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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 07/07/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 38 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/07/26.
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.
Claims 26-27, 29, 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrunal A. Khaderbad et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0273794, here after 794), further in view of Eva E Tois et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0233350, here after 350).
Claims 26 and 29 are rejected. 794 teaches a film forming method, comprising:
preparing a substrate having a first region (18) on which a first insulating film is
exposed [0029 fig. 1c], a second region (21) on which a metal film is exposed [0033], a third region on which a barrier film (21) is exposed [fig. c], and also teaches the barrier layer cab be combination of for example titanium nitride and titanium[0033] which in fact we consider the third layer as titanium nitride and (first)barrier layer and the fourth layer as titanium(second barrier layer or a liner film) is exposed, on a surface of the substrate;
supplying, to the surface of the substrate, an organic compound as a head group which is a raw material of a self-assembled monolayer (26), and forming the self-assembled monolayer by selectively adsorbing the organic compound onto the second region, the third region, and the fourth region among the first region, the second region, the third region, and the fourth region [fig. 1D, 0042]; and
supplying, to the surface of the substrate, a raw material gas which is a raw
material of a second insulating film (29), and forming the second insulating film in the first region while inhibiting formation of the second insulating film in the second region, the third region, and the fourth region using the self-assembled monolayer [fig. 1E, 0043, 0044], wherein the third region (first layer of barrier layer 20) is formed between the first region (18) and the second region(21), and wherein the fourth region(second layer of barrier layer ) is formed between the second region(21) and the third
region (first layer of the barrier layer). 794 teaches the organic compound comprising thiol group [0041] but does not teach including an isothiocyanate group as a head group which is a raw material of SAM monolayer. 350 teaches a method of selectively depositing a layer on dielectric layer relative to metal layer by depositing a blocking layer (passivation layer) [fig. 2A-2E], where the blocking layer comprising a reactant including an isothiocyanate group (as a head group) which is a raw material of SAM monolayer [abstract, 0123]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 794 where the blocking layer comprising isothiocyanate group as 350 teach, because it is suitable to form blocking layer for performing selective deposition.
Claim 27 is rejected. 794 teaches the first insulating film has a recess in the surface of the substrate, and the metal film is formed in the recess [fig. 1C].
Claim 34 is rejected as 794 teaches the metal film is a Cu film or a W film [0033].
Claim 35 is rejected as 794 teaches wherein the first insulating film (18 is similar to 18) is a SiOC film [0029, 0026].
Claim 36 is rejected as 794, and 350 both teach supplying organic compound in a gaseous state to the surface of the substrate [0042, and 0123].
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrunal A. Khaderbad et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0273794, here after 794), Eva E Tois et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0233350, here after 350), further in view of Do Young Kim et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0347041, here after 041).
Claim 31 is rejected. 794 teaches barrier layer comprising titanium nitride and titanium(liner) [0033] but does not teach titanium nitride and ruthenium. 041 teaches depositing titanium nitride (12) [0029 fig. 3A], and ruthenium (13) preventing oxygen in the subsequent Ru fill step from penetrating into underlying metal layers [0034, 0013, 0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 794 and 350 where the liner layer (second barrier layer) is ruthenium, because it is preventing oxygen in the subsequent Ru fill step from penetrating into underlying metal layers.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mrunal A. Khaderbad et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0273794, here after 794), Eva E Tois et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0233350, here after 350), further in view of Robin W Cheung et al (U. S. Patent: 6153521, here after 521).
Claim 32 is rejected. 794 teaches the metal layer(filling) is ruthenium or copper/cobalt alloy [0033] deposited by CVD [0034]. 794 does not teach a second metal film made of a metal different from the metal film is embedded in the recess. 521 teaches filling copper metal in a trench by CVD [column 5 lines 19-23] when a copper seed layer is deposited [column 5 lines 7-8, claim 7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of 794 and 350 where a seed layer is deposited in the trench(embedded) prior to depositing the fill layer(cobalt alloy), because it is a suitable seed layer for CVD of the fill layer. The metal film is a cap film covering the second metal film.
Claim 33 is rejected as 792 teaches the metal film is Co or Ru [0033], and 521 teaches the second metal film is a Cu film [column 5 lines 7-8].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the previous reference (Hsueh) do not teach new limitation of amended claim 26 such as the third region is formed between the first region and the second region, however as discussed above Khaderbad teaches a barrier layer which is between the insulating(dielectric layer) and filling(metal) layer, and the barrier layer comprising combination of titanium nitride(second) and titanium(fourth)[0033], which in fact the fourth layer is between eth second and the third layers.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights