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) 11-19, 22 and 25-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
The applicant alleges “claim 11 recites depositing a tungsten template layer by alternating pulses of a tungsten precursor and hydrogen (H2). Lee does not disclose this gas scheme for its cap layer deposition. Lee states that hydrogen gas is provided as background gas during the cap layer deposition and that the background-gas flow is continuous”(applicant’s underline). The examiner notes that the rejection is using a combination of teachings inside the Lee reference. Lee teaches forming three layers of tungsten and Lee also teaches forming a tungsten layer using PNL. The combination of teachings in Lee is using the method for forming a tungsten layer by PNL to form the (template) tungsten layer and (bulk) tungsten layer. Moreover, Lee’s PNL process [0027-0030] discloses “Various reducing agents such as… H2” [0030] and “the reducing gas is supplied at a flow rate of approximately 100 to 400… standard cubic centimeters per second (sccm). This flow is continued for a predetermined time… and the flow of reducing gases is stopped.”[0030]. Therefore, combination would teach the “gas scheme” because the flow of the hydrogen is stopped in the PNL process and the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 11-19, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. disclose (a) depositing a tungsten nucleation layer (407) in a feature on a substrate by alternating pulses of a tungsten precursor [0006, 0027] and a boron-containing reducing agent [0027, 0030]; discloses depositing a (template) layer (411) by alternately providing tungsten precursor and a reducing gas (PNL, [0006, 0027, 0087]) and discloses depositing a (bulk) layer (415)[0074] by alternately providing tungsten precursor and a reducing gas (PNL, [0006, 0027, 0087]). (Regarding the template layer and the bulk layer, MPEP 2131 discloses “[t]he elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”).
Lee et al. fails to disclose depositing a template layer by alternating pulses of a tungsten precursor hydrogen (H2) at a substrate temperature less than 300°C to form the template layer and depositing a bulk layer by alternating pulses of a tungsten precursor hydrogen (H2) at a substrate temperature at least 350°C to form the template layer.
Regarding step (b), Lee et al. does disclose forming a (template) layer (411)[0074] by alternately providing tungsten precursor [0027] and a reducing gas (H2) (PNL, [0027, 0030]) at a substrate temperature of 250°C [0028].
Regarding step (c),Lee et al. does disclose forming a (bulk) layer (415)[0074] by alternately providing tungsten precursor [0027] and a reducing gas (H2) (PNL, [0006,0027, 0030-]) at a substrate temperature of 350°C [0028].
Lee et al. disclose the claimed invention except for depositing a tungsten template layer on the tungsten nucleation layer at a substrate temperature less than 300°C and depositing a tungsten bulk layer at a substrate temperature of at least 350°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to deposit a tungsten template layer on the tungsten nucleation layer at a substrate temperature less than 300°C and deposit a tungsten bulk layer at a substrate temperature of at least 350°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Lee et al. to form three layers by the PNL process because the PNL will reduce the roughness of the tungsten film compared to films grown by CVD [0007], and the PNL will have superior step coverage in comparison to CVD [0008].
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. disclose greater than 25 angstroms (which is less than 30 angstroms than 30 angstoms)[0036]. (MPEP 2131.03 discloses “[i]f the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim.” UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”)
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. disclose a tungsten precursor, in the PNL process, is tungsten hexafluoride [0032] for layer 407.
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. disclose a tungsten precursor, in the PNL process, is tungsten hexafluoride [0032] for layer 411.
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. disclose a tungsten precursor, in the PNL process, is tungsten hexafluoride [0032] for layer 415.
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. disclose a tungsten precursor, in the PNL process, is a chlorine containing precursor [0032] for layer 407.
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. disclose a tungsten precursor, in the PNL process, is a chlorine containing precursor [0032] for layer 411.
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. disclose a tungsten precursor, in the PNL process, is a chlorine containing precursor [0032] for layer 415.
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al. disclose a pulse of the tungsten precursor in (c) (layer 415) is delivered at a pressure of at least 300 Torr [0028, 300 Torr].
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. disclose a pulse of H2 is co-flowed with N2 in (b)(layer 411 formed by PNL)[0014, “[t]he reducing gas may further include a noble gas, hydrogen, nitrogen, or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 23, Lee et al. disclose a pulse of H2 is co-flowed with N2 in (b)(layer 415 formed by PNL)[0014, “[t]he reducing gas may further include a noble gas, hydrogen, nitrogen, or a combination thereof”).
Regarding claim 26 and 27, Lee et al. disclose a pulse of the tungsten precursor is delivered without nitrogen in (a) [0030].
Regarding claim 28, Lee et al. disclose a substrate temperature of 350°C in the PNL which would be used in step (c) and more broadly between 200-475°C [0028].
Regarding claim 29, Lee et al. disclose a substrate temperature above 375°C in the PNL which would be used in step (c) (i.e. between 200-475°C) [0028]. (The examiner submits one of ordinary skill would clearly envisage the 200-475°C anticipating the above 375°C range.)
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0031786) as applied to claim 20 above.
Lee discloses the invention supra.
Lee fails to disclose wherein N2 is between 10-30% (vol.) of the total N2 + H2 flow of the dose of H2 co-flowed with N2.
Lee teaches additional nitrogen for roughness reduction during PNL.
Lee disclose the claimed invention except for N2 is between 10-30% (vol.) of the total N2 + H2 flow of the dose of H2 co-flowed with N2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make N2 between 10-30% (vol.) of the total N2 + H2 flow of the dose of H2 co-flowed with N2., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to alter the nitrogen so that the N2 is between 10-30% (vol.) of the total N2 + H2 flow of the dose of H2 co-flowed with N2, because the changing the nitrogen gas concentration would allow one to control the roughness reduction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 30 and 31 are allowed. (The previously indicated allowable subject matter has been added in independent claims 30 and 31.)
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights