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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9-11, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nalamasu et al. in WO 2020/112237 (hereinafter, Nalamasu) with Badovinac et al. in Materials and technology 51 (2017) 4, 617–621 and Ren et al. in Synthesis, Functional Modifications, and Diversified Applications of Molybdenum Oxides Micro-/Nanocrystals: A Review, Crystal Growth & DesignVol 18/Issue 10 serving as evidentiary references.
Nalamasu teaches etching molybdenum feature by thermally oxidizing to form a molybdenum oxide layer via oxygen ion implantation and furnace annealing at 200-600C and selectively etching away the molybdenum oxide using an ammonia solution (ammonia in water) (see, for example, FIG. 1, replicated below, and paragraphs [0034] – [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
820
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nalamasu generically references Mo oxide but does not explicitly teach the specific stoichiometry between molybdenum and oxygen. As such Nalamasu does not explicitly teach the formation of MoO3.
The teachings of Badovinac et al. and Ren et al. clearly indicate that the process of Nalamatsu would inherently produce MoO3. Alternatively it would have been obvious that one skilled in the art would immediately envisage MoO3 form Nalamasu’s gerneric teaching of molybdenum oxide because MoO3 is the most thermodynamically stable form of molybdenum oxide and one skilled in the art would expect the furnace annealing at 200-600C to produce the fully oxidized MoO3.
Regarding claim 1 oxidizing ambient “comprises O3” Nalamasu teaches annealing to form a polycrystalline structure of the molybdenum oxide by furnace annealing at temperature of 200C – 600C [0033]. In some embodiments, the thermal anneal is in the presence of a processing gas [0034].
Being that processing gas is taught as an alternative to furnace annealing, this suggests that furnace annealing is performed in ambient air. Ambient air inherently contains ozone in a minor amount, thus meets the broadly claimed oxidizing ambient “comprises O3.”
Regarding claim 3, Nalamasu teaches annealing at 200-600C, thus meets the claimed “at least 150C.”
Regarding claim 4, Nalamasu teaches annealing at 200-600C, thus overlaps the claimed 180-300C. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Nalamasu teaches annealing for duration of 15 minutes to 2 hours, thus meets the claimed “at least 30 seconds.”
Regarding claim 10, Nalamasu teaches furnace annealing which would be performed in ambient air, thus meets oxidizing ambient “comprises 02.”
Regarding claim 11, Nalamasu teaches annealing at 200-600C, thus meets the claimed “at least 200C.”
Regarding claim 14, Nalamasu teaches forming semiconductor device structures by patterning molybdenum layers [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to pattern molybdenum layers on multiple substrates, the process steps of thermal oxidizing to form molybdenum oxide and selectively etching away the molybdenum oxide need to be repeated for the multiple substrates. Claim 14 does not require the repeating of step a) and b) be performed on the same “the molybdenum feature” of claim 1.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Nalamasu teaches providing molybdenum interconnects at sub-10 nm scale [0003]. Based on this teaching of patterning to form sub-10 nm scale interconnects for molybdenum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the thermal oxidation such that it is limited to forming a molybdenum oxide layer of thickness of 6 nm or less as claimed in order to form sub-10 nm scale interconnects.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nalamasu et al. in WO 2020/112237 (hereinafter, Nalamasu) with Badovinac et al. and Ren et al. serving as evidentiary references, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wright US 4,212,907.
Wright teaches that before forming a molybdenum oxide film on molybdenum for subsequent removal, the molybdenum is electro-etched to remove surface films, break the surface finish and/or remove foreign materials to provide a clean surface for formation of the molybdenum oxide film (col. 3, lines 24-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed electro-etching on the molybdenum before forming the molybdenum trioxide layer on the molybdenum, as taught by Wright to remove surface films, break the surface finish and/or remove foreign materials to provide a clean surface for formation of molybdenum oxide film on molybdenum.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nalamasu et al. in WO 2020/112237 (hereinafter, Nalamasu) with Badovinac et al. and Ren et al. serving as evidentiary references.
Nalamasu teaches etching molybdenum feature by thermally oxidizing to form a molybdenum oxide layer via oxygen ion implantation and furnace annealing at 200-600C and selectively etching away the molybdenum oxide using an ammonia solution (ammonia in water) (see, for example, FIG. 1, replicated below, and paragraphs [0034] – [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
820
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nalamasu generically references Mo oxide but does not explicitly teach the specific stoichiometry between molybdenum and oxygen. As such Nalamasu does not explicitly teach the formation of MoO3.
The teachings of Badovinac et al. and Ren et al. clearly indicate that the process of Nalamatsu would inherently produce MoO3. Alternatively it would have been obvious that one skilled in the art would immediately envisage MoO3 form Nalamasu’s gerneric teaching of molybdenum oxide because MoO3 is the most thermodynamically stable form of molybdenum oxide and one skilled in the art would expect the furnace annealing at 200-600C to produce the fully oxidized MoO3.
Regarding repeating a sequence of step a) and b) a number of times, Nalamasu teaches forming semiconductor device structures by patterning molybdenum layers [0004]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that to pattern molybdenum layers on multiple substrates, the process steps of thermal oxidizing to form molybdenum oxide and selectively etching away the molybdenum oxide need to be repeated for the multiple substrates. Claim 18 does not require the repeating of step a) and b) be performed on the same “the molybdenum feature” of step a) of the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nalamasu et al. in WO 2020/112237 (hereinafter, Nalamasu) with Badovinac et al. and Ren et al. serving as evidentiary references, in view of Wright US 4,212,907.
Nalamasu teaches etching molybdenum feature by thermally oxidizing to form a molybdenum oxide layer via oxygen ion implantation and furnace annealing at 200-600C and selectively etching away the molybdenum oxide using an ammonia solution (ammonia in water) (see, for example, FIG. 1, replicated below, and paragraphs [0034] – [0036]).
PNG
media_image1.png
820
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nalamasu generically references Mo oxide but does not explicitly teach the specific stoichiometry between molybdenum and oxygen. As such Nalamasu does not explicitly teach the formation of MoO3.
The teachings of Badovinac et al. and Ren et al. clearly indicate that the process of Nalamatsu would inherently produce MoO3. Alternatively it would have been obvious that one skilled in the art would immediately envisage MoO3 form Nalamasu’s gerneric teaching of molybdenum oxide because MoO3 is the most thermodynamically stable form of molybdenum oxide and one skilled in the art would expect the furnace annealing at 200-600C to produce the fully oxidized MoO3.
Nalamasu does not teach pre-cleaning prior to forming the molybdenum oxide layer.
Wright teaches that before forming a molybdenum oxide film on molybdenum for subsequent removal, the molybdenum is electro-etched to remove surface films, break the surface finish and/or remove foreign materials to provide a clean surface for formation of the molybdenum oxide film (col. 3, lines 24-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed electro-etching on the molybdenum before forming the molybdenum trioxide layer on the molybdenum in the process of Nalamasu, as taught by Wright to remove surface films, break the surface finish and/or remove foreign materials to provide a clean surface for formation of molybdenum oxide film on molybdenum.
Allowable Subject Matter
The previous indication of claims 2-4, 9-11 and 14-19 as being allowable are withdraw upon further consideration of the claims as written and additional prior art.
Claims 5-8 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 MELVIN C MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-1234. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
MELVIN C. MAYES
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights