the claims includes all possible films that may be deposited on patterned structures with an ALD like process. The nature of the invention is such that specific precursors must be chosen in order to deposit a particular film. The state of the prior art, when looking for actual deposition processes, gives specific precursors and film types that are made. One of ordinary skill, knowing that specific precursors and films are necessary for deposition would not find the deposition of just any film with any precursor predictable. The amount of direction provided by the inventor and any working examples in the instant specification are only drawn to TiN films with specific Ti and N precursors that must be used. Therefore, to expand this disclosure to all films would require an undue amount of experimentation.
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.
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation "the upper portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the lower portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elers (US 2008/0102613 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 as in Fig. 5 and para 0069); a step of post treating the film (step 510, occurs after repetition and creation of film in para 0069); 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); wherein the step of post treating the film comprises supplying a treatment gas to the substrate; and wherein the second gas and the treatment gas are activated by RF power (Fig. 5, para 0071).
As to claim 2, three gases are used, the Ti precursor, N precursor and an excited gas in para 0064-0066.
As to claim 3, a mixture of excited hydrogen and excited nitrogen species are pulsed after initial metal layer formation in para 0074-0075 teaching both the film forming and post deposition as broadly claimed as it is periodic and repeated.
As to claims 6-9, a Ti precursor, N precursor and hydrogen gas that are claimed are used in paras 0061 and 0074-0075.
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.
As to claim 13, the layer may be uniform in paras 0069-0075.
As to claim 18, the types of transistors and stacks shown in Figs 1-2 and paras 0004-0005 would have these types of films.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narushima et al. (US 2010/0304561 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); a step of post treating the film (annealing in para 0220, Fig. 10); 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); wherein the step of post treating the film comprises supplying a treatment gas to the substrate; and wherein the second gas and the treatment gas are activated by RF power (Fig. 10).
As to claim 2, three gases are used, the Ti precursor, N precursor and an excited gas in Fig. 10.
As to claim 3, a mixture of excited hydrogen and excited nitrogen species are pulsed after initial metal layer formation Fig 10.
As to claims 6-9, a Ti precursor, N precursor and hydrogen gas that are claimed are used in Fig. 10.
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, the annealing step is taught to remove impurities in para 0220.
As to claim 13, the layer may be uniform in paras 0232-0235.
As to claim 18, the types of transistors and stacks shown in Figs 6-7 and paras 0048-0123 would have these types of films.
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) 4-5, 11-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elers (US 2008/0102613 A1)
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. 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 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. 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).
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. 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).
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narushima et al. (US 2010/0304561 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 Wu et al. (US 9129906 B2) in view of Narushima et al. (US 2010/0304561 A1) OR Elers (US 2008/0102613 A1)
Narushima or Elers do not teach the TiN film as a spacer for a double patenting 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
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