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 filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the prior art does not teach a cyclical process. This is unpersuasive as the prior art clearly teaches a cyclical process as shown in the rejection below.
Applicant contends the prior art does not teach the claimed pulses. This argument is unpersuasive as shown in the rejection below as it is inherent PECVD process uses pulses. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to use said pulses as shown in Subramonium.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Remarks dated May 11, 2026
Applicant states their drawings show the features of claim 6.
Examiner responds no they don’t.
If Applicant disagrees Applicant will need to claim match claims 1 and 6 (as claim 6 includes all the features of claim 1) to a drawing.
If Applicant’s arguments is we don’t need to show claim 6, Examiner’s response is Applicant does not need to show claim 6. Examiner’s position is support by Ex Parte Good, 164 O.G. 739, Dec. Comm'r Pat. 43 (1911), where…
It is a great desideratum of Patent Office drawings that they should tell their story to the eye without making it necessary to go into the specification for explanation.
Currently, as best Examiner understands Applicant’s argument, Applicant’s argument is based upon the fact that it is in the specification so they don’t have to show it in a drawing. This is counter to telling the story to the eye without making it necessary to go the specification for explanation: the great desideratum.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zope et al. (US 2019/0067094 A1) (“Zope”), with secondary reference, or in the alternative in view of, Subramonium et al. (US 7,381,644 B1) (“Subramonium”).
Regarding claim 1, Zope teaches:
the method comprising the steps of (detailed below):
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber (110),
the substrate (402) comprising a surface (“U” shape of 400) comprising a first material and a second material different than the first material (¶¶ 0046-50, where the substrate may comprise one or more material surfaces); and
using a plasma-assisted cyclical deposition process (¶ 0052, where PECVD can be used, and “the molybdenum film may …utilize cyclical deposition process) to form plasma-deposited molybdenum metal (130) directly on the first material and on the second material (130/220),
wherein the cyclical deposition process includes repeating the cycle (¶ 0052),
wherein a temperature within the reaction chamber during the step of using the plasma-assisted deposition process is less than 350 °C (¶ 0098, where temp may be less than 200 C); and
wherein a selectivity of the plasma-deposited molybdenum on the first material relative to the second material is between about 40 percent and about 60 percent (the prior art teaches the same materials disclosed by Applicant. Therefore, it would be inherent that the first material and second material would have the claimed selectivity. Additionally, or alternatively, it would have been obvious that because the prior art materials are the same as Applicant’s materials it would have been obvious that the prior art would have the claimed selectivity’s. MPEP 2112.).
Regarding the limaition,
wherein a cycle of the plasma-assisted cyclical deposition process (cyclical PECVD) includes providing a molybdenum precursor (¶¶ 0009, 31, and 71, where a molybdenum percussor is used) for a molybdenum precursor pulse and providing a plasma power for a plasma power plasma power pulse.
It is Examiner’s position that the use of a precursor pulse and a plasma pulse is inherent in the PECVD process. This can be shown in at least figure 3 of Subramonium, where figure 3 shows that the precursor is pulsed on and off, and the plasma (i.e. power) is pulsed from high freq to low freq. Col. 4 at lines 34-48. Thus, while Zope does not explicity teach the claimed pulses it is inherent in the PECVD process of Zope to pulse the the precursor and plasma power.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when Zope discusses PECVD one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that this would mean the precursor and power would need to be pulsed. This is because it would have been obvious the process term PECVD includes such pulsing.
Regarding claim 2, Zope teaches:
wherein the second material comprises a dielectric material (¶¶ 0046-51, where one of the materials in the in the multi-material surface can be a dielectric material).
Regarding claim 3, Zope teaches:
wherein the first material comprises a conductive material (¶¶ 0046-51, where one of the materials in the in the multi-material surface can be a conductive material).
Regarding claim 4, Zope teaches:
wherein the substrate (402) comprises a feature having a bottom surface (bottom of trench) comprising the first material and a side surface (side of trench) comprising the second material (Based upon the breath of the disclosure of the prior art in regards to the allowable materials and layers of the substrate the prior art teaches this limitation. Additionally, or alternatively, it would have been obvious based upon the disclosure of the prior art that the substrate would comprise the claimed features as the prior art allows for this combination of layers.).
Regarding claim 5, Zope teaches:
wherein the feature comprises a gap (where the gap is the trench shown in at least figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Zope teaches:
comprising a cyclical deposition and etch process, wherein a cycle of the cyclical deposition and etch process comprises: the plasma-assisted deposition process; and a step of etching a portion of the plasma-deposited molybdenum metal (According to Applicant’s disclosure in ¶¶ 0051-60, the plasma-assisted deposition process can use a molybdenum halide precursor, and the etchant can be a molybdenum halide. Based upon the Applicant’s disclosure the etchant can be the same as the precursor. Therefore, the deposition and etch described above can use the same materials for both the deposition and etch steps. Based upon this the prior art teaches this. In ¶¶ 0071-72 the prior art teaches the same precursors as Applicant. In ¶ 0052, the prior art teaches a cyclical deposition procession. This means the prior art teaches the substrate will be exposed to the molybdenum halide, and thus, the molybdenum halide will act as both a deposition and etch process as it uses the same materials taught by Applicant.).
Regarding claims 7-9, Zope teaches:
Claims 7-9 are inherent and/or obvious for the reasons given in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 10, Zope teaches:
wherein the temperature within the reaction chamber during the step of using the plasma-assisted deposition process is greater than 250 °C (¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 13, Zope teaches:
further comprising a step of forming thermally-deposited molybdenum overlying the plasma-deposited molybdenum metal (because the process of claim 1 requires a temperature to form the molybdenum this can be considered a thermally-deposited process. Further, because there can be multiple layers of molybdenum deposited the first layer(s) can be considered the plasma-deposited molybdenum and the second layer(s) can be considered the thermally-deposited molybdenum).
Regarding claim 14, Zope teaches:
further comprising a step of passivating a portion of a surface of the plasma-deposited molybdenum metal prior to the step of forming thermally-deposited molybdenum (this is shown in step 120).
Regarding claim 15, Zope teaches:
wherein the step of passivating comprises providing an organic passivating agent (¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 16, Zope teaches:
wherein the organic passivating agent comprises one or more of trimethylsilyl dimethylamine, acetylacetone, fluorocarbon, octadecylphosphonic acid (¶ 0070).
Regarding claim 17, Zope teaches:
further comprising a step of performing a surface cleaning within the reaction chamber (According to Applicant’s specification the surface cleaning step is done with a reducing agent. ¶ 0066. The reducing agent according to ¶ 0050 is the molybdenum precursor. Therefore, according to Applicant’s specification one can use the molybdenum precursor to clean the surface of the substrate. Thus, according to the specification by using the molybdenum precursor one is inherently, alternatively obviously, cleaning the surface of the substrate.).
Regarding claim 18, Zope teaches:
wherein a reducing agent is continually flowed to the reaction chamber during a plurality of cycles of the cyclical plasma-assisted deposition process (¶¶ 0073-74, where the reducing agent, e.g. the MoCl5, is flowed continuously during its cycle time and then purged.).
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
The difference between claim 19 and claim 1 is the limitation…
wherein the deposited molybdenum is greater than 70% conformal on the first material and on the second material.
This limitation would have been inherent, alternatively obvious, over the prior art as the purpose of the prior art as having the layers be “extremely” conformal is a common requisite of
the prior art, ¶ 0004, and to have this conformality at an atomic level control. ¶ 0006.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and claim 13 above.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zope, in view of Subramonium, in view of Lu et al. (US 6,100,188) (“Lu”).
Regarding claim 11, Zope does not teach:
wherein a plasma power during the step of using the plasma-assisted deposition process is greater than 125 W.
Because Zope does not teach the required power it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to search for another reference. This search would have led to Lu.
Lu teaches:
wherein a plasma power during the step of using the plasma-assisted deposition process is greater than 125 W (¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to use the power of Lu as Lu teaches a similar process to Zope in forming the molybdenum films.
Regarding claim 12, Lu teaches:
wherein a plasma power during the step of using the plasma-assisted deposition process is between 125 W and 750 W (¶ 0033).
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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights