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 with respect to claim(s) December 31,2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Does non-compound mean the constituents do not form a compound having a different crystal structure than that of the individual constituents
Does it mean the metals are not alloys or are they trying to state the first metal and the second metal do not alloy or form intermetallics at the interface?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The written description does not define what “non-compound” is. Applicant does not have a “non-compound” option in the list of metal choices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US-11322410-B2; Cheng).
Regarding claim 18, Cheng discloses a method comprising: depositing a work-function layer comprising one of titanium and aluminum (Fig. 2F/2G,146; Column 13) forming a titanium nitride layer (Fig. 2I, 172; column 15) over the work-function layer; in a first deposition process, depositing a first metal layer (Fig. 2J, 180 , W, Al, Ta, Ti, Ni, Cu, Co; column 15) over the titanium nitride layer; in a second deposition process separated from the first deposition process, depositing a second metal layer (Fig. 2K, 184, TiN; column 16) over the first metal layer; and in a third deposition process, depositing a metal filling layer (Fig. 2k, 182 Al.W,Cu; column 16) ) over the first metal layer, wherein the metal filling layer comprises a same metal as the first metal layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 19, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: " wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer are deposited using precursors free from chlorine, and the metal filling layer is deposited using precursors comprising fluorine. ”, as recited in Claim 19, with the remaining features.
Regarding claim 20, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: " before the second metal layer is deposited, removing the first metal layer.”, as recited in Claim 20, with the remaining features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 11-17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
The most relevant prior art (US 20170117190 A1, 94963671 B1, US 20190273145 A1, US 2017/0194209 A1) discloses a method a first (or second) work function layer is removed leaving a second (or first) WF layer, forming tungsten layer over a first and second work function layer, and etching back both tungsten layers (or Fluorine blocking layers) where both remain. The art is silent on the limitations cited below in combination with the rest of claimed imitations of the independent claims.
Regarding claim 11, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: " forming a second fluorine-blocking layer over the second capping layer, wherein the first fluorine-blocking layer is thicker than the second fluorine-blocking layer; and forming a second metal filling layer over the second fluorine-blocking layer,”, as recited in Claim --11, with the remaining features.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 LAWRENCE C TYNES JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-7606. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. 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.
/LAWRENCE C TYNES JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights