DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nishitani (4,830,891).
Nishitani teaches a method of depositing an iridium film, comprising exposing a substrate surface maintained at 590C or lower to IrF6 and H2 (claims 4 and 5) (col 9, lines 12-60, col 13, lines 19-24).
In regard to the maintaining of the substrate at the temperature, this is taught in at least per the example in col 9, the range is overlapped by the prior art.
As described, the substrate comprises a first and second surface – the layer is formed in the contact hole and not on the SiO2.
In regard to the plasma, Nishitani does not teach plasma n the cited example – but further teaches applying an inert gas such as Ar, He and N2 along with the reactants (H2) (col 10, lines 26-40) and also teaches applying H2 plasma as an alternative, see col 11, line 52 – col 12, line 25. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply plasma including such components as H2 and further any of Ar/N2/He as Nishitani teaches plasma in the process and teaches that it is useful to flow the inert gases with the reactants (including H2).
Regarding claim 2, Nishitani teaches that a first material is Si and second material is silicon oxide (col 13, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 3, the deposition is performed selectively as noted, Nishitani teaches that the SiO2 portions “were not changed at all” and therefore would be understood to have experienced no deposition. The temperature of the substrate is able to be maintained at lower temperatures (see col 9, line 61 – col 10, line 25 wherein degradation occurs at 600C or higher), therefore the selectivity is maintained.
Regarding claim 5, the teachings include simultaneous deposition, but the Examiner takes Official Notice that sequential deposition is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 11 and 12, the prior art is silent on amount of Ir in the film, but to the extent that the prior art and instant claimed method follow the same steps of applying IrF6 and H2 to a substrate at the same temperature, it necessarily follows that the same film is formed with the same iridium content and essentially no fluorine atoms. There are no specific further conditions described in the specification beyond the steps that are obvious over the prior art to set forth the claimed Ir/F contents.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the range is taught as per above.
Regarding claim 9, all elements of the claim are addressed as per above, including reference to claims 1-3 particularly.
Regarding claim 17, all elements are met as per above, with Nishitani teaches the substrate temperature, the application of the Ir precursor and the plasma as noted.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (2004/0053496) in view of Nishitani (4,830,891).
Choi teaches a method of depositing iridium using ALD including a process consisting essentially of exposing the substrate sequentially to an iridium precursor and a reactant, see Fig. 2 and related text, particularly [0009-10] and [0036], the process occurring at room temperature to 700 degrees C [0035].
Choi exemplifies various iridium precursors and particularly teaches iridium halides [0036], but does not exemplify iridium hexafluoride.
Nishitani teaches a selective deposition method for forming a metal film comprising exposing a substrate surface to IrF6 and H2 (claims 4 and 5) (col 9, lines 12-60; col 13, lines 19-24) in order to form an iridium containing film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of the invention to apply the IrF6 of Nishitani in the method of Choi as Choi generally teaches halides but fails to exemplify any such compounds and Nishitani teaches that IrF6 is an operable vapor deposition precursor, the combination meeting all requirements of claim 1.
In regard to the plasma – it is initially noted that Nishitani teaches plasma as noted above. But, further, Choi teaches that it is useful to include plasma as well during the pulsing of the hydrogen, and to include an inert gas in the mixture (such as He, N or Ar) [0032-35, 38], thereby meeting the further requirements for the mixed plasma.
Regarding claim 2, Choi is silent on any mixed substrate but Nishitani teaches that an iridium layer is operably deposited selectively on a substrate of first material over a second material, wherein the first material is Si and the second material is silicon oxide (col 13, lines 24-35).
Regarding claim 3, the deposition is performed selectively as noted, Nishitani teaches that the SiO2 portions “were not changed at all” and therefore would be understood to have experienced no deposition. The temperature of the substrate is able to be maintained at lower temperatures (see per col 9, line 61 – col 10, line 25 wherein degradation occurs at 600C or higher), therefore the selectivity is maintained at the claimed temperature range.
Regarding claim 5, the method of Choi includes sequential deposition.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 11 and 12, the prior art is silent on amount of Ir in the film, but to the extent that the prior art and instant claimed method follow the same steps of applying IrF6 and H2 to a substrate at the same temperature, it necessarily follows that the same film is formed with the same iridium content and essentially no fluorine atoms. There are no specific further conditions described in the specification beyond the steps that are obvious over the prior art to set forth the claimed Ir/F contents.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, the range is taught as per above.
Regarding claim 9, all elements of the claim are taught as per claims 1-3 above.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the teachings include hydrogen and nitrogen plasma as the reactant [0035].
Regarding claim 17, all elements are met as per above, with the combined art teaching the substrate temperature, the Ir precursor and the plasma as noted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered- they are persuasive but the teachings of Nishitani and Choi further teach applying plasma and therefore the rejection has been modified as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. 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 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/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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715
Prosecution Insights