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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1A in the reply filed on Jun. 25th 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has not met its burden of showing distinctiveness of the claims. This is not found persuasive because
With respect to pages 6-8 of the applicant’s response of the restriction.
Applicant submits "The Restriction Requirement has failed to establish any basis for two-way distinctiveness. the Restriction Requirement has failed to establish that there would be a serious search burden if restriction were not required. The classification is the same and the field of search is the same and there is no clear indication of separate future classification and field of search, no reasons exist for dividing among independent or related inventions.".
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are two-way distinctness because the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, because opposite limitation in the Species. Due to their mutually exclusive characteristics, the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). In addition, besides classification, a search for thicker sidewall liner is unlikely to find art with thinner sidewall liner, and a search for two different SAM is unlikely to find art with same SAM. Unless the applicant can provide evidence or admits on record that these are obvious variants, they require different search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9-20 are examined in this office action. Claims 3-4 and 8 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, line 2, “hydrogen (H2" should read “hydrogen (H2)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20220352019) in view of Chin et al. (US 20230154792).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a method of forming a microelectronic device (Abstract), the method comprising:
forming a dielectric layer (fig. 16, source/drain contact SAC dielectric layer 426, first dielectric layer 428; para. 0044) on a substrate (substrate 402; para. 0044), the dielectric layer (426, 428) comprising at least one feature (via opening 430; para. 0044) defining a gap (gap of 430) including sidewalls (sidewalls of 430) and a bottom (bottom of 430);
selectively depositing a first self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (fig. 19B, reset layer 425 with SAM layer; para. 0046) on the bottom of the gap (bottom of 430);
forming a barrier layer (first barrier layer 434; para. 0046) on the dielectric layer (426, 428);
selectively depositing a second self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (fig. 21B, reset layer 442 with SAM layer; para. 0053) on (above) the barrier layer (434) and on the bottom of the gap (bottom of 430);
selectively depositing a metal liner (second barrier layer 446 and/or liner; para. 0053) on (above) the barrier layer (434) on the sidewalls;
removing a second portion (bottom portion) of the second self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (SAM layer is removed; para. 0053); and performing a gap fill process (fig. 22B, trench metal fill layer 448; para. 0054) on the metal liner (446/liner).
Chen fails to explicitly teach treating the microelectronic device with a plasma to remove a first portion of the second self-assembled monolayer (SAM).
However, Chin teaches treating the microelectronic device with a plasma (Chin: plasma; para. 0071) to remove a first portion (Chin: fig. 5D, etching top portion and remain portion at the bottom as second portion of Chen; para. 0071-0072) of the second self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (Chin: blocking layer 503; para. 0071, similar to SAM of Chen).
Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Interconnect structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add a plasma treatment as taught by Chin.
Doing so would realize a blocking process at bottom to thinner the liner layer to prevent the sheet resistance of the conductive structure significantly increased (Chin: para. 0055).
Regarding claim 2, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metal liner (Chen: fig. 22B, 446) is deposited at a thickness on the sidewalls (Chen: sidewall 446) that is less than a thickness of the metal liner deposited on the bottom (Chen: bottom 446).
Regarding claim 6, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising removing the first SAM (Chen: SAM layer is removed; para. 0046) after forming the barrier layer (Chen: 434) on the dielectric layer (Chen: 426, 428).
Regarding claim 7, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first SAM (Chen: fig. 22B, SAM layer for 425) and the second SAM (Chen: SAM layer for 442) are different (may different because different conductive material used for 448, 436; para. 0057).
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the metal liner (Chen: liner; para. 0025) comprises one or more of ruthenium (Ru), cobalt (cobalt), molybdenum (Mo), and tantalum (Ta) (Chen: metal, metal nitride, Co, RuN; para. 0025).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the metal liner (Chin: fig. 3, liner layer 303; para. 0055) comprises a single layer of ruthenium (Ru) (Chin: ruthenium with thickness of 3 Å corresponds to a single layer; para. 0054, 0055).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gap fill process (Chen: fig. 22B, 448) comprises filling the gap with one or more of copper (Cu) or cobalt (Co) (Chen: suitable conductive material Cu, Co; para. 0038).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein treating the microelectronic device with the plasma (Chin: plasma; para. 0071) comprises treating the microelectronic device with a plasma in depletion mode (Chin: hydrogen (H2) plasma is depletion/consumption of molecular hydrogen with the surface; para. 0071).
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 16, herein the plasma (Chin: plasma; para. 0071) comprises hydrogen (H2) (Chin: hydrogen (H2) plasma; para. 0071).
Claims 5 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Chin as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kuo et al. (US 20210391275).
Regarding claim 5, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selectively depositing the first SAM (Chen: fig. 19B, SAM) comprises exposing (Chen: fig. 16, exposing 430) the bottom of the gap (Chen: bottom of 430).
Chen in view of Chin fails to explicitly teach depositing the first SAM comprises a hydrocarbon carried in argon (Ar) gas.
However, Kuo teaches depositing the first SAM (Kuo: fig. 5, sacrificial layer 48; para. 0029, similar to SAM of Chen) comprises a hydrocarbon (Kuo: C10H18; para. 0029) carried in argon (Ar) gas (Kuo: carrier gases Ar; para. 0029).
Kuo, Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Interconnect structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add depositing the first SAM comprises a hydrocarbon carried in argon (Ar) gas as taught by Kuo.
Doing so would realize a block layer with improved blocking capability (Kuo: para. 0018).
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the metal liner (Chin: fig. 3, liner layer 303; para. 0055) consists of ruthenium (Ru) and the selective of the metal liner (Chin: 303) on the sidewalls (Chin: sidewalls of gap).
Chen in view of Chin fails to explicitly teach a cyclic deposition process using a ruthenium (Ru) precursor carried by an argon (Ar) gas to form a deposited ruthenium layer.
However, Kuo teaches a cyclic deposition process (Kuo: fig. 6A, cyclic of ALD process; para. 0035) using a ruthenium (Ru) precursor (Kuo: ruthenium tricarbonyl (1-methyl-1,4 cyclohexadiene) (“CHORuS”) as a precursor; para. 0035) carried by an argon (Ar) gas (Kuo: purging gas Ar; para. 0035) to form a deposited ruthenium layer (Kuo: sublayer 51B; para. 0030, similar to 303 of Chin).
Kuo, Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Interconnect structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add a cyclic deposition as taught by Kuo.
Doing so would realize a sublayer to improve the ability of the barrier layer to block diffusion (Kuo: para. 0036).
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Chin and Kuo further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the cyclic deposition process (Kuo: fig. 6A, ALD and post treatment; para. 0041) further comprises annealing (Kuo: anneal process; para. 0041) the deposited ruthenium layer (Kuo: 51B) while flowing hydrogen (H2 (Kuo: reducing gas H2; para. 0041) and annealing the deposited ruthenium layer (Kuo: 51B).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Chin and Kuo further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the cyclic deposition process (Kuo: fig. 6A, ALD and post treatment; para. 0041) is performed in a substrate processing chamber (Kuo: process chamber; para. 0039) at a first pressure (Kuo: between 1 Torr and about 15 Tor; para. 0039) to form the deposited ruthenium layer (Kuo: 51B), and annealing (Kuo: anneal process; para. 0041) the deposited ruthenium layer (Kuo: 51B) is performed while the substrate processing chamber (Kuo: process chamber) is at a second pressure (Kuo: pressure 30 Torr; para. 0041) that is greater than the first pressure (Kuo: between 1 Torr and about 15 Tor).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 6, wherein removing the first SAM (Chen: SAM layer is removed; para. 0046)
Chen in view of Chin fails to explicitly teach a plasma treatment process comprising flowing one or more of hydrogen (H2) or argon (Ar) and the plasma treatment process comprises increasing a density of the barrier layer.
However, Kuo teaches a plasma treatment process (Kuo: fig. 8, post-deposition treatment 52 with plasma treatment to remove sacrificial layer 48; para. 0027, 0042) comprising flowing one or more of hydrogen (H2) or argon (Ar) (Kuo: process gases H2, Ar) and the plasma treatment process (Kuo: 52) comprises increasing a density of the barrier layer (Kuo: denser barrier layer 50; para. 0032, similar to 434 of Chen).
Kuo, Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of Interconnect structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add a plasma treatment process as taught by Kuo.
Doing so would realize a treatment process to improve the performance of the barrier layer (Kuo: para. 0040).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Chin as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Narkeviciute et al. (US 20230245924).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 16 including the plasma (Chin: plasma).
Chen in view of Chin fails to explicitly teach the plasma is a remote plasma.
However, Narkeviciute teaches the plasma (Narkeviciute: plasma from plasma processing apparatus 200; para. 0043, similar to plasma of Chin) is a remote plasma (Narkeviciute: plasma with remote plasma source; para. 0043).
Narkeviciute, Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add a remote plasma as taught by Narkeviciute.
Doing so would realize choice of a remote plasma to lower damage to the surface.
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 16 including the plasma (Chin: plasma).
Chen in view of Chin fails to explicitly teach the plasma is a capacitively coupled plasma with a pulsed hydrogen (H2) supply.
However, Narkeviciute teaches the plasma (Narkeviciute: plasma from plasma processing apparatus 200; para. 0043, similar to plasma of Chin) is a capacitively coupled plasma with a pulsed hydrogen (H2) supply (Narkeviciute: control pulse times precursor supply source 240 of hydrogen source gas; para. 0006, 0043).
Narkeviciute, Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add the plasma is a capacitively coupled plasma with a pulsed hydrogen (H2) supply as taught by Narkeviciute.
Doing so would realize choice of pulsed supply to reduce material and higher efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Chin teaches the method of claim 16 including depletion mode (hydrogen (H2) plasma).
Chen in view of Chin fails to explicitly teach depletion mode comprises a low pressure and a short time treatment.
However, Narkeviciute teaches depletion mode (Narkeviciute: control pulse times precursor supply source 240 of hydrogen source gas; para. 0006, 0043, similar to plasma of Chin) comprises a low pressure (Narkeviciute: control pressure; para. 0043) and a short time (Narkeviciute: pulse time; para. 0043) treatment.
Narkeviciute, Chin and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of plasma process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add the depletion mode comprises a low pressure and a short time treatment as taught by Narkeviciute.
Doing so would realize choice of pulsed supply to reduce material and higher efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights