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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2025 and 12/09/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0194304 A1).
[Re claim 1] Roy discloses the method of filling a gap (110) in a surface of a substrate (100), the gap having dielectric sidewalls (112 and 114) (see figure 1A and paragraph [0019]-[0021]), the method comprising: depositing a metal film (120) by physical vapor deposition (see figure 1B-1C and paragraph [0022]-[0027]); oxidizing the metal film by exposure to an oxidizing condition comprising a flow of oxygen gas and microwave energy to form a metal oxide layer (see figure 1D and paragraph [0028]-[0029]); etching the metal oxide layer by exposing the metal oxide layer to an etching condition comprising a flow of etching gas and microwave energy (see figure 1G and paragraph [0036]-[0047]); and repeating depositing the metal film (120) to fill the gap (see figure 1H-1I and paragraph [0048]-[0049]).
[Re claim 2] Roy discloses the method wherein the metal film (120) comprises tungsten (see paragraph [0024]).
[Re claim 3] Roy discloses the method wherein depositing the metal film (120) results in an overhang material extending over the gap (see figure 1 and paragraph [0023]).
[Re claim 4] Roy discloses the method wherein the oxidizing condition comprises no plasma (see paragraph [0029]). Roy teaches multiple oxidizing conditions and some conditions does not comprises plasma.
wherein the oxidizing condition comprises no plasma.
[Re claim 5] Roy discloses the method wherein the oxidizing condition has a temperature in the range of 300 ºC to 445 ºC (see paragraph [0030]).
[Re claim 9] Roy discloses the method wherein the etching condition comprises no plasma (see figure 1G and paragraph [0036]-[0047]).
[Re claim 11] Roy discloses the method wherein the dielectric sidewalls comprise one or more of silicon oxide, silicon nitride or a high-k dielectric (see paragraph [0012]).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US Patent Appl. Pub. No. 2020/0194304 A1).
[Re claim 6] Roy fails to disclose the selection of “the flow rate of oxygen in the oxidizing condition is in the range of 20 sccm to 150 sccm”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 7] Roy fails to disclose the selection of “the oxidizing condition has a pressure in the range of 120 mTorr to 205 mTorr”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
[Re claim 8] Roy fails to disclose the selection of “a microwave power in the range of 100 W to 150 W”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 and 12-13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 14 allowable because of the closest prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the method, wherein the gap having dielectric sidewalls and an epitaxial silicon bottom, the method comprising: depositing a tungsten film by physical vapor deposition, the tungsten film forming on a top surface of the dielectric sidewalls, on the dielectric sidewalls and the epitaxial silicon bottom, and forming an overhang extending over the gap; exposing the metal film to an oxidizing/etching condition comprising a flow of oxygen gas and microwave energy without plasma to form a tungsten oxide layer and sublimate the tungsten oxide layer as the tungsten oxide layer is formed; and repeating depositing the tungsten film and exposing to the oxidizing condition and the etching condition to fill the gap. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 15-20 depend on claim 14 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYOUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1982. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
/KYOUNG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights