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
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08 July 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of species restrictions in the reply filed on 08 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there are no mutually exclusive characteristics between the alleged Species A, B, and C. This is not found persuasive because each species requires a specific order of applying each of the steps of the process, with each step of the process requiring delivering the first precursor and/or the second precursor at different process pressures and temperatures, creating an ordered combination of steps that is mutually exclusive of the other combinations. For example, Species A requires delivering a second precursor gas at a second process pressure and second temperature for a third period of time after first delivering the first precursor gas at a first process pressure and first process temperature and delivering the purge gas for a second period of time (see claim 1, 2nd through 4th paragraphs). In contrast, Species B requires delivering the first precursor gas for a third period of time at a second process pressure and second temperature different from the first process pressure after first delivering the first precursor gas at a first process pressure and first process temperature at a first period of time and delivering the purge gas for a second period of time (see claim 13, 2nd through 4th paragraphs), and before delivering the second precursor at a third process pressure and third temperature (claim 13, 6th paragraph). Species C requires delivering the second precursor at a third process pressure and a third temperature for a fifth period of time after delivering the same second precursor at a second process pressure and at a second temperature at a third period of time and the purge gas delivered at the fourth period of time (see claim 20, 4th through 6th paragraphs).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 8 and 9 require “a first ratio” and “a second ratio” between periods of time, both of which lack antecedence basis in the specifications.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: par. 0033 states contradicting specifications with respect to the purge time. The paragraph mentions that the purge time may be about 1x to about 4x the dose time and states an example wherein the purge time is 1.5 secs when the dose time is about 3.5 seconds.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Abel (US 2019/0080903 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0208766 A1) and Schloss (US 2024/0136192 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Abel teaches method (ALD, ¶ [0060] ) of selectively depositing a layer (metal such as molybdenum, see ¶ [0073] or dielectric, see ¶ [0072]) in a high aspect ratio feature (¶ [0060] ) formed in a device layer stack (104a&114a, Fig. 1A, ¶ [0063] ), the method comprising:
delivering (step 604, Fig. 6; note: step 604 is detailed in Fig. 7 to include 702a-1; see ¶ [0105], [0107] ) a first precursor gas (¶ [0078]: first precursor; ¶ [0080]-[0082] has a list of various gases used in combination with another) to a surface (surfaces of 102a, Fig. 1A; also see ¶ [0035]: feature opening and sidewall ) of a substrate (104a-104e; see ¶ [0063]-[0064] ) disposed within a processing region (region below 1206, Fig. 12) of a process chamber (1202), wherein delivering the first precursor gas comprises maintaining the processing region at a first process pressure (¶ [0076]: 0.1 Torr to 15 Torr ) while the substrate is maintained at a first temperature (¶ [0074]: 50 to 650 C ) for a first period of time (¶ [0089]: 2 to 120 seconds );
delivering a purge gas (see step 702b-1 in Fig. 7; ¶ [0102] ) to the processing region for a second period of time (¶ [0102]: 0.1 to 2 seconds ), wherein delivering the purge gas is provided after the first period of time has elapsed (Fig. 7 shows 702b-1 done after 702a-1);
delivering (step 610, Fig. 6; note: step 610 is detailed in Fig. 7 to include 702a-1; see ¶ [0105] ) a second precursor gas (¶ [0101]: any suitable reactant, such as oxygen or nitrous oxide, for reacting with the first precursor may be used ; alternatively, ¶ [0078]: first precursor; ¶ [0080]-[0082] has a list of various gases used in combination with another; ¶ [0083] additional gaseous reactants may be used) to the surface of the substrate disposed within the processing region of the process chamber for a third period of time (¶ [0089]: 2 to 120 seconds; note: this is a different period of time as this is attributed to step 610 ); and
delivering the purge gas (see step 702b-1 in Fig. 7; ¶ [0107] ) to the processing region for a fourth period of time (¶ [0102]: 0.1 to 2 seconds; note: this is a different period of time as this is attributed to step 610 ), wherein delivering the purge gas is provided after the third period of time has elapsed (Fig. 7 shows 702b-1 done after 702a-1).
Abel further teaches the device layer stack to be comprised of a repeating stack of O (oxide), N (nitride), and P (polysilicon) arranged as ONON or OPOP (see ¶ [0061]: stack of two or more materials, such as ONON or OPOP) made to form a semiconductor device (¶ [0001] ). However Abel does not teach the device layer stack to be an ONPN.
Kim, in the same field of invention, teaches a semiconductor device that is made of a repeating stack of ONPN layer (¶ [0079]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Kim into the method of Abel to change the arrangement of the O, N, and P materials in the device layer stack to ONPN. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Abel in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of forming a memory cell of a dynamic-random-access memory (DRAM) (Kim ¶ [0025] ), with the ordinary artisan noting that the order of the O, N, and P is a simple substitution of the order of the materials in the device layer stack, for the equivalent purpose of creating device layer stacks for memory cells (see Kim ¶ [0079] ).
As mentioned above, Abel teaches delivering second precursor gas, but does not teach: wherein delivering the second precursor gas comprises maintaining the processing region at a second process pressure that is different from the first process pressure while the substrate is maintained at a second temperature that is different from the first temperature.
Schloss, in the same field of invention, teaches a method (¶ [0095]: ALD ) of delivering a second precursor gas (¶ [0119]: any Mo precursor for step 309; see also Fig. 3B; note: step 309 is the second deposition step and step 305 is the first deposition step) wherein delivering the second precursor gas comprises maintaining the processing region at a second process pressure (¶ [0125] : 5 to 20 Torr) that is different from the first process pressure (¶ [0125]: modulating the chamber pressure) while the substrate is maintained at a second temperature (¶ [0122]: 700 C) that is different from the first temperature (¶ [0122]: may be performed at higher temperatures; ¶ [0125]: modulating the temperature).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Schloss into the method of Abel to change the pressure and temperature when delivering the second precursor gas in the manner described above. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Abel in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of controlling the deposition rate (Schloss ¶ [0122], [0125] ) to improve the quality of the deposited material (¶ [0122]: prevent impurities ).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, wherein the first pressure is higher than the second pressure (Schloss ¶ [0125]: reducing the pressure by 30-80%).
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, wherein the first temperature is higher than the second temperature (Schloss ¶ [0125]: modulating the temperature; ¶ [0122]: higher temperature allows for increase deposition rate ).
Regarding claim 4, Abel et al. teach the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach: wherein the second period of time is either greater than or less than the fourth period of time.
Abel further teaches each purging time can be varied for any suitable durations, such as between 0.1 seconds to 2 seconds (¶ [0102] ). Hence, Abel further teaches the second period of time is either greater than or less than the fourth period of time.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the further teachings of Abel into the method of Abel et al. to vary the duration of time of the purging steps, i.e., the second period of time and the fourth period of time, such that the second period of time is either greater than or less than the fourth period of time. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Abel et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of allowing enough time for the purging time to effectively evacuate the precursor gas of the preceding method step out of the processing region of the chamber so that the said precursor cannot interfere with the precursor of the next step (see Abel ¶ [0102] ).
Regarding claim 5, Abel et al. teach the method of claim 1 and further teaches the method is being used for deposition of dielectrics and/or metals such as molybdenum (Abel ¶ [0073]) on the device layer stack and the use of silicon-based precursors for the deposition of dielectrics (¶ [0080]-[0082]). However, Abel et al. do not teach the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas comprise molybdenum or titanium.
Schloss, in the same field of invention, further teaches the using molybdenum precursors (¶ [0100], [0102] ) as a first precursor gas (see step 305 in Fig. 3B) and as a second precursor gas (see step 309 in Fig. 3B and ¶ [0119] ) when depositing molybdenum (¶ [0108]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to substitute the unknown precursor of Abel used for depositing molybdenum with a precursor gas comprised of molybdenum for the predictable result of using said precursor to deposit molybdenum on a device stack layer (Schloss ¶ [0108]).
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 5, wherein the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas comprise molybdenum chloride (Schloss ¶ [0102], [0119]).
Regarding claim 8, Abel et al. teach the method of claim 1 but does not teach: wherein a first ratio of first period of time to the second period of time is greater than a second ratio of third period of time to the fourth period of time.
Schloss further teaches varying the third period of time (¶ [0126] : exposure time for depositing the main conductor, which is done through step 309) depending on the flow rates chosen by the artisan. Abel further teaches varying either the second period of time or the fourth period of time (¶ [0102] ). Hence, Abel in view of Schloss teach: a first ratio of first period of time to the second period of time is greater than a second ratio of third period of time to the fourth period of time.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the further teachings of Schloss and Abel into the method of Abel et al. to make the ratio of the first period of time to the second period of time greater than the ratio of the third period of time to the fourth period of time. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Abel et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of varying the flow rate of the second precursor (Schloss ¶ [0126]) for the further purpose of optimizing the rate of deposition (¶ [0123]), and/or for the purpose of allowing enough time for the purging time to effectively evacuate the precursor gas of the preceding method step out of the processing region of the chamber so that the said precursor cannot interfere with the precursor of the next step (Abel ¶ [0102]).
Regarding claim 9, the Abel et al. teach the method of claim 1 but does not teach: wherein a first ratio of first period of time to the second period of time is less than a second ratio of third period of time to the fourth period of time.
Schloss further teach varying the third period of time (¶ [0126] : exposure time for depositing the main conductor, which is done through step 309) depending on the flow rates chosen by the artisan. Abel further teaches varying either the second period of time or the fourth period of time (¶ [0102]). Hence, Abel in view of Schloss teach: a first ratio of first period of time to the second period of time is less than a second ratio of third period of time to the fourth period of time.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Schloss into the method of Abel et al. to make the ratio of the first period of time to the second period of time to be less than the ratio of the third period of time to the fourth period of time. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Abel et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of varying the flow rate of the second precursor (Schloss ¶ [0126]) for the further purpose of optimizing the rate of deposition (¶ [0123]), and/or for the purpose of allowing enough time for the purging time to effectively evacuate the precursor gas of the preceding method step out of the processing region of the chamber so that the said precursor cannot interfere with the precursor of the next step (Abel ¶ [0102]).
Regarding claim 10, the method of claim 1, wherein delivering the first precursor gas for the first period of time and delivering the purge gas to the processing region for the second time is cyclically repeated two or more times before delivering the second precursor gas to the surface of the substrate for the third period of time (Abel ¶ [0103] : step 604 repeated in cycles; note: step 604 includes purging step, see Fig. 7 and ¶ [0105]).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 1, wherein the P layer in the ONPN stack is a silicon containing layer (see Kim ¶ [0079]: polysilicon).
Regarding claim 12, the method of claim 11, wherein the O layer and the N layers in the ONPN stack are an oxide layer and nitride layers, respectively (see Kim ¶ [0079] ).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Abel (US 2019/0080903 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0208766 A1) and Schloss (US 2024/0136192 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Dole (US 2017/0178920 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Abel et al. teach the method of claim 5, and further teaches the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas comprise molybdenum chloride (Schloss ¶ [0102], [0119]). However, Abel et al. do not teach wherein the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas comprise titanium chloride.
Dole, in the same field of invention, teaches a method of depositing a metal layer (¶ [0089]: titanium) using titanium chloride (¶ [0092]: titanium tetrachloride). Hence, Abel et al. in view of Dole teach the first precursor gas and the second precursor gas comprise titanium chloride.
A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Dole into the method of Abel et al. to substitute the molybdenum chloride precursor with titanium chloride. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Abel et al. in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of using titanium chloride in order to deposit titanium on the device layer stack (Dole ¶ [0089]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YAP whose telephone number is (703)756-1946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights