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 without traverse of Claim 1-18 in the reply filed on 7/15/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims often use awkward language without clear antecedent basis and recite passive voice for active method steps.
Claim 1 recites the “a metal-containing gas containing a metal element to the substrate on which a metal containing film is formed.” This is awkward and makes it unclear if the metal-containing gas forms the metal-containing film or if the metal-containing film is pre-formed, and the metal-containing gas disposed thereon. Examiner assumes the latter and notes both the precursor film [300] and Ru film [600] are called a “metal-containing film” in the instant specification making Claim 1 even more confusing. If Examiner’s interpretation is correct, step (a) should be: “supplying a metal-containing gas containing a metal element onto a metal-containing film formed on the substrate; …”
Claim 1 recites an active “supplying” step. Claim 2 refers “the supply” with no antecedent basis. This is more appropriately written as: “wherein in (c), a starting time of supplying the reducing gas and a starting time of supplying the oxygen-containing gas are different.” This refers backing to the initial step without use distinct language of “the supply” not made explicit.
Claim 3 refers “the supply” with no antecedent basis. This should be: “wherein in (c), a starting time of supplying the oxygen-containing gas is after a starting time of supplying the reducing gas…” etc. Claims 4 and 5 should be amended similarly.
Claim 6 uses passive voice instead of referring to the active step of Claim 1. This should be something such as: “supplying the oxygen containing gas and the reducing gas in parallel in step (c).”
Claim 7 is more clearly written such as: “wherein a pressure or partial pressure, respectively, of the reducing gas in (b) during the first number of times in (d) is higher than a pressure or partial pressure, respectively, of the reducing gas in (c) during the second number of times in (e).”
Claim 8 is more clearly written such as: “changing a pressure or partial pressure of the reducing gas in (b) for each of the first number of times.” Claim 9 should be amended similarly.
In Claim 12, “the supply” has no antecedent basis. The claim should recite: “in (f), further comprising exhausting a space where the substrate exists, and then repeating both supplying the halogen-containing gas and exhausting the space.”
Claim 15 should use proper Markush language, i.e. “selected from the group consisting of.”
Claim 17 is written as a distinct independent claim reciting the same method making unclear the distinction of Claim 1 and Claim 18. Examiner recommends writing out a full independent claim or else writing as a dependent claim. Examiner submits Claim 18 does little more than specify the substrate or some other material in the process as being a semiconductor. A dependent claim specifying the substrate as a semiconductor would have similar effect. For example, “The method of Claim 1, wherein processing the substrate forms a semiconductor device.” Or “The method of Claim 1, wherein the substrate is a semiconductor.”
The above is meant to demonstrate how passive voice, lack of similar language, and lack of antecedent basis and make the claims unclear and to provide guidance for Applicant to correct the language. Note all changes must be incorporated as suggested, but Applicant should try to clarify the language in a spirt similar to the suggestions. If Applicant thinks the language is clear, a argument specifying the scope and reasons for clarity is likely suitable in at least some instances.
Remaining claim are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horri et al. (US 2009/0035947).
Regarding Claims 1 and 16-18, Horri et al. teaches a method of processing a substrate and manufacturing a semiconductor device (See page 8 paragraph [0120]), comprising:
(a) supplying a metal-containing gas containing a metal element to the substrate [1] on which a metal-containing film is formed; (b) supplying a reducing gas to the substrate (See page 2, paragraph [0024], page 3, paragraphs [0035]-[0039]], and page 8, paragraphs [0121], [0129]-[0130] and [0132], wherein a DER gas, which is a ruthenium-containing gas, i.e. a metal-containing gas containing a transition metal element in Ru, is used to form a ruthenium film on a barrier layer of TiN, a transition metal containing film on a silicon substrate [1], and is alternated with a reaction gas, which is designed to “clean” and reduce impurity content such as carbons, and thus is a reducing gas as claimed, thus carrying out step (d) of repeating (a) and (b) as claimed during cycling);
(c) supplying an oxygen-containing gas containing an oxygen atom and the reducing gas to the substrate (See page 8, paragraph [0132]-[0134], wherein a ruthenium thin film is formed after forming the intial ruthenium film by alternating oxygen, the DER metal containing gas, and the reducing reaction gas to form the thin film as in Example 1, pages 6-7, paragraphs [0099]-[0106], and note this is step (e), repeating the cycle of (a) and (c)).
Regarding Claims 2-5, Horii et al. teaches the oxygen gas is supplied before the reducing gas (See pages 6-7, paragraphs [0099]-[0103], wherein oxygen gas is first supplied and then the reaction gas, indicating the oxygen gas ends before the reducing gas is supplied). The Examiner notes Claims 3 and 5 essentially do nothing but recite every possible scenario of gas starting and stopping, thus essentially always being satisfied if Claim 1 is satisfied.
Regarding Claim 7, Horii et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Horii et al. teaches the reaction gas flow rate forming the first Ru film, i.e. in (b), is up to 5000 sccm (See page 8, paragraph [0130]), wherein in a closed space, flow rate creates a higher gas pressure, and in the Ru film, a flow rate up to 2000 sccm (See page 7, paragraph [0104]). When running the first step (b) at 2001-5000 sccm, such as is taught explicitly, the pressure will be higher than in the second gas cycling step (c) every time since the upper range is 2000 sccm in the second cycling. Thus, by teaching a range up to 5000 sccm in the first reaction gas step and only 2000 sccm, the reference is expressly disclosing the first step may have a higher flow rate and thus a higher pressure when 2001-5000 sccm is used.
Regarding Claim 10, Horii et al. teaching cycling the Ru source gas (a) and the reaction gas (b) alternately “a plurality of times.” See page 8, paragraph [0132]. This is (a), (b), (a), (b), (a), (b), (a), (b), i.e. four repeats to form the Ru film. Nothing prevents the first cycle from being considered (a) (b) (a), the second cycle (b) (a), and the third cycle (b) (a) (b), for example, thus making the (d), i.e. repeat, leading with (b). If Applicant wants the overall cycling to start with (b) or (b) cycling to be repeated, this is not currently claimed. Likewise cycling could be said to start after the first (a), and proceed as (b) (a), then (b) (a), again, thus reading on the claim, before finishing. The reaction comes directly before the metal multiple times when repeating, such as explicitly taught in Horii et al.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2006/0040486).
Regarding Claim 6, Horii et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Horii et al. teaches sequentially applying the oxygen gas, Ru source gas, and reducing gas (ammonia or hydrogen) to form the Ru thin film, but doesn’t teaches overlapping the flow, i.e. supplying in parallel. However, when using oxygen, reducing gas such as hydrogen or ammonia, and Ru source gas to form a Ru film on a semiconductor similar to the Ru thin film in Horii et al., it is known the oxygen and reducing gas may be supplied at the same time and alternated with the Ru source gas (See, for example, Lee et al., page 1, paragraph [0009], page 2, paragraphs [0023]-[0027], and page 3, paragraph [0030], and Fig. 3D, teaching the oxygen and reducing gas can be flowed at the same time an alternated with the Ru sources gas to form the Ru film layer on a semiconductor wherein each of the oxygen and reducing gas function the same as in Lee et al. in forming the Ru layer, i.e. oxygen for layer adsorption and reducing gas for “cleaning” carbon impurities of the organic precursor). Thus it at least would have ben obvious to utilize known sequences for the adsorbing promoting oxygen and impurity reducing gases in Horii et al. such as are known in the art for forming Ru films on semiconductors. Doing so would have predictably enabled alternate equivalent methods of forming similar films while potentially saving time by simultaneously running the oxygen and reducing gas.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2022/0293442) and/or Van Cleemput (US 2018/0044790).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Horii et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Horii et al. teaches a large range of flow conditions and cycle times for step (b) of forming the first ALD deposited Ru-film (See page 8, paragraph [0130]). Horii et al. doesn’t explicitly state whether these potential variations occur between cycles. However, varying parameters, such as pressure, in between successive cycles in ALD processes is well-known and standard, and can be utilized to formulate ideal cycle conditions for film formation (See, for example, Kumar et al., page 4, paragraphs [0059] and [0064]). One such adjustment is reducing the pressure of non-source gases in successive cycles since the quantity of the reactive gas is often less necessary in successive cycles (See, for example, Van Cleemput, page 3, paragraph [0039]-[0040]). Thus, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to vary flow rate, and thus gas pressure, of an additive gas such as the reducing/reaction gas, such as by reducing the pressure or partial pressure in successive cycles. Doing so would have predicably been aligned with well-known trial and adjustment techniques for successive cycling of ALD parameters to achieve desired film results while saving costs. Pressure reduction of successive cycles of the additive reaction gas is known as a parameter adjustment technique since the need for such an added gas often drops as the layer is built up, thus the avoidance of an overuse of materials. Examiner notes Applicant provides no rationale nor evidence of the cycling pressure changes as be anything more the standard ALD parameter adjustment to conserve materials and optimize film formation.
Claim(s) 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ishizaka (US 2016/0240433) and Takatsuki et al. (US 2020/0111675).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13-15, Horii et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Horii et al. teaches any of the three examples, including Example 3 (using dual ALD cycling to form Ru layers), which is preferred, may be utilized to form the lower electrode [104] on a barrier film [102], of which one example is given as TiN, i.e. the metal-containing film, which is formed to prevent oxidation of the plug [101], which may be tungsten, formed in a contact hole [107] (See page 5, paragraphs [0066]-[0072] and pages 8-9, paragraph [0136]). Examiner notes any suitable barriers known in the art for forming Ru layers via similar processes and capable being de-oxidized would have predictably been suitable. Tungsten (W) is a well-known alternative barrier to TiN for forming ALD or CVD ruthenium films in similar processes (See, for example, Ishizaka, pages 9-10, paragraph [0163]-[0164], teaching TiN and W as suitable contact hole barriers on which Ru films can be form from Ru containing source gas).
Further, cleaning native oxide from tungsten using halogen gas, i.e. SOCl2 chlorine gas, to prep it for forming a Ru-film is well-known when using tungsten as the bonding layer (See, for example, Takatsuki et al., page 1, paragraphs [0017]-[0018], page 3, paragraph [0034], and page 4, paragraph [0051], and pages 5-6, paragraphs [0068]-[0075], teaching a similar process to Horii et al. of forming tungsten in a contact hole and utilizing a organic Ru-source gas to form a Ru film thereon after removal of native oxide from the tungsten). Examiner submits it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize SOCl2 chlorine gas-treated tungsten (removing oxide) as a plug and barrier for forming the Ru-layers in Horii et al. as an alternative to a plug in association with TiN. The prior art indicates tungsten can serve as a functionally equivalent barrier and deposition surface to TiN for Ru-films when oxide is eliminated effectively via chlorine treatment. Such a gas treated tungsten remove its native oxide and predictably allows a single material to eliminate the need for a distinct TiN barrier, since it is predictably suitable as a plug, a barrier, and a Ru-deposition surface as desired in Horii et al. This potentially saves costs (eliminate TiN materials) and promotes efficiency (i.e. no separate barrier needed), while providing an effective plug and oxide free barrier for Ru-film formation as taught in Horii et al. It is noted SOCl2 chlorine gas contains oxygen.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horii et al., Ishizaka, and Takatsuki et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Blomberg et al. (US 2020/0312620).
Regarding Claim 12, Horii et al., Ishizaka, and Takatsuki et al. teach the method of Claim 11, as described above. They don’t specifically teach evacuating the space after halogen treatment. However, when etching in similar systems (note the halogen gas etches the oxide), it is well-known to etch, then purge (exhaust a space), and repeat said cycling to iteratively perform removal while purging volatile by-products that are removed (See, for example, Blombery et al., page 4, paragraph [0060] and page 8, paragraphs [0118]-[0119] and [0128], wherein etching and purging repeatedly is known to remove and disposed of volatile by-products). Thus, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to purge the space after etching the oxide layer on the tungsten, and repeat etching and purging. Doing so is a well-known process of etching that can clear away volatile by-products and iteratively remove the material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights