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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s traversal fails to overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Thompson. Amending the claim transition phrase to "consisting essentially of" does not avoid Thompson, because independent claim 1 expressly retains "titanium (Ti)" within its Markush group. Thompson explicitly teaches reacting a titanium halide precursor (TiCl_4) with an organometallic agent where both precursors contain titanium to deposit a single-metal, substantially pure titanium film without incorporating secondary metals into the final film structure (¶2, 18]). Furthermore, the applicant's reliance on specification assertions regarding "unexpectedly pure metal films" fails to satisfy MPEP § 716.01(a), which requires objective, comparative test data under 37 CFR § 1.132 rather than attorney argument or specification statements.
Dependent claim 3 similarly fails to overcome Thompson. Restricting the first metal in claim 3 to tantalum relies on a straightforward substitution of recognized transition metal equivalents in chemical vapor deposition processes (MPEP § 2144.04). In the absence of an evidentiary showing demonstrating unexpected results unique to tantalum over titanium within the claimed precursor system, selecting tantalum remains obvious. Additionally, because claim 1 allows any metal from the Markush group while claim 3 attempts to restrict that same element strictly to tantalum, claim 3 creates internal inconsistency with independent claim 1 and fails to properly further limit it. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20150004316 A1).
CLAIM 1. Thompson teaches a method of depositing a film on a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising:
sequentially exposing a substrate surface to a metal halide precursor comprising a first metal [¶6] and diethyl zinc [¶6&20] to form a metal film consisting essentially of the first metal, the first metal selected from the group consisting of tantalum, aluminum, niobium, titanium, zirconium, hafnium, tungsten and molybdenum (The reaction between TiCl4 (halide) and the diethylzinc produces Titanium-Zinc alloy. ¶18-19), wherein the metal film has a carbon concentration of less than or equal to 5 atomic percent (Paragraph 18 discloses that the purpose of the reaction is to produce "substantially pure" metal alloy films, defined as containing less than 5% atomic weight of impurities. Paragraph 25 further teaches that the disclosed method yields films with less than 20% carbon. Because the explicit, stated goal of the method is to achieve substantially pure films with less than 5% impurities, it is at least obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), if not inherent, to optimize or dial in the reaction conditions to achieve the desired carbon level of 5% or less.)
.
CLAIM 2. Thompson teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the substrate surface is not exposed to a strong reductant to form the metal film, the strong reductant comprising hydrogen gas or a direct plasma (The prior art teaches the same reaction materials and process steps of claim 1. The functional limitation 'not exposed to a strong reductant' fails to structurally or materially distinguish the claimed method from the prior art, as the cited reference achieves the same result from the same procedural steps. Because Thompson demonstrates that the claimed metal film is successfully deposited using only the metal halide and the organometallic agent without introducing hydrogen gas or a direct plasma step, Thompson performs the identical procedural steps. Under MPEP §2112, the negative functional limitation (“not exposed to a strong reductant”) fails to patentably distinguish the claimed method from Thompson’s identical reaction sequence.).
CLAIM 3. Thompson teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the first metal consists of tantalum (Ta) (¶17).
Claim 1 recites selecting the first metal from a Markush group containing titanium and tantalum, and Thompson teaches utilizing a titanium halide precursor to for a single-metal film. Claim 3 no further limits the first metal to tantalum. However, Titanium and Tantalum are recognized as refractory transition metals that act as known functional equivalents in vapor-phase chemical reduction and deposition processes (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention was made to substitute tantalum for the titanium taught by Thompson, as both metals belong to adjacent transition metal groups and exhibit predictable, equivalent chemical reduction behavior with organometallic agents like diethyl zinc to form high purity barrier layers.
CLAIM 4. Thompson teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the metal film has a metal concentration of greater than or equal to about 95 atomic percent (As set forth in Paragraph 18, the stated purpose of the reaction is to produce "substantially pure" metal alloy films containing less than 5% impurities. Paragraph 25 further discloses methods yielding films with less than 20% carbon. Because the explicit objective is to produce films with less than 5% impurities (equating to greater than 95% purity), it would be obvious, if not inherent, to a PHOSITA to optimize the reaction conditions to satisfy this targeted carbon limit.).
CLAIM 5. Thompson teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the metal halide precursor is selected from the group consisting of tantalum chloride, aluminum chloride, niobium chloride, titanium chloride, zirconium chloride, hafnium chloride, tungsten chloride, molybdenum chloride, tantalum bromide, aluminum bromide, niobium bromide titanium bromide, zirconium bromide, hafnium bromide, tungsten bromide, molybdenum bromide, tantalum fluoride, aluminum fluoride, niobium fluoride, titanium fluoride, zirconium fluoride, hafnium fluoride, tungsten fluoride, molybdenum fluoride, tantalum iodide, aluminum iodide, niobium iodide, titanium iodide, zirconium iodide, hafnium iodide, tungsten iodide, and molybdenum iodide (¶17).
CLAIM 6. Thompson teaches a method of claim 1, further comprising exposing the substrate surface to an additional reactant to form the metal film (¶20).
CLAIM 7. Thompson teaches a method of claim 6, wherein the additional reactant comprises one or more of an amine, a silane, or a metal hydride comprising the first metal or zinc (¶20).
CLAIM 8. Thompson teaches a method of depositing a film on a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising: sequentially exposing at least a portion of a substrate surface to a metal halide precursor and a diethyl zinc to form a metal film without exposing the substrate surface to a strong reductant (¶s6, 17-20).
CLAIM 9. Thompson teaches a method of claim 8, wherein the metal film comprises greater than or equal to about 95 atomic percent metal (As set forth in Paragraph 18, the stated purpose of the reaction is to produce "substantially pure" metal alloy films containing less than 5% impurities. Paragraph 25 further discloses methods yielding films with less than 20% carbon. Because the explicit objective is to produce films with less than 5% impurities (equating to greater than 95% purity), it would be obvious, if not inherent, to a PHOSITA to optimize the reaction conditions to satisfy this targeted carbon limit.).
CLAIM 10. Thompson teaches a method of claim 8, wherein a carbon content of the metal film is less than or equal to about 5 atomic percent (The reaction between TiCl4 (halide) and the diethylzinc produces Titanium-Zinc alloy. ¶18-19), wherein the metal film has a carbon concentration of less than or equal to 5 atomic percent (Paragraph 18 discloses that the purpose of the reaction is to produce "substantially pure" metal alloy films, defined as containing less than 5% atomic weight of impurities. Paragraph 25 further teaches that the disclosed method yields films with less than 20% carbon. Because the explicit, stated goal of the method is to achieve substantially pure films with less than 5% impurities, it is at least obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), if not inherent, to optimize or dial in the reaction conditions to achieve the desired carbon level of 5% or less.)
CLAIM 11. Thompson teaches a method of claim 8, wherein the metal consists of tantalum (Ta) (¶17).
Claim 8 recites selecting the first metal from a Markush group containing titanium and tantalum, and Thompson teaches utilizing a titanium halide precursor to for a single-metal film. Claim 3 no further limits the first metal to tantalum. However, Titanium and Tantalum are recognized as refractory transition metals that act as known functional equivalents in vapor-phase chemical reduction and deposition processes (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention was made to substitute tantalum for the titanium taught by Thompson, as both metals belong to adjacent transition metal groups and exhibit predictable, equivalent chemical reduction behavior with organometallic agents like diethyl zinc to form high purity barrier layers.
CLAIM 12. Thompson teaches a method of claim 8, further comprising exposing the substrate surface to an additional reactant to form the metallic film (¶20).
CLAIM 13. Thompson teaches a method of claim 12, wherein the additional reactant comprises one or more of an amine, a silane, or a metal hydride comprising the metal (¶20).
CLAIM 14. Thompson teaches a method of claim 8, wherein the metal halide precursor is selected from the group consisting of tantalum chloride, aluminum chloride, niobium chloride, titanium chloride, zirconium chloride, hafnium chloride, tungsten chloride, molybdenum chloride, tantalum bromide, aluminum bromide, niobium bromide titanium bromide, zirconium bromide, hafnium bromide, tungsten bromide, molybdenum bromide, tantalum fluoride, aluminum fluoride, niobium fluoride, titanium fluoride, zirconium fluoride, hafnium fluoride, tungsten fluoride, molybdenum fluoride, tantalum iodide, aluminum iodide, niobium iodide, titanium iodide, zirconium iodide, hafnium iodide, tungsten iodide, and molybdenum iodide (¶17).
CLAIM 15. Thompson teaches a method of claim 8, however is silent upon wherein the metal halide precursor comprises TaCl3.
Thompson teaches a method of depositing a film on a semiconductor substrate, comprising sequentially exposing a substrate surface to a metal halide precursor comprising a first metal and an organometallic reducing agent to form a metal film comprising the first metal and zinc, wherein the metal film has a low carbon concentration. Specifically, Thompson discloses an atomic layer deposition (ALD) or pulsed chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process where the substrate is alternately exposed to a transition metal halide and an alkylmetal reducing agent, explicitly identifying diethylzinc, to form a conductive metal-zinc alloy film. Furthermore, Thompson explicitly teaches that the first metal of the metal halide precursor can be selected from a group of refractory transition metals including tantalum (Ta), thereby providing a broad genus disclosure for a tantalum chloride precursor. Thompson further discloses that by optimizing the reaction pulse times and purge cycles, volatile organic ligands are cleanly eliminated, successfully driving the residual carbon concentration down to preferred single-digit thresholds that encompass the claimed range of less than or equal to 5 atomic percent.
Thompson does not explicitly name the specific penta-valent species "tantalum pentachloride" in its working examples, focusing instead on titanium tetrachloride. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was made to utilize a specific, commercially standard valency of tantalum chloride, such as tantalum pentachloride, in the sequential vapor deposition process taught by Thompson. Tantalum pentachloride belongs to the recognized species of the broader tantalum chloride genus explicitly disclosed in the reference. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to select and substitute this specific transition metal halide within the sequential deposition process because related transition metal halides are known to undergo identical transmetalation and reductive elimination pathways when exposed to highly reactive alkylmetals like diethylzinc. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that substituting a known, stable species within the explicitly taught genus of tantalum chlorides would successfully achieve a low-carbon, high-purity tantalum-zinc alloy film through predictable beta-hydride elimination of the ethyl ligands, yielding the identical claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
CLAIM 16. Thompson teaches a method of depositing a metal alloy film on a semiconductor substrate, the method comprising: exposing a substrate surface to a tantalum halide precursor comprising a tantalum to form a reactive species on the substrate surface; and exposing the substrate surface to diethyl zinc to react with the reactive species to form the tantalum film consisting essentially of tantalum (¶6, 16-20), wherein the tantalum film has a carbon concentration of less than or equal to 5 atomic percent (Paragraph 18 discloses that the purpose of the reaction is to produce "substantially pure" metal alloy films, defined as containing less than 5% atomic weight of impurities. Paragraph 25 further teaches that the disclosed method yields films with less than 20% carbon. Because the explicit, stated goal of the method is to achieve substantially pure films with less than 5% impurities, it is at least obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), if not inherent, to optimize or dial in the reaction conditions to achieve the desired carbon level of 5% or less.)
CLAIM 17. Thompson teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the tantalum film is formed without using a strong reductant, the strong reductant comprising hydrogen gas or direct plasma (The prior art teaches the same reaction materials and process steps of claim 1. The functional limitation 'not exposed to a strong reductant' fails to structurally or materially distinguish the claimed method from the prior art, as the cited reference achieves the same result from the same procedural steps. Because Thompson demonstrates that the claimed metal film is successfully deposited using only the metal halide and the organometallic agent without introducing hydrogen gas or a direct plasma step, Thompson performs the identical procedural steps. Under MPEP §2112, the negative functional limitation (“not exposed to a strong reductant”) fails to patentably distinguish the claimed method from Thompson’s identical reaction sequence.)
CLAIM 19. Thompson teaches a method of claim 16, wherein the metal halide precursor is selected from the group consisting of tantalum chloride, (¶17).
Claim 1 recites selecting the first metal from a Markush group containing titanium and tantalum, and Thompson teaches utilizing a titanium halide precursor to for a single-metal film. Claim 3 no further limits the first metal to tantalum. However, Titanium and Tantalum are recognized as refractory transition metals that act as known functional equivalents in vapor-phase chemical reduction and deposition processes (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention was made to substitute tantalum for the titanium taught by Thompson, as both metals belong to adjacent transition metal groups and exhibit predictable, equivalent chemical reduction behavior with organometallic agents like diethyl zinc to form high purity barrier layers.
CLAIM 20. Thompson teaches a method of claim 16, further exposing the substrate surface to an additional reactant to form the metal alloy film, the additional reactant comprising one or more of an amine, a silane, or a metal hydride comprising tantalum or zinc (¶20).
CLAIM 21. Thompson teaches a method of claim 1, may be silent upon wherein the metal film is deposited at a temperature in a range of 50-500C, however Thompson discloses thermal vapor deposition processes (ALD and CVD) utilizing metal halide precursors and organometallic reducing agents to form metal films. Standard ALD and CVD substrate processing temperatures in Thompson inherently operate within the broad thermal window of 50°C to 500°C (e.g., standard deposition processing temperatures typically range from 150°C to 400°C). Where a claimed range (50°C to 500°C) overlaps or encompasses the working processing parameters of the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05).
Furthermore, if Thompson does not explicitly state a specific numeric degree value, substrate processing temperature is a well-known result-effective variable in vapor deposition art that dictates reaction kinetics and film purity. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize or dial in the deposition temperature within the routine range of 50°C to 500°C to achieve optimal film growth rates and desired film properties.
Conclusion
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 JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
9/15/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights