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 21 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at page 8 “regarding the “pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T,” being considered a result effective variable, the Office has noted that the Applicant has not disclosed that having a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. See Office Action Pg. 4-5. However, contrary to the position taken by the Office, the benefits of the claimed pressure range are disclosed in at least paragraphs [0046]-[0047] of the present application. In one example, the high-pressure delivery allows nucleation centers for FFW growth to form on the sidewalls, causing selectivity loss at the sidewalls 324a, 324b, and 326, which allows for the deposition of thicker tungsten layers on the dielectric sidewall, in contrast to lower pressure regimes, as disclosed in Chang (e.g., <35 Torr). Furthermore, the claimed method, particularly the high-pressure delivery and nucleation center formation, renders a PVD tungsten seed layer merely optional, as the method can provide sufficient tungsten deposition at the sidewalls to provide a sufficient tungsten seeding for subsequent metal gap fill, as discussed in paragraphs [0029]-[0030] of the present application.” Applicant at page 9 further argues “Ganguli, Hu, and Chang, alone or in combination, at the very least do not show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious, at least, “wherein the second metal- containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T,” as recited in claim 1. Similarly, Ganguli, Hu, and Chang, alone or in combination, do not show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious, at least, “wherein disposing the metal layer is performed at a deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T,” as recited in claim 12, and “disposing the metal layer is performed at a deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T,” as recited in claim 20.
In response to applicant’s above arguments, paragraphs [0046]-[0047] are silent to the metes and bounds of the recited pressure ranges. The above paragraphs do not show forming a contact structure on a semiconductor structure of about 50T to about 150T and/or about 80T to about 120T achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Paragraph [0046] discloses at high pressure and high flow conditions, the deposition rate of partially selective metal cap is high. Under high pressure where diffusion is limited, such byproduct will not be easily removed from the cavity 310 but will adsorb to sidewalls of the cavity in a bottom to top direction. These adsorbed metal byproducts will act as nucleation centers for FFW growth. For example, if deposition time is long enough, selectivity will occur from bottom to top trench creating a V-shape profile of the partially selective metal cap 312. Paragraph [0047] discloses at lower pressure regime <35T and the pressure is much lower too which promotes diffusion, and the byproduct will have a better chance to be removed from the cavity before causing selectivity loss. In this case, at regions where the tungsten cap merges with dielectric sidewall, the resulting better selectivity will lead to thinner tungsten thickness compared to cavity center.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli et al. US 2016/0322229 in view of Hu et al. US 2023/0299168 and further in view of Chang et al. US 2024/0021687 is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganguli et al. US 2016/0322229 in view of Hu et al. US 2023/0299168 and further in view of Chang et al. US 2024/0021687.
Regarding claim 1, Ganguli et al. Figs. 2A-2C [0015]-[0027] discloses a method of forming a contact structure on a semiconductor substrate, comprising:
disposing a selective metal silicide layer 220 [0018] on a surface of a contact structure 202[0016] by maintaining a first temperature of a substrate and providing a first carrier gas (e.g. argon, helium), a first metal-containing precursor (e.g. metal chloride), and a first hydrogen-containing precursor (e.g. silicon containing gas, silane (SiH4)) to a first deposition chamber [0023]; and
forming a metal layer 222 [0025] on a surface of the selective metal silicide layer 220 [0018] and a portion of a dielectric surface 212 [0016] of a feature of the contact structure 202[0016] by maintaining a second temperature [0024] (e.g. 500°C 10 1100°C for 1 ms to 1 min.) of the substrate.
Ganguli et al. do not expressly disclose providing a second carrier gas, a second metal-containing precursor, and a reducing agent to the first deposition chamber or a second deposition chamber, wherein the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, and the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor.
However, Hu et al. Figs. 1-11 [0011]-[0029] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device 300 including silicide structure 328[0024], capping layers[0025] and conductive structures 338[0028]. Hu et al. [0025] further teaches the capping layers are formed using a nitrogen containing plasma such as N2 (e.g. carrier gas) and NH3 (e.g. reducing agent) and metal silicon nitride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu et al. in the method of Ganguli et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. do not expressly teach wherein the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, and the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, and the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 2, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1. Ganguli et al. teach the first temperature of the substrate is about 200 °C to 800 °C [0019] but do not expressly teach wherein: the first hydrogen-containing precursor is H2, the first metal-containing precursor is TiCl4.
Although the combined references do not teach the exact material of the first hydrogen-containing precursor is H2, the first metal-containing precursor is TiCl4 as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1. Hu et al. Figs. 1-11 [0025] teach ammonia is a reacting gas in the deposition of the capping layer 222.
Although the combined references do not teach the exact material of the second metal-containing precursor is WCl5 or WCl6 as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Regarding the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C. Applicant has not disclosed that having the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1. Ganguli et al. teach wherein the metal layer 222[0025] comprises tungsten, molybdenum, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein disposing the metal layer is performed at a deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 6 but do not expressly teach wherein disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less.
Applicant has not disclosed that disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less” as a “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the second metal-containing precursor is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the second metal-containing precursor introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure, time, etc. (e.g. flow rate, energy of ions) would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure, time, etc. (e.g. flow rate, energy of ions) in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm” as a “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the reducing agent is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the flow rate of about 10 slm or greater, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure, time, etc. (e.g. flow rate, energy of ions) would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater” as a “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1. Ganguli et al. teach the first temperature of the substrate is about 200 °C to 800 °C [0019] but do not expressly teach wherein: the first hydrogen-containing precursor is H2, the first metal-containing precursor is TiCl4.
Although the combined references do not disclose the exact material of the first hydrogen-containing precursor is H2, the first metal-containing precursor is TiCl4 as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, Hu et al. Figs. 1-11 [0025] teach ammonia is a reacting gas in the deposition of the capping layer 222.
Although the combined references do not teach the exact material of the second metal-containing precursor is WCl5 or WCl6 as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C. Applicant has not disclosed that having the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 1. Ganguli et al. teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising disposing a fill material 226[0027] on the metal layer.
Regarding claim 12, Ganguli et al. Figs. 2A-2C [0015]-[0027] discloses a method of forming a contact structure on a semiconductor substrate, comprising:
disposing a selective metal silicide layer 220 [0018] on a surface of a contact structure 202[0016] by maintaining a first temperature of a substrate and providing a first carrier gas (e.g. argon, helium), a first metal-containing precursor (e.g. metal chloride), and a first hydrogen-containing precursor (e.g. silicon containing gas, silane (SiH4)) to a first deposition chamber [0023]; and
disposing a metal layer 222 [0025] on a surface of the selective metal silicide layer 220 [0018] and one or more surfaces of a cavity Figs. 2A-2C by maintaining a second temperature [0024] (e.g. 500°C 10 1100°C for 1 ms to 1 min.) of the substrate.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions of the selective metal silicide through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Ganguli et al. do not expressly disclose providing a second carrier gas, a second metal-containing precursor, and a reducing agent to the first deposition chamber or a second deposition chamber, wherein the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, and the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor.
However, Hu et al. Figs. 1-11 [0011]-[0029] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device 300 including silicide structure 328[0024], capping layers[0025] and conductive structures 338[0028]. Hu et al. [0025] further teaches the capping layers are formed using a nitrogen containing plasma such as N2 (e.g. carrier gas) and NH3 (e.g. reducing agent) and metal silicon nitride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu et al. in the method of Ganguli et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. do not expressly teach wherein the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 50 T to about 150 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, and the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, and the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 12. Ganguli et al. teach the first temperature of the substrate is about 200 °C to 800 °C [0019] but do not expressly teach wherein: the first hydrogen-containing precursor is H2, the first metal-containing precursor is TiCl4.
Although the combined references do not teach the exact material of the first hydrogen-containing precursor is H2, the first metal-containing precursor is TiCl4 as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 14, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 12. Hu et al. Figs. 1-11 [0025] teach ammonia is a reacting gas in the deposition of the capping layer 222.
Although the combined references do not teach the exact material of the second metal-containing precursor is WCl5 or WCl6 as that claimed by the Applicant, the material differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless obvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2144.07. Regarding the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C. Applicant has not disclosed that having the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “the second temperature of the substrate is about 450 °C to 470 °C” as “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 12. Ganguli et al. teach wherein the metal layer 222[0025] comprises tungsten, molybdenum, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 17, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 12 but do not expressly teach wherein the second metal-containing precursor is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm, and the reducing agent is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater.
Applicant has not disclosed that having the second metal-containing precursor introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm and the reducing agent introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure, time, etc. (e.g. flow rate, energy of ions) would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure, time, etc. (e.g. flow rate, energy of ions) in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm and a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 12 but do not expressly teach wherein disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less.
Applicant has not disclosed that disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a metal deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less” as a “result effective variable”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 19, Ganguli et al. in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Chang et al. teach the method of claim 12. Ganguli et al. teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising disposing a fill material 226[0027] on the metal layer.
Regarding claim 20, Ganguli et al. Figs. 2A-2C [0015]-[0027] discloses a method of forming a contact structure on a semiconductor substrate, comprising:
disposing a selective metal silicide layer 220 [0018] on a surface of a contact structure 202[0016] by maintaining a first temperature of a substrate and providing a first carrier gas (e.g. argon, helium), a first metal-containing precursor (e.g. metal chloride), and a first hydrogen-containing precursor (e.g. silicon containing gas, silane (SiH4)) to a first deposition chamber [0023]; and
disposing a metal layer 222 [0025] on a surface of the selective metal silicide layer 220 [0018] and one or more surfaces of a cavity Figs. 2A-2C by maintaining a second temperature [0024] (e.g. 500°C 10 1100°C for 1 ms to 1 min.) of the substrate; disposing a fill material 226[0027] on the metal layer, and the metal layer 222[0025] comprises tungsten, molybdenum, or combinations thereof.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions of the selective metal silicide through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Ganguli et al. do not expressly disclose providing a second carrier gas, a second metal-containing precursor, and a reducing agent to the first deposition chamber or a second deposition chamber, wherein the second metal-containing precursor and the reducing agent are introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber and wherein: disposing the metal layer is performed at a deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, the second metal-containing precursor is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm, the reducing agent is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater, disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor.
However, Hu et al. Figs. 1-11 [0011]-[0029] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device 300 including silicide structure 328[0024], capping layers[0025] and conductive structures 338[0028]. Hu et al. [0025] further teaches the capping layers are formed using a nitrogen containing plasma such as N2 (e.g. carrier gas) and NH3 (e.g. reducing agent) and metal silicon nitride.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu et al. in the method of Ganguli et al., as the court has held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is prima facie obvious. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Applicant has not disclosed that disposing the metal layer is performed at a deposition chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, the second metal-containing precursor is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm, the reducing agent is introduced to the first deposition chamber or the second deposition chamber at a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater, disposing the metal layer is performed for a period of time of about 30 seconds or less, the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature, the second carrier gas is the same as or different than the first carrier gas, the second metal-containing precursor is the same as or different than the first metal-containing precursor, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
However, Chang et al. in Figs. 3A-4B [0046]-[0101] teach a method of forming a semiconductor device including a silicidation process and a deposition process. Chang et al. [0023] further teaches forming a conductive capping layer 300 by PVD deposition process with deposition parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure, duration, etc.) that are specifically configured to reduce the likelihood of bubble/void formation. This demonstrates that to prevent the formation of a void in the deposited capping layer, the temperature, pressure and time would be considered result effective variables.
Accordingly, the claim is obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that it would be obvious to adjust the temperature, pressure and time in order “to prevent the formation of bubbles/voids in the deposited capping layer and improve the device performance” thereof and optimize “a chamber pressure of about 80 T to about 120 T, a flow rate of about 0.8 slm to about 1.2 slm, a flow rate of about 10 slm or greater, a period of time of about 30 seconds or less, and the second temperature is the same as or different than the first temperature” as “result effective variables”, and arrives at the recited limitation.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious, in the context of the claims, wherein: the metal layer is disposed at least partially contacting a first dielectric surface adjacent the surface of the selective metal silicide layer, and the metal layer is disposed at least partially contacting a second dielectric surface adjacent the surface of the selective metal silicide layer, wherein the second dielectric surface is substantially orthogonal to the first dielectric surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mattinen et al. US 2022/0251701 in [0078] teach a deposition of transition metal-comprising material in which the transition metal-comprising material may be exposed to the reducing agent in a reduced pressure atmosphere, wherein the pressure may be from about 0.001 mbar to about 10 bar, or from about 1 mbar to about 1000 mbar. The substrate may be exposed to a reducing agent in the same reaction chamber in which the deposition of the transition metal-comprising material is performed. Alternatively, the substrate may be exposed to the reducing agent in a different reaction chamber.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SONYA MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights