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 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that Spurlin ‘127 in view of Derderian ‘375 does not disclose the limitation, "reacting the carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal of the surface layer to form carbon dioxide and non-oxidized metal at the surface layer by removing oxygen from the oxidized metal of the surface layer, wherein a temperature in the chamber during the reacting is less than 40 degrees Celsius". Applicant states that Derderian ‘375 does not teach the CO-to CO2 reaction at less than 40 degrees Celsius.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument of the Claim 1 rejection. Spurlin ‘127 teaches flowing CO into a chamber containing a substrate with an oxidized metal surface layer (Para [0042-0046]) such that the CO reacts with the oxidized surface to convert the metal oxide to a metal layer (Para [0046]). Further Spurlin ‘127 teaches this process can be done in the chamber at temperatures between 10°C to 500°C. Spurlin ‘127 does not expressly disclose carbon dioxide is formed in the reaction but Spurlin ‘127 implies the process reaction of CO reacting with oxide on the metal layer. However, MPEP 2164.05(a) states “The specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public”. It is well known to one of skill in the art that CO reacting with an oxide will form CO2. Therefore the primary prior art of record teaches each and every step of Claim 1. Examiner, for the sake of clarity, has provided Derderian ‘375 to show evidence of a CO reaction with an oxidized metal layer forming CO2. Therefore the Applicant’s Argument is found non-persuasive and the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 1 is maintained.
Regarding Claim 13 and 20, Applicant Argues Kostamo ‘754 in view of Satake ‘560 in further view of Spurlin ‘127 does not disclose the claim 13 limitation "after stopping the flowing of the carbon monoxide into the chamber and while maintaining the substrate at a temperature between 10 to 40 degrees Celsius, exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from an inert gas to reduce the oxidized metal”. Analogously the Applicant Argues that Kostamo ‘754 in view of Satake ‘560 in further view of Spurlin ‘127 does not disclose the claim 20 limitation "after stopping the flowing of the carbon monoxide, flowing an inert gas into the chamber, igniting a plasma within the chamber, the plasma being generated from the inert gas, exposing the surface layer to the plasma, the exposing reducing an oxygen content in the surface layer". Applicant argues that Kostamo ‘754 discloses that its reduction step may use "thermal hydrogen (H2); hydrogen radicals (H*); and carbon monoxide (CO)" as reducing agents. That Kostamo ‘754 discloses where hydrogen radicals are used, they are generated "via the formation of a hydrogen plasma," in "an atmosphere comprising about 1% to about 30% flowing hydrogen, more preferably between about 3 and about 10% flowing hydrogen," which "also preferably comprises one or more inert gases, such as He", that in Kostamo ‘754, the chemically reactive, oxide-reducing species is hydrogen.
Examiner Response: Kostamo ‘754 teaches a method comprising: receiving a substrate having a metal layer therein, wherein an exposed surface of the metal layer includes a surface layer of oxidized metal; flowing carbon monoxide into a chamber containing the substrate and onto the surface layer; and stopping the flow of the carbon monoxide into the chamber as stated in the USC 35§103 rejections below. Examiner agrees with Applicant that Kostamo ‘754 discloses that its reduction step may use "thermal hydrogen (H2); hydrogen radicals (H*); and carbon monoxide (CO)" as reducing agents. Examiner maintains that Claims 13 and 20 do not preclude the presence of "thermal hydrogen (H2); hydrogen radicals (H*); and carbon monoxide (CO)" as reducing agents present in the chamber. As cited in the rejection of Claim 13 and 20 below, Spurlin ‘127 discloses a reduction process using CO with an oxidized metal surface occurring can be done in the chamber at temperatures between 10°C to 500°C.
Applicant further submits that Satake’560 discloses that "the reducing gas is preferably hydrogen (H2) gas, a gas including a carboxy group (formic acid (HCOOH) gas, acetic acid (CH3COOH) gas, propionic acid (CH3CH2COOH) gas and the like) or a gas including an aldehyde group (formaldehyde (HCHO) gas, acetaldehyde (CH3CHO) gas, propionaldehyde (C2H5CHO) gas, and the like)." Furthermore, Applicant states, Satake ‘560 discloses that "[i]n order to adjust the concentration of the reducing gas, a rare gas such as N2 or He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, and the like inactive against reduction reaction may be mixed and emitted to the magnetoresistive element. However, in a case where the reduction processing is performed by using plasma generated from the reducing gas, radical types such as hydrogen radical and carbon radical generated in plasma have a high level of reactivity, and the reduction reaction of the magnesium oxide (MgO) advances." Satake at [0062]. Applicant states Claim 13, by contrast, requires "exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from an inert gas to reduce the oxidized metal." Neither Kostamo nor Satake teach or suggest this. The reducing chemistry of Kostamo and Satake is attributed to hydrogen or carbon, with inert gases serving only a supporting role. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the asserted Kostamo-Satake-Spurlin combination fails to teach or suggest "after stopping the flowing of the carbon monoxide into the chamber and while maintaining the substrate at a temperature between 10 to 40 degrees Celsius, exposing the substrate to a plasma formed from an inert gas to reduce the oxidized metal," as recited in claim 13.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Arguments. Kostamo ‘754 discloses reducing agents consisting of H2, Hydrogen radicals and CO. Satake ‘560 teaches a process of using CO, hydrogen, an inert gas, or a mixture that can be used in a reduction process. (Para [0050] of Satake ‘560). A person having ordinary skill in the art would then find it obvious to try replacing H2 alone with a selection of materials known to be suitable for reduction, such as the mixture of H2 and inert gas to create plasma disclosed by Satake ‘560. (MPEP 2144.07) The limitations of Claims 13 and 20 do not exclude other elements to form the plasma. This argument does not change the scope of the prior rejection of Claims 13 and 20, merely the motivation that for a person of ordinary skill in the art it would be obvious to try the teachings of Satake ‘560 of a mixture of CO, H2, and an inert gas to reduce oxidized metal substituting it for the H2 in the reduction process of Kostamo ‘754 as both have the intended purpose of reducing an oxide layer on a metal substrate; the combination meeting the claim limitation by exposing a the substrate to a plasma formed from an inert gas to reduce the oxidized metal. Again, the claim language does not exclude other components to be present with the plasma. Therefore, Examiner finds the Applicant’s Argument as non-persuasive and maintains the rejection of Claims 13 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Amendment of Claim 19 in the Applicant’s Arguments dated 07/28/2026 overcome the prior 35 USC § 112 made in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 05/08/2026, therefore the prior rejection of Claim 19 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurlin et al. (US 2014/0256127 A1, hereinafter Spurlin ‘127) in view of Derderian (US 2004/0259375 A1, hereinafter Derderian ‘375), in view of the following arguments.
With respect to Claim 1 Spurlin ‘127 discloses a method for making a semiconductor device (Fig 1-11), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (109, Fig 1B, Para [0028]) having a metal layer therein (119, Fig 1C, Para [0030]), wherein an exposed surface (upper surfaces of 119) of the metal layer (119) includes a surface layer (surface layer of MOx) of oxidized metal (MOx, Para [0032-0034] disclose surface of 119 is an oxidized metal);
flowing (Step 310) carbon monoxide (CO, Para [0042]) into a chamber (610, Fig 6, Para [0075] discloses chamber and Para [0042] discloses the use of carbon monoxide as reducing gas) containing the substrate (109) and onto the surface layer (surface layer of MOx, Para [0042] discloses surface layer exposed to carbon monoxide); and
reacting (Step 320, Fig 3, Para [0044]) the carbon monoxide (CO) with the oxidized metal (MOx) of the surface layer (surface layer of MOx) and non-oxidized metal (Para [0045] discloses process converts metal oxide to metal) at the surface layer (surface layer of MOx),
Spurlin ‘127 does not directly disclose wherein a temperature in the chamber (chamber) during the reacting is less than 40 degrees Celsius.
However, Spurlin ‘127 does teach wherein a temperature (temperature of chamber) in the chamber (610) during the reacting (Step 320) is less than 10-500 degrees Celsius (Para [0046] discloses chamber temperature between 10°C-500°C). MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
However, Spurlin ‘127 fails to explicitly disclose reacting the carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal of the surface layer to form carbon dioxide by removing oxygen from the oxidized metal of the surface layer.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-8 of Derderian ‘375) Derderian ‘375 teaches reacting the carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal of the surface layer to form carbon dioxide by removing oxygen from the oxidized metal of the surface layer (Step 3, Fig 2, Para [0020] of Derderian ‘375 teaches reacting carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal to reduce the metal to an oxide free metal and a carbon dioxide by-product and equation therein shows oxygen is removed from oxidized metal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Derderian ‘375’s teaching of reacting the carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal of the surface layer to form carbon dioxide by removing oxygen from the oxidized metal of the surface layer into Spurlin ‘127’s method. Spurlin ‘127 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced. Derderian ‘375 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced and provides details of the reaction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Spurlin ‘127 in the manner set forth above, at least, because the teaching of Derderian ‘375 clarifies the resulting compounds of the reduction reaction which would enable the person of ordinary skill in the art to have knowledge helpful to manage those resulting compounds in their process.
As incorporated, the teaching of the resulting compounds of the reduction reaction as taught by Derderian ‘375 would be used in the method of Spurlin ‘127.
With respect to Claim 8 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, but Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian fails to explicitly disclose further comprising removing at least part of the carbon monoxide and the carbon dioxide from the chamber.
However, Spurlin ‘127 teaches in (Para [0045]) a flow rate of the inert reducing gas in the chamber (610) and further, in (Para [0046]), teaches a pump down step to reduce the chamber pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a flow rate of inert reducing gas in the chamber and a pump down step of the chamber necessitates removing at least part of the carbon monoxide, the carbon dioxide, and the noble gas from the chamber.
With respect to Claim 11 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, but Spurlin ‘127 does not directly disclose wherein the temperature in the chamber during the reacting is in a temperature range from 10 to 28 degrees Celsius.
However, Spurlin ‘127 does teach wherein the temperature in the chamber (temperature of chamber) during the reacting (Step 320) is in a temperature range from 10 to 500 degrees Celsius (Para [0046] discloses chamber temperature between 10°C-500°C) which overlaps the range of 10 to 28°C of the instant application. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
With respect to Claim 12 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, wherein the metal layer (119) comprises one of or any combination of copper, cobalt, ruthenium, molybdenum, and tungsten (Para [0031] discloses 119 as copper).
Claims 2,3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurlin ‘127 in view of Derderian ‘375 in further view of Satake et al. (US 2017/0194560 A1, hereinafter Satake ‘560), in view of the following arguments.
With respect to Claim 2 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, and Spurlin ‘127 further discloses wherein the reacting (Step 320) comprises:
flowing a noble gas (Para [0045] discloses using inert gases of neon (Ne), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), radon (Rn), and argon (Ar), hereinafter noble gas) into the chamber (610); and
exposing the surface layer (surface layer of MOx) to the plasma (Step 315) to reduce the oxidized metal (MOx) of the surface layer (surface layer of MOx)(Para [0043 and 0045] discloses the result of the plasma process of Step 315 is the conversion of the MOx layer to metal).
But Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 fails to explicitly disclose generating a plasma from the noble gas in the chamber.
Nevertheless in a related endeavor (Fig 2 of Satake ‘560), Satake ‘560 teaches generating a plasma from the noble gas in the chamber (Para [0014 and 0050] and Fig 2 teaches generating plasma from a noble gas mixed with CO and Para [0063] teaches that plasma and CO can be used in a reducing step to lower the oxidation state of an oxidized metal in a processing chamber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Satake ‘560’s teaching of generating a plasma from the noble gas in the chamber into Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375’s method. Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide. Satake ‘560 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and provides details of using the noble gas to generate a plasma. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Satake ‘560 teaches in Para [0050] the plasma formed from the noble gas can aid in etching the oxide from the surface of the metal oxide.
As incorporated, the teaching of Satake ‘560 in generating a plasma from the noble gas would be used in method of Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 such that the noble gas of Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 (as described above) would be used to generate a plasma.
With respect to Claim 3 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 2, but Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 fails to explicitly discloses further comprising removing at least part of the carbon monoxide, the carbon dioxide, and the noble gas from the chamber.
However, Spurlin ‘127 further teaches in (Para [0045]) a flow rate of the inert reducing gas in the chamber (610) and further, in (Para [0046]), teaches a pump down step to reduce the chamber pressure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a flow rate of inert reducing gas in the chamber and a pump down step of the chamber necessitates removing at least part of the carbon monoxide, the carbon dioxide, and the noble gas from the chamber.
With respect to Claim 5 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 2, and Spurlin ‘127 further discloses
wherein generating the plasma (Step 315) comprises providing radio frequency (RF) power (radio frequency power for plasma disclosed in Para [0078 and 0079], hereinafter RF) to an electrode (660, Para [0077 - 0079] discloses providing a RF to plasma generator 655/660 as shown in Fig 6) of the chamber (610), the RF power (RF); wherein the RF power (RF) having a radio frequency range of 13.56MHz to 300MHz (Para 0079] discloses RF has a frequency of 13.56 MHz);
Spurlin ‘127 does not directly disclose wherein the temperature in the chamber during the reacting is in a temperature range from 0 to 28 degrees Celsius.
However, Spurlin ‘127 does teach wherein the temperature in the chamber (temperature of chamber) during the reacting (Step 320) is in a temperature range from 10 to 500 degrees Celsius (Para [0046] discloses chamber temperature between 10°C-500°C) which overlaps the range of 0 to 28°C of the instant application. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Spurlin ‘127 does not directly disclose wherein the RF power being in a power range between 50 and 500 watts.
However, Spurlin ‘127 does teach wherein the RF power (RF), in Para [0079] “may be operated at any suitable power to form a plasma of a desired composition of radical species” may be operated at any suitable power to form a plasma of a desired composition of radical species” and further teaches examples of suitable power is in a range of 300W to 1500W) which overlaps the range of between 50 and 500W of the instant application. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Spurlin ‘127 does not directly discloses wherein a first flow rate range for the flowing of the carbon monoxide is 1 to 2000 sccm; and
However, Spurlin ‘127 does teach wherein a first flow rate range for the flowing of the carbon monoxide is 10 sccm – 100,000 sccm in (Table 1 and Para [0045]), which overlaps the range of 1 to 2000 sccm of the instant application. Spurlin ‘127 further teaches in Para [0045] that the flow rate of the reducing gas species can vary depending on the size of the wafer. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Spurlin ‘127 does not directly discloses wherein a second flow rate range for the flowing of the noble gas is 1 to 500 sccm.
However, Spurlin ‘127 does teach wherein a second flow rate range for the flowing of the noble gas is 10 sccm – 100,000 sccm in (Table 1 and Para [0045]), which overlaps the range of 1 to 500 sccm of the instant application. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
With respect to Claim 6 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 2, and Spurlin ‘127 further discloses wherein the noble gas comprises one of or any combination of argon, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon (Para [0045] discloses inert gases of neon (Ne), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), radon (Rn), and argon (Ar)).
With respect to Claim 7 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 2, and Spurlin ‘127 further discloses wherein the metal layer (119) contains copper (Para [0031] discloses 119 as copper), and wherein the noble gas contains argon (Para [0045] discloses inert gases as argon (Ar)).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurlin ‘127 in view of Derderian ‘375 in view of Satake ‘560 and in further view of Kostamo et al. (US 2005/0208754 A1, hereinafter Kostamo ‘754), in view of the following arguments.
With respect to Claim 4 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 3, but Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 fails to explicitly disclose further comprising sequentially repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide and the reacting.
However, in a related endeavor (Fig 1 and 4-10 of Kostamo ‘754), Kostamo ‘754 teaches further comprising sequentially repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide and the reacting (Para [0155] and Fig 7 of Kostamo ‘754 teaches multiple cycles (Fig 7 discloses 1000 cycles) of reduction time exposure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kostamo ‘754’s teaching of repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide and the reacting into Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560’s method. Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced. Kostamo ‘754 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced and further teaches a metho that includes conducting additional cycles of reduction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 in the manner set forth above, at least, because as Kostamo ‘754 teaches in Fig 7, running additional reduction cycles results in a lowering of sheet resistance of the surface.
As incorporated, the teaching of Kostamo ‘754 of using multiple reduction cycles would be used in method of Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 and further modified by Satake ‘560 in the reacting step.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurlin ‘127 in view of Derderian ‘375 in further view of Kostamo ‘754, in view of the following arguments.
With respect to Claim 9 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 8, but Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 fails to explicitly disclose further comprising, after the removing, sequentially repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide, the reacting, and the removing.
However, in a related endeavor (Fig 1 and 4-10 of Kostamo ‘754), Kostamo ‘754 teaches further comprising sequentially repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide and the reacting (Para [0155] and Fig 7 of Kostamo ‘754 teaches multiple cycles (Fig 7 discloses 1000 cycles) of reduction time exposure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kostamo ‘754’s teaching of repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide and the reacting into Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375’s method. Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced. Kostamo ‘754 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced and further teaches a metho that includes conducting additional cycles of reduction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 in the manner set forth above, at least, because as Kostamo ‘754 teaches in Fig 7, running additional reduction cycles results in a lowering of sheet resistance of the surface.
As incorporated, the teaching of Kostamo ‘754 of using multiple reduction cycles would be used in method of Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 so that the cycle of flowing of the carbon monoxide, the reacting, and the removing would be repeated.
With respect to Claim 10 Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 1, but Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the surface layer of the oxidized metal has a thickness of three monolayers or less.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1 and 4-10 of Kostamo ‘754), Kostamo ‘754 teaches wherein the surface layer (surface layer of 116) of oxidized metal (Para [0080] discloses 116 having an oxide layer) has a thickness of three monolayers or less (Para [0118] discloses three or less monolayers of metal oxide).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kostamo ‘754’s surface layer of the oxidized metal has a thickness of three monolayers or less into Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375’s method. Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced. Kostamo ‘754 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced and further teaches details on the oxide layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375 in the manner set forth above, at least, because a Kostamo ‘754 teaches in Para [0118] multiple thinner layers of oxide are more susceptible to reduction than a single thicker layer.
As incorporated, Kostamo ‘754’s teaching of the surface layer (surface layer of 116) of oxidized metal having a thickness of three monolayers or less would be used for the thickness of (surface layer of MOx) of Spurlin ‘127 as modified by Derderian ‘375.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostamo 754 in view of Satake ‘560 in further view of Spurlin ‘127, in view of the following arguments.
With respect to Claim 13 Kostamo ‘754 discloses a method for making a semiconductor device (Fig 1 and 4-10), the method comprising:
receiving a substrate (substrate of 100, Fig 1, disclosed in Para [0080]) having a metal layer therein (116, Fig 1, Para [0080]), wherein an exposed surface (surface of 116) of the metal layer (116) includes a surface layer (surface layer of 116) of oxidized metal (Para [0080] discloses 116 having an oxide layer);
flowing carbon monoxide (flowing carbon monoxide disclosed in Para [0114 and 0124]) into a chamber (reaction space disclosed in Para [0116]) containing the substrate (substrate of 100) and onto the surface layer (Para [0116] discloses carbon monoxide in reaction space over substrate and surface of metal oxide film); and
after stopping the flowing of the carbon monoxide (Para [0116] discloses flow of carbon monoxide stops as a purge step is implemented) into the chamber (reaction space) and
exposing the substrate (substrate of 100) to a plasma (plasma exposure disclosed in Para [0125]) to reduce the oxidized metal (Para [0125] discloses plasma used in reducing the oxide film).
But Kostamo ‘754 fails to explicitly disclose a plasma formed from an inert gas to reduce the oxidized metal.
Nevertheless in a related endeavor (Fig 2 of Satake ‘560), Satake ‘560 teaches a plasma formed from an inert gas to reduce the oxidized metal (Para [0014 and 0050] and Fig 2 teaches generating plasma from a noble gas mixed with CO and Para [0063] teaches that plasma and CO can be used in a reducing step to lower the oxidation state of an oxidized metal in a processing chamber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Satake ‘560’s teaching of generating a plasma from the noble gas in the chamber into Kostamo ‘754’s method. Kostamo ‘754 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide. Satake ‘560 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and provides details of using the noble gas to generate a plasma. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kostamo ‘754 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Satake ‘560 teaches in Para [0050] the plasma formed from the noble gas can aid in etching the oxide from the surface of the metal oxide.
As incorporated, the teaching of Satake ‘560 in generating a plasma from the noble gas would be used in method of Kostamo ‘754 such that the plasma of Kostamo ‘754 (as described above) would be generated from a noble gas.
Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 does not directly disclose maintaining the substrate at a temperature between 10 to 40 degrees Celsius.
However, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-11 of Spurlin ‘127), Spurlin ‘127 teaches maintaining the substrate (109, Fig 1B, Para [0028]) at a temperature between 10 to 500 degrees Celsius (Table 1 of Spurlin ‘127 discloses a substrate pedestal temperature between -10°C-150°C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Spurlin ‘127’s teaching of maintaining the substrate at a temperature between 10 to 40 degrees Celsius into Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560’s method. Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and Kostamo ‘754 discloses in Para [0117] that the reduction process should be carried out at low temperatures to avoid agglomeration. So Kostamo ‘754 is open to a low substrate temperature during processing. Spurlin ‘127 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and provides details on substrate temperatures in the process. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Spurlin ‘127 teaches in Para [0005] that maintaining a low substrate temperature can avoid agglomeration of the metal seed layer. Further, while Spurlin ‘127 teaches a substrate temperature range between -10 to 150 degrees Celsius, this overlaps the recited range of 10 to 40°C. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
As incorporated, the teaching of Spurlin ‘127 of maintaining the substrate at a temperature between 10 to 40 degrees Celsius would be used in method of Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 such that the (substrate of 100 of Kostamo ‘754) would be maintained at a temperature between 10 to 40 degree Celsius after stopping the flow of CO in the chamber.
With respect to Claim 14 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 13, and Kostamo ‘754 further teaches wherein the plasma is a remote plasma (Para [0125] discloses generating plasma remotely and transporting to reaction space).
With respect to Claim 15 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 13, and Kostamo ‘754 further discloses wherein the plasma is generated in the chamber (Para [0125] of Kostamo ‘754 discloses using H and He to form plasma in-situ in the chamber (reaction space)).
With respect to Claim 16 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 13, and Kostamo ‘754 further discloses wherein reducing the oxidized metal (116) comprises reacting the carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal of the surface layer to form carbon dioxide and non-oxidized metal at the surface layer by removing oxygen from the oxidized metal of the surface layer (Para [0115] discloses reducing agent (carbon monoxide as described above) ,“The gaseous reducing agent is capable of taking away the oxygen that was bound to the metal oxide and thus an elemental metal is left on the substrate surface. For example, hydrogen forms water (H.sub.2O) molecules and carbon monoxide forms carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) molecules”).
With respect to Claim 17 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 13, and Kostamo ‘754 further discloses wherein exposing the substrate (substrate of 100) to the plasma (plasma exposure disclosed in Para [0125] as modified by Satake ‘560 as described above) comprises:
flowing a noble gas (He, Para [0123 and 0125] disclose using He) into the chamber (reaction space);
generating the plasma (plasma generation disclosed in Para [0125] as modified by Satake ‘560 as described above) in the chamber (reaction space); and
accelerating ions (Para [0049-0051] disclose using plasma to generate ions and that the ions etch the oxide layer of the metal oxide) of the noble gas (He) to the surface layer (surface layer of 116).
With respect to Claim 18 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 13, and Kostamo ‘754 discloses further comprising sequentially repeating the flowing of the carbon monoxide and the exposing to the plasma. (Para [0155], Table 1 and Fig 7 of Kostamo ‘754 teaches multiple cycles (Fig 7 discloses 1000 cycles) of reduction time exposure).
With respect to Claim 19 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 13, and Kostamo ‘754 further discloses wherein the surface layer (surface layer of 116) of oxidized metal (Para [0080] discloses 116 having an oxide layer) has a thickness of three monolayers or less (Para [0118] discloses three or less monolayers of metal oxide);
wherein the metal layer (116) comprises one of or any combination of copper, cobalt, ruthenium, molybdenum, and tungsten (Para [0132] discloses 116 (seed layer) as copper);
wherein the inert gas comprises one of or any combination of argon, helium, neon, krypton, and xenon (Para [0123 and 0125] disclose inert gas as He);
and, Spurlin ‘127 further teaches wherein the temperature (temperature of chamber 610) in the chamber (610, Fig 6 of Spurlin ‘127, Para [0075] discloses chamber and Para [0042] discloses the use of carbon monoxide as reducing gas) during the exposing (Step 320, Fig 3 of Spurlin ‘127, Para [0044]) is in a temperature range from 10 to 28 degrees Celsius (Para [0046] of Spurlin ‘127 discloses chamber temperature between 10°C-500°C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Spurlin ‘127’s teaching of wherein the temperature in the chamber during a rection is in a temperature range from 10 to 28 degrees Celsius into Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127’s method. Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, an inert gas and carbon dioxide and Kostamo ‘754 discloses in Para [0117] that the reduction process should be carried out at low temperatures to avoid agglomeration. So Kostamo ‘754 is open to a low substrate temperature during processing. Spurlin ‘127 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and provides details on substrate temperatures in the process. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Spurlin ‘127 teaches in Para [0005] that maintaining a low substrate temperature can avoid agglomeration of the metal seed layer. Further, while Spurlin ‘127 teaches a substrate temperature range between 10 to 500 degrees Celsius, this overlaps the recited range of 10 to 28°C. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
As incorporated, the teaching of Spurlin ‘127 of the temperature in the chamber during a reaction is in a range between 10 to 28 degrees Celsius. It would be used in method of Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 such that the chamber (reaction space of Kostamo ‘754) would be in a range between 10 to 28 degrees Celsius.
With respect to Claim 20 Kostamo ‘754 discloses a method for making a semiconductor device (Fig 1 and 4-10), the method comprising:
receiving a substrate (substrate of 100, Fig 1, disclosed in Para [0080]) comprising an exposed surface (surface of 116, Fig 1), the exposed surface (surface of 116) comprising a metal layer (Para [0080] disclosed 116 as metal layer), wherein the metal layer (116) includes a surface layer (surface of 116) of oxidized metal (Para [0080] disclosed 116 having an oxide layer); and
performing, in a chamber (reaction space disclosed in Para [0116]) containing the substrate (substrate of 100), a cyclic surface preparation process, each cycle of the cyclic surface preparation process comprising (Para [0155] and Fig 7 of Kostamo ‘754 teaches multiple cycles (Fig 7 discloses 1000 cycles) of reduction time exposure)
flowing carbon monoxide (flowing carbon monoxide disclosed in Para [0114]) into the chamber (reaction space) and onto the surface layer (surface of 116),
after stopping the flowing of the carbon monoxide (Para [0116] discloses flow of carbon monoxide stops as a purge step is implemented), flowing an inert gas (He, Para [0123 and 0125] disclose using He) into the chamber (reaction space),
igniting a plasma (plasma generation disclosed in Para [0125]) within the chamber (reaction space),
exposing the surface layer (surface of 116) to the plasma (plasma generation disclosed in Para [0125]), the exposing reducing an oxygen content in the surface layer (surface of 116) (Para [0125] discloses plasma used in reducing the oxide film), and
But Kostamo ‘754 fails to explicitly disclose the plasma being generated from the inert gas.
Nevertheless in a related endeavor (Fig 2 of Satake ‘560), Satake ‘560 teaches the plasma being generated from the inert gas (Para [0014 and 0050] and Fig 2 teaches generating plasma from an inert gas mixed with CO and Para [0063] teaches that plasma and CO can be used in a reducing step to lower the oxidation state of an oxidized metal in a processing chamber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Satake ‘560’s teaching of the plasma being generated from the inert gas into Kostamo ‘754’s method. Kostamo ‘754 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide. Satake ‘560 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and provides details of using the noble gas to generate a plasma. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kostamo ‘754 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Satake ‘560 teaches in Para [0050] the plasma formed from the noble gas can aid in etching the oxide from the surface of the metal oxide.
As incorporated, the teaching of Satake ‘560 in generating a plasma from the inert gas would be used in method of Kostamo ‘754 such that the inert gas of Kostamo ‘754 (as described above) would be used to generate a plasma.
But Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 fails to explicitly disclose after the exposing, stopping a power to the plasma and stopping the flow of the inert gas.
Nevertheless, in a related endeavor (Fig 1-10 of Spurlin ‘127), Spurlin ‘127 teaches after the exposing, stopping the power to the plasma and stopping the flow of the inert gas (Para [0053-0054] and Table 1 of Spurlin ‘127 teaches the reduction exposing process lasts 1 second to 60 minutes and Para [0056] teaches the substrate is then transferred at ambient conditions so plasma and inert would be off to reach ambient conditions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Spurlin ‘127’s teaching of after the exposing, stopping the power to the plasma and stopping the flow of the inert gas into Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560’s method. Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide. Spurlin ‘127 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, an inert gas and carbon dioxide and provides details on the exposure cycle time. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Spurlin ‘127 provides timing for ending the reduction process that can help in the manufacturing process.
As incorporated, the teaching of Spurlin ‘127 of after the exposing, stopping the power to the plasma and stopping the flow of the inert gas would be used in method of Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560.
With respect to Claim 21 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 20, and Kostamo ‘754 discloses further wherein the exposing comprises reacting the carbon monoxide with the oxidized metal of the surface layer to form carbon dioxide and non-oxidized metal at the surface layer by removing oxygen from the oxidized metal of the surface layer (Para [0115] discloses carbon monoxide reacts with oxidized metal and result is carbon dioxide and elemental metal on the substrate).
With respect to Claim 22 Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 discloses all limitations of the method of claim 20, and Kostamo ‘754 further discloses wherein the surface layer (surface layer of 116) of oxidized metal (Para [0080] discloses 116 having an oxide layer) has a thickness of three monolayers or less (Para [0118] discloses three or less monolayers of metal oxide);
wherein the metal layer (116) contains copper (Para [0132] discloses 116 (seed layer) as copper);
But Kostamo ‘754 fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plasma is generated by powering an electrode of the chamber with radio frequency (RF) power of 50 to 500 Watts at a frequency of 30 MHz to 100 MHz;
However, Spurlin ‘127 further teaches wherein the plasma is generated by an electrode (660, Para [0077 - 0079] discloses providing a RF to plasma generator 655/660 as shown in Fig 6) of the chamber (610, Fig 6 of Spurlin ‘127, Para [0075]) with radio frequency (RF) power ((RF), in Para [0079] of Spurlin ‘127 discloses, “may be operated at any suitable power to form a plasma of a desired composition of radical species” may be operated at any suitable power to form a plasma of a desired composition of radical species” and further teaches examples of suitable power is in a range of 300W to 1500W).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Spurlin ‘127’s further teaching wherein the plasma is generated by an electrode of the chamber with radio frequency (RF) power into Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127’s method. While Spurlin ‘127 teaches a radio frequency (RF) power of 300W to 1500W, this overlaps the recited range of 50 to 500 Watts. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 fails to expressly disclose generating power at a frequency of 30 MHz to 100 MHz. However, the examiner notes that in the applicants disclosure (Para [0040]) teaches wherein the recited frequency has the advantage of generating electric field power to achieve the reduction reaction. Having this mind, Spurlin ‘127 teaches in (Para [0079]) and RF frequency of 13.56 MHz to generate RF power in the chamber to achieve the reduction reaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the recited limitation of generating power at a frequency of 30 MHz to 100 MHz through routine optimization, to obtain the well-known advantage of using a frequency to generate RF power to achieve the reduction reaction. See MPEP§2144.05 (II)(A),(B).
and, Spurlin ‘127 further teaches wherein the inert gas contains argon (Para [0045] f Spurlin ‘127 discloses inert gases as argon (Ar)); and wherein a temperature (temperature of chamber 610) in the chamber (610, Fig 6 of Spurlin ‘127, Para [0075] discloses chamber and Para [0042] discloses the use of carbon monoxide as reducing gas) during the exposing (Step 320, Fig 3 of Spurlin ‘127, Para [0044]) is in a range from 10 to 30 degrees Celsius (Para [0046] of Spurlin ‘127 discloses chamber temperature between 10°C-500°C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Spurlin ‘127’s further teaching of wherein the inert gas contains argon; and wherein the temperature in the chamber during a rection is in a range from 10 to 30 degrees Celsius into Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127’s method. Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using a plasma, an inert gas and carbon dioxide and Kostamo ‘754 discloses in Para [0117] that the reduction process should be carried out at low temperatures to avoid agglomeration. So Kostamo ‘754 is open to a low substrate temperature during processing. Spurlin ‘127 also teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an oxide layer on a metal layer is reduced using plasma, a noble gas and carbon dioxide and provides details on substrate temperatures in the process. Therefore the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 and further modified by Spurlin ‘127 in the manner set forth above, at least, because, as Spurlin ‘127 teaches in Para [0005] that maintaining a low substrate temperature can avoid agglomeration of the metal seed layer. Further, while Spurlin ‘127 teaches a substrate temperature range between 10 to 500 degrees Celsius, this overlaps the recited range of 10 to 28°C. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
As incorporated, the teaching of Spurlin ‘127 of using Argon as the inert gas and of the temperature in the chamber during a reaction is in a range between 10 to 30 degrees Celsius would be used in method of Kostamo ‘754 as modified by Satake ‘560 as modified by Spurlin ‘127 such that the chamber (reaction space of Kostamo ‘754) would be in a range between 10 to 30 degrees Celsius.
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 PAUL A. BERRY whose telephone number is (703)756-5637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 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.
/PAUL A BERRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
