DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the special technical feature is that a number of substrates is processed until a threshold value is set. This is not found persuasive because initially, the Office does not agree that such a requirement meets the requirements of the special technical feature – the number of substrates is routine and obvious. Further, the prior art includes that the clean is performed at some time / at some number of substrates, that number of substrates would have been understood as the claimed threshold value.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang (2020/0185225).
Wang teaches a substrate processing system comprising (see Fig. 11B):
- a chamber with a lid assembly, sidewalls and a base – as per the figure it is understood that the chamber comprises such elements,
- a gas delivery system, see gas delivery system including 1114 [0115], which also includes the first (remote generator 1106) and second (in-situ generator 1116),
- a computer readable medium to include instructions for carrying out a method [0121],
the steps comprising:
(a) receiving a substrate, see per 2A and related text [0045],
(b) wherein the substrate is exposed to an activated treatment gas, wherein radical generator-activated nitrogen is applied [0045],
(c) exposing the substrate to a first tungsten containing precursor and a reducing agent (i.e. hydrogen) for gapfill [0046-47].
In regard to the requirements of (d) transferring the substrate out of the chamber and repeating steps (a)-(d) with other substrates, such a use of the chamber as taught by Wang is understood to be used in such manner.
Initially, as per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both the explicit and implicit teachings of a reference. In this case, it is well understood in the art that a system is used to process substrates continually, which involves loading a substrate, processing it and then unloading, and repeating.
Further and alternatively, by performing just one substrate process, the number of substrates would be equal to or less than a threshold value. The claim does not require any specific limitations on the threshold value – any number of processed substrates equals such a value. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the steps of Wang as described any number of times, such as less than some predetermined value such as when maintenance (such as cleaning and/or routine maintenance) is required.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 6, the teachings include deposition of a nucleation layer, Fig. 2B 301 and [0046-49] including application of a tungsten precursor and reducing agent by a (sequential/cyclical) PNL process.
Regarding claim 4, the openings are taught as per Fig. 5 and “feature” [0045].
Claims 2 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (2020/0185225) in view of Aubuchon (2018/0294144).
The teachings of Wang are described above, the teachings do not include a chamber cleaning process. Aubuchon, however teaches that it is useful to run a cleaning gas through a chamber and that it is effectively performed with an apparatus that includes a radical producing chamber specifically for a cleaning gas (separate from that used for the process gas), see plasma chambers 117 and 125 respectively of Fig. 1 and related text, particularly [0022]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the chamber clean process of Aubuchon to the system and method of Wang as such a clean is useful as per Aubuchon. As per the art, it is understood that the clean is done after a certain number of wafers (the number of which are not limited by claim 2).
Regarding claim 8 and 9, the teachings do not include explicitly include valves, but wherein Aubuchon teaches that the RPS chambers are used for different purposes, it would be understood to have a valve to shut the chambers off from the process chamber, see MPEP 2144.01 citation above. In regard to isolating the chambers, specifically fluidly isolating the first generator, the teachings of [0023-25] include that the first (claimed) generator (RPS unit 105) is used to supply N to the film deposition process and the second claimed RPS (unit 114) is used for the clean process, it is therefore understood that the deposition enhancing system (105) would have been fluidly isolated during the cleaning process. Further to claim 9, likewise, the chamber cleaning gas would be isolated from the substrate during the deposition process.
Regarding claim 10, the system of Aubuchon includes a lid plate and shower-head, particularly wherein they are connected per Fig. 2, see lid 203 and shower plate 202, with the generators in communication thru an inlet in the lid as depicted.
Regarding claim 11, as depicted per the Figs. of Aubuchon, the effluent of the cleaning plasma flows a longer distance than the treatment (first distance) plasma.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
Regarding claim 7, the gapfill process is performed with simultaneous application of the tungsten precursor and reducing agent, see [0047] particularly. In regard to the temperature, the teachings generally include a temperature of less than 100C to up to 400C [0066]. In regard to the temperature, the prior art range overlaps and makes obvious the claimed range, therefore all elements of the claim are taught.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ingle (2014/0099794) and Kim (2016/0013064) teach isolated plasmas and Wu (2014/0106083) teaches a method of forming a tungsten layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights