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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 1/21/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this 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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US 2015/0093911 A1) in view of Ba et al. (US 2016/0351401 A1) and Collins et al. (as cited on the 1/21/2026 IDS: KR 10-2022-0139417 A with US 2022/0195598 A1 used as a translation for citation purposes)
As to claim 1, Nakatani et al. teaches a method comprising: forming a lower tungsten layer by supplying a fluorine-free tungsten precursor gas containing a tungsten compound that does not contain fluorine atoms (Fig. 4 first W film) to a top surface of an aluminum oxide layer (para 0005, 0062, insulation film); and supplying a tungsten precursor gas containing a tungsten compound that contains fluorine atoms to a top surface of the lower tungsten layer to form a main tungsten layer (Fig. 4 second W film).
Ba et al. teaches an initial and main tungsten deposition layer on metal oxides or dielectric/insulating materials (para 0040-0041) where the tungsten is deposited to fill a feature in order to improve semiconductor devices (para 0001). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Nakatani et al. to include its layers a gapfill as taught by Ba et al. in order to expand its usefulness to semiconductor fabrication.
Nakatani does not teach a tungsten oxychloride precursor. Collins et al. further teaches that a tungsten layer may be deposited in a trench in para 0026, for example. A tungsten oxychloride precursor is taught as an alternative to tungsten chloride or other fluorine containing precursors in paras 0029-0031. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the oxychloride precursor in the method of Nakatani as Collins teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
As to claim 5, the feature of Ba et al. includes horizontal grooves as shown in Figure 1D, for example.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US 2015/0093911 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786 A1) and Collins et al. (as cited on the 1/21/2026 IDS: KR 10-2022-0139417 A with US 2022/0195598 A1 used as a translation for citation purposes)
As to claim 1, Nakatani et al. teaches a method comprising: forming a lower tungsten layer by supplying a fluorine-free tungsten precursor gas containing a tungsten compound that does not contain fluorine atoms (Fig. 4 first W film) to a top surface of an aluminum oxide layer (para 0005, 0062, insulation film); and supplying a tungsten precursor gas containing a tungsten compound that contains fluorine atoms to a top surface of the lower tungsten layer to form a main tungsten layer (Fig. 4 second W film).
Lee et al. teaches an initial and main tungsten deposition layer (Figure 3B) where the tungsten is deposited to fill a feature in order to improve semiconductor devices (para 00010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Nakatani et al. to include its layers a gapfill as taught by Lee et al. in order to expand its usefulness to semiconductor fabrication.
Nakatani does not teach a tungsten oxychloride precursor. Collins et al. further teaches that a tungsten layer may be deposited in a trench in para 0026, for example. A tungsten oxychloride precursor is taught as an alternative to tungsten chloride or other fluorine containing precursors in paras 0029-0031. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the oxychloride precursor in the method of Nakatani as Collins teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
As to claim 2, the nucleation or cap layer in Lee et al. is deposited using fluorine free gas in para 0032. Fluorine gas is used in the bulk layer in para 0068. Seed layer or nucleation layer is then repeated as a cap layer as shown in Fig. 3B.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786 A1) and Collins et al. (as cited on the 1/21/2026 IDS: KR 10-2022-0139417 A with US 2022/0195598 A1 used as a translation for citation purposes)
As to claim 6, the nucleation or cap layer in Lee et al. is deposited using fluorine free gas in para 0032. Fluorine gas is used in the bulk layer in para 0068. Seed layer or nucleation layer is then repeated with the fluorine free gas as a cap layer as shown in Fig. 3B.
Lee does not teach a tungsten oxychloride precursor for the fluorine free layer. A tungsten oxychloride precursor is taught as an alternative to tungsten chloride or other fluorine containing precursors in paras 0029-0031. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the oxychloride precursor in the method of Lee as Collins teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Claim(s) 2 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US 2015/0093911 A1) in view of Ba et al. (US 2016/0351401 A1) and Collins et al. and in further view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786 A1)
As to claims 2 and 6, Nakatani, Collins and Ba do not teach another layer of fluorine free W. Lee teaches that the nucleation or cap layer in Lee et al. is deposited using fluorine free gas in para 0032. Fluorine gas is used in the bulk layer in para 0068. Seed layer or nucleation layer is then repeated as a cap layer as shown in Fig. 3B to reduce roughness in para 0007. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Nakatani,Collins and Ba to include another fluorine free nucleation layer atop the main W layer in order to reduce surface roughness.
As to claim 7, the feature of Ba et al. includes horizontal grooves as shown in Figure 1D, for example.
As to claim 8, Ba et al. teaches silicon oxides in paras 0040-0041.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (US 2015/0093911 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786 A1) and Collins and in further view of Ba et al. (US 2016/0351401 A1)
Lee et al. does not teach the features of the recess in the silicon oxide film. Ba teaches these features in Fig. 1D and paras 0040-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing modify Lee to include these features as in Ba as Ba teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such in semiconductor fabrication.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786 A1) and Collins et al. in view of Ba et al. (US 2016/0351401 A1)
Lee et al. does not teach the features of the recess in the silicon oxide film. Ba teaches these features in Fig. 1D and paras 0040-0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing modify Lee to include these features as in Ba as Ba teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such in semiconductor fabrication.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 1/21/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718