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 the molybdenum species in the reply filed on 10/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the other claims that contained the genus of all metals was now amended to only recite molybdenum. As such, the election of species requirement of 8/26/2025 is withdrawn.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (US 2022/0328317 A1, hereafter Na) in view of Ueda (US 2012/0196048 A1)
As to claim 1, Na teaches a molybdenum deposition method (abstract) comprising: exposing a substrate surface having at least one feature thereon (Figs. 1-2 as shown) to one or more deposition cycle, each deposition cycle comprising a metal precursor exposure portion and a reducing agent exposure portion (Fig. 6B), the metal precursor exposure portion including a flow of a metal precursor and a pulsed RF plasma in para 0053 with low and high powers in this section. Na does not specify that the molybdenum exposure portion has a low-power RF plasma having a pulsed RF power of 100 W or less, the reducing agent exposure portion including a flow of a reducing agent and a high-power plasma having an RF power of 300 W or higher.
Ueda teaches a similar plasma enhanced ALD process where the molybdenum, or metal, exposure portion has a low-power RF plasma having a pulsed RF power of 100 W or less, the reducing agent exposure portion including a flow of a reducing agent and a high-power plasma having an RF power of 300 W or higher in paras 0023, 0043 and claim 1 in order to improve surface potential and in plane uniformity of the film/fill in para 0023. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Na to include the plasma power limitations of Ueda in order to improve surface potential and in plane uniformity of the film/fill.
As to claim 2, the process is repeated until the feature is filled in Na step 645, Fig. 6B.
As to claim 3, the Mo flow includes a co flow of reducing agent as an alternative in Ueda Fig. 4.
As to claim 4, Ueda teaches under 50 W in its range in para 0043.
As to claim 5, Ueda teaches the duty cycle in para 0008-0009, 0028.
As to claim 6, Ueda teaches the frequency in para 0043 and Na in para 0053.
As to claim 7, Na teaches the claimed precursor in para 0032.
As to claim 8, Na teaches hydrogen in para 0032 as the reducing agent.
As to claim 9, Na teaches the possibility of continuous plasma in para 0053 and Ueda in para 0008 and Figures.
As to claim 10, Ueda teaches the power within the range given in para 0043 (the RF power should be 100 W or more when a plasma is applied under the reactant gas).
As to claim 11, Na teaches including an inert gas such as those claimed with the material and reactant gases in paras 0055.
As to claim 12, Ueda teaches the frequency in para 0043 and Na in para 0053.
As to claim 13, Na teaches a molybdenum deposition method (abstract) comprising: exposing a substrate surface having at least one feature thereon (Figs. 1-2 as shown) to one or more deposition cycle, each deposition cycle comprising a metal precursor exposure portion and a reducing agent exposure portion (Fig. 6B), the metal precursor exposure portion including a flow of a metal precursor and a pulsed RF plasma in para 0053 with low and high powers in this section. The process is repeated until the feature is filled in Na step 645, Fig. 6B.
Na does not specify that the molybdenum exposure portion has a low-power RF plasma having a pulsed RF power of 100 W or less, the reducing agent exposure portion including a flow of a reducing agent and a high-power plasma having an RF power of 300 W or higher.
Ueda teaches a similar plasma enhanced ALD process where the molybdenum, or metal, exposure portion has a low-power RF plasma having a pulsed RF power of 100 W or less, the reducing agent exposure portion including a flow of a reducing agent and a high-power plasma having an RF power of 300 W or higher in paras 0023, 0043 and claim 1 in order to improve surface potential and in plane uniformity of the film/fill in para 0023. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Na to include the plasma power limitations of Ueda in order to improve surface potential and in plane uniformity of the film/fill.
As to claim 14, Na teaches including an inert gas such as those claimed with the material and reactant gases in paras 0055.
As to claim 15, the Mo flow includes a co flow of reducing agent as an alternative in Ueda Fig. 4.
As to claim 16, Ueda teaches the frequency in para 0043 and Na in para 0053.
As to claim 17, Na teaches the possibility of continuous plasma in para 0053 and Ueda in para 0008 and Figures.
As to claim 18, Ueda modifies the duty cycles based upon deposition time and the life cycle of the negative ions produces in paras 0028-0030. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the duty cycle by routine experimentation to optimize these factors. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 19, Na teaches the claimed precursor in para 0032.
As to claim 20, As to claim 13, Na teaches a molybdenum deposition method (abstract) comprising: exposing a substrate surface having at least one feature thereon (Figs. 1-2 as shown) to one or more deposition cycle, each deposition cycle comprising a metal precursor exposure portion and a reducing agent exposure portion (Fig. 6B), the metal precursor exposure portion including a flow of a metal precursor and a pulsed RF plasma in para 0053 with low and high powers in this section. The process is repeated until the feature is filled in Na step 645, Fig. 6B. Na teaches the claimed Mo precursors and hydrogen in para 0032.
Na does not specify that the molybdenum exposure portion has a low-power RF plasma having a pulsed RF power of 100 W or less, the reducing agent exposure portion including a flow of a reducing agent and a high-power plasma having an RF power of 300 W or higher.
Ueda teaches a similar plasma enhanced ALD process where the molybdenum, or metal, exposure portion has a low-power RF plasma having a pulsed RF power of 100 W or less, the reducing agent exposure portion including a flow of a reducing agent and a high-power plasma having an RF power of 300 W or higher in paras 0023, 0043 and claim 1 in order to improve surface potential and in plane uniformity of the film/fill in para 0023. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Na to include the plasma power limitations of Ueda in order to improve surface potential and in plane uniformity of the film/fill.
Ueda modifies the duty cycles based upon deposition time and the life cycle of the negative ions produces in paras 0028-0030. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the duty cycle by routine experimentation to optimize these factors. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, Ueda teaches the frequency in para 0043 and Na in para 0053. Any other limitations are taught by Na and Ueda as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1715
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715