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 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 4 – 6 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.
Claims 4 and 5 include the term “plasmarizing.” Plasmarizing is not a known term of art or generally known English. The written disclosure does not provide and explanation of the intended meaning of plasmarizing. Since the term is unknown and not defined, it is not possible to determine the scope of the claims with this language.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Document JP2020-059916 to Takatsuki et al.
Takatsuki et al. teach a substrate processing apparatus, comprising:
a first processing gas supply configured to supply a first processing gas to a substrate;
a second processing gas supply configured to supply a second processing gas; and
a film formation gas supply configured to supply a film formation gas to the substrate, to which the first processing gas and the second processing gas are supplied.
Takatsuki et al. do not explicitly teach that the first gas includes a first metal film and a silicon-containing film, wherein the first processing gas is for removing a metal oxide on a surface of the first metal film, the second gas is for forming a metal silicide film on a surface of the silicon-containing film to the substrate and the film formation gas to deposit a second metal film on the first metal film and the metal silicide film. These are considered process of using limitations that do not add patentable subject matter to the apparatus claim. The substrate processing apparatus taught by Takatsuki et al. has multiple gas supply sources, as shown in Fig. 2 and is capable of being operated as recited in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Document JP2020-059916 to Takatsuki et al. in view of US Patent No. 6,274,496 to Leusink et al.
Regarding claim 1, Takatsuki et al. teach a substrate processing method, comprising:
a first oxide film removal process of supplying a first processing gas to a substrate, which includes a first metal film and a silicon-containing film, to remove a metal oxide film on a surface of the first metal film (See Claims 1 and 6 of machine translation, for example); and
a film formation process of supplying a film formation gas to the substrate to deposit a second metal film on the first metal film and the metal silicide film, after the first oxide film removal process and the metal silicide formation process (See claims 8, 10, and 12 of the machine translation).
Takatsuki et al. do not teach a metal silicide formation process of supplying a second processing gas to the substrate to form a metal silicide film on a surface of the silicon-containing film. Leusink et al. teach a metal silicide formation process of supplying a second processing gas to the substrate to form a metal silicide film on a surface of the silicon-containing film (Col. 6, lines 26 – 33). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include forming a metal silicide on the silicon containing film as taught by Leusink et al., since it is desirable use this known silicide forming step for the purpose of improving electrical conductivity and lowering contact resistance, leading to an improvement of electrical performance.
Regarding claim 2, Takatsuki et al. do not teach wherein the metal silicide formation process is performed after the first oxide film removal process. In the proposed modification of Takatsuki et al. in view of Leusink et al., it would have been obvious to form metal silicide after the first oxide removal for reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, Takatsuki et al. teach a method wherein the second metal film is a ruthenium film or a tungsten film.
Regarding claim 9, Takatsuki et al. do not teach a method wherein the first oxide film removal process and the metal silicide formation process are performed on the substrate in a same processing container. As explained above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form a metal silicide layer on the silicon containing layer. It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the silicide deposition in the same processing container since it is desirable to save processing steps, save time and reduce the potential for contamination of the wafer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, and 10 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent No. 7,981,794 to Narushima et al. teach a substrate processing method including forming a silicide in a recess. Narushima et al. do not teach the process of removing a metal oxide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS W OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-1662. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-1:30.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at 571-270-7996. 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.
DOUGLAS W. OWENS, Esq.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/DOUGLAS W OWENS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897