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 with respect to claim(s) 1-14, with regards to the applied Shaw et al, as to the point that Shaw et al fail to teach the temperature range in the currently amended claim 1, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to claims 15, Applicants argue that Cho discloses a broad range of temperature of -100 degree C to 300 degree C ([0042] in Cho), while not identifying temperature as a result effective variable; or Cho does not teach running the claimed process at this full range; and therefore, there is no motivation for some one of ordinary skill in the art to experiment within the cryogenic temperature range as listed by Cho.
Examiner states that the argument is not persuasive because Cho discloses substrate temperature during operation can be controlled at from about or at −100° C. to about or at 300° C; and more specifically, from about or at −90° C. to about or at −10° C. [0042]; Additionally, it has been held that "All disclosures of non-preferred embodiments must be considered. See In re Nehsenberg 126 PQ 383, In re Boe 148 PQ 507, In re Mill & Palmer 176 PQ 196 (CCPA 1972), In re Simon 174 PQ 114 and In re Lamberti et al. 192 PQ 278 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971)".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al (US 2023/0083577).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7-8, Cho et al disclose an etching process of metal layer including ruthenium (Ru) by exposing the substrate having Ru to an etching gas mixture in the presence of an energy source. The etching gas mixture includes an oxygen-containing gas, a halogen-containing gas, and optionally an inert gas. The oxygen-containing gas can be selected from O.sub.2 and the halogen-containing gas can be selected from a halogen, Cl.sub.2 [0038]; and the substrate temperature during operation 120 can be controlled at from about or at −100° C. to about or at 300° C., such as from about or at −90° C. to about or at −10° C [0042], and aforesaid temperature range overlaps the claimed range of between -90 degree C to 0 degree C (as of claim 1) and also reads on the claimed ranges a of the claims 7-8; and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 5-6, Cho et al also disclose that the etching gas mixture includes O.sub.2 and Cl.sub.2. In at least one example, the etching gas mixture comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of about 100-500 sccm of O.sub.2 and about 100-500 sccm of Cl.sub.2 [0043]; and aforesaid teaching overlaps the claimed ranges.
Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claims 9-10, Cho et al disclose that the overall chamber pressure during operation 120 can be from about or at 1 mTorr to about or at 50 mTorr, for example, from about or at about 10 mTorr to about or at 30 mTorr; or from about or at 10 mTorr to about or at 20 mTorr [0042]; and aforesaid overlaps the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05
Regarding claims 11-12, Cho et al disclose that during etching process, the halogen-containing gas can be selected from a halogen, Cl.sub.2, HCl, HF, F.sub.2, Br.sub.2, HBr, SF.sub.6, NF.sub.3, or a combination thereof [0038]; and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine any two halogen- containing gas, such as Cl2 and SF6 because Cho et al suggests that combination of such halogen-containing gas could be used during the etching process.
Cho et al additionally disclose the gas mixture may comprises nitrogen (N2) [0038].
Regarding claim 13, the claimed ratio would have been optimized for predictable result as Cho et al disclose the flow of the etching gas mixture in [0043].
Regarding claim 14, Cho et al disclose the process flow chart of a method of etching as substrate having Ru metal layer during fabrication of in general, the method 100 is applicable to HAR processes of DRAM, flash memory and logic devices as well as HAR line/space patterns (for example, for gate line, bitline, word-line, and interconnect line etches [0026] and it would have been obvious that an interconnect structure being formed in the Ru layer.
Regarding claims 15-16, Cho et al disclose an etching process of metal layer including ruthenium (Ru) by exposing the substrate having Ru to an etching gas mixture in the presence of an energy source. The etching gas mixture includes an oxygen-containing gas, a halogen-containing gas, and optionally an inert gas. The oxygen-containing gas can be selected from O.sub.2 and the halogen-containing gas can be selected from a halogen, Cl.sub.2 [0038]; and the substrate temperature during operation 120 can be controlled at from about or at −100° C. to about or at 300° C., such as from about or at −90° C. to about or at −10° C [0042], and aforesaid temperature range overlaps the claimed range, between -70 degree C to -20 degree C and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious; MPEP 2144.05.
Cho et al also disclose that the etching gas mixture includes O.sub.2 and Cl.sub.2. In at least one example, the etching gas mixture comprises, consists essentially of, or consists of about 100-500 sccm of O.sub.2 and about 100-500 sccm of Cl.sub.2 [0043]; and aforesaid teaching would at least teach their ratio of 1.1.
Further, it has been held that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art in the absence of evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 17, Cho et al disclose the process flow chart of a method of etching as substrate having Ru metal layer during fabrication of in general, the method 100 is applicable to HAR processes of DRAM, flash memory and logic devices as well as HAR line/space patterns (for example, for gate line, bitline, word-line, and interconnect line etches [0026] and it would have been obvious that oxidation by-product of Ru layer being deposited on the sidewall of the interconnect structure as passivation layer.
Regarding claim 18, from the above teaching of Cho et al above, a tapered interconnect would have been an obvious design choice.
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 SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights