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 statements (IDS)s submitted on September 23, 2024 and January 15, 2025 were filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the Markush Group “the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped or undoped tantalum nitride (TaxNy), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy)” on page 1 lines 9-10. The Markush Group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what elements are included in the Markush Group. The examiner first notes that, “Although the term "Markush claim" is used throughout the MPEP, any claim that recites alternatively usable members, regardless of format, should be treated as a Markush claim.” See MPEP § 2117 I. The examiner next notes that the Markush Group is introduced by an open-ended transitional phrase, “comprising,” and thus, the Markush Group includes additional unrecited elements. The examiner now notes that “If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group ‘comprising’ or ‘consisting essentially of’ the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h) I.
The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” renders claim 7 indefinite because the endpoints of the range for a flow rate are unclear. For examination purposes, the range for the flow rate will be treated as being from 1 sccm to 1000 sccm.
The term “about” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” renders claim 9 indefinite because the endpoints of the range for a temperature of a semiconductor substrate are unclear. For examination purposes, the range for the temperature of the semiconductor substrate will be treated as being from 150°C to 450°C.
The term “about” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonable apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” renders claim 10 indefinite because the endpoints of the range for a time period for treatment with microwave radiation are unclear. For examination purposes, the range for the time period for treatment with microwave radiation will be treated as being from 1 minute to 10 minutes.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the method reduces a thickness of the barrier layer by less than or equal to 10Å to 25 Å,” on page 2 lines 6-7. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because this limitation recites multiple ranges that encompass each other; thus, the range of thickness being claimed is unclear. For example, less than or equal to 10 angstroms is encompassed by less than or equal to 11 angstroms which is encompassed by less than or equal to 12 angstroms. For examination purposes, the range of thicknesses will be treated as being less than or equal to 25 angstroms.
Claim 14 recites the Markush Group “the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped or undoped tantalum nitride (TaxNy), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy)” on page 2 lines 17-18. The Markush Group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what elements are included in the Markush Group. The examiner first notes that, “Although the term "Markush claim" is used throughout the MPEP, any claim that recites alternatively usable members, regardless of format, should be treated as a Markush claim.” See MPEP § 2117 I. The examiner next notes that the Markush Group is introduced by an open-ended transitional phrase, “comprising,” and thus, the Markush Group includes additional unrecited elements. The examiner now notes that “If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group ‘comprising’ or ‘consisting essentially of’ the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h) I.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the method reduces a thickness of the barrier layer by less than or equal to 10Å to 25 Å,” on page 3 lines 2-3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because this limitation recites multiple ranges that encompass each other; thus, the range of thickness being claimed is unclear. For example, less than or equal to 10 angstroms is encompassed by less than or equal to 11 angstroms which is encompassed by less than or equal to 12 angstroms. For examination purposes, the range of thicknesses will be treated as being less than or equal to 25 angstroms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (CN 103311174A). The examiner notes that the citations to paragraphs of Wang et al. refer to paragraphs in the attached English language translation.
Regarding Claim 1:
Wang discloses a method of forming a microelectronic device, the method comprising:
conformally depositing a barrier layer (depositing a barrier seed layer on a bottom and sidewalls of a trench formed in an interlayer dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate using a conformal deposition method, See figs. 3B, ref. nos. 300, 301, 302, paragraphs 34 and 38. The examiner notes that chemical vapor deposition and atomic layer deposition conformally deposit material.) on a semiconductor substrate (semiconductor substrate, See figs. 3A-3B, ref. no. 300 and paragraph 37); and
treating the barrier layer with microwave radiation to form a treated barrier layer (irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See paragraphs 35 and 39).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wang discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped or undoped tantalum nitride (TaxNy) (undoped tantalum nitride, See paragraph 34), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wang discloses wherein the barrier layer is not exposed to a plasma (irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See paragraphs 35 and 39. The examiner notes that no plasma is generated while irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves, thus, the barrier seed layer is not exposed to plasma.).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wang discloses wherein the method reduces resistivity of the treated barrier layer compared to a method that treats the barrier layer with a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) or an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) (Wang discloses depositing a barrier seed layer on a bottom and sidewalls of a trench formed in an interlayer dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate using a conformal deposition method and irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See figs. 3B, ref. nos. 300, 301, 302, paragraphs 34-35 and 38-39 paragraphs 35 and 39. The examiner now notes that Wang discloses performing the recited fabrications steps, and thus, Wang produces the results from performing the recited fabrication steps).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wang discloses wherein the method reduces a thickness of the barrier layer by less than or equal to 10 angstroms to 25 angstroms (Wang discloses maintaining a same overall thickness of the barrier seed layer by moving excess material from thicker portions of the barrier seed layer to thinner portions of the barrier seed layer so that the barrier seed layer has a more consistent thickness. See figs. 3B-3C and paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 13:
Wang discloses a method of forming a microelectronic device, the method comprising:
conformally depositing a barrier layer (depositing a barrier seed layer on a bottom and sidewalls of a trench formed in an interlayer dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate using a conformal deposition method, See figs. 3B, ref. nos. 300, 301, 302, paragraphs 34 and 38. The examiner notes that chemical vapor deposition and atomic layer deposition conformally deposit material.) on a dielectric layer (interlayer dielectric layer, See figs. 3A-3B, ref. no. 301 and paragraph 37) on a semiconductor substrate (semiconductor substrate, See figs. 3A-3B, ref. no. 300 and paragraph 37), the dielectric layer comprising at least one feature defining a gap (trench having sidewalls and a bottom, See figs. 3A-3B, ref. no. 330 and paragraph 37) including sidewalls comprising a low-k dielectric material (low-k material, See paragraph 33) and a bottom, the barrier layer forming in the gap along the sidewalls and the bottom (the barrier seed layer is formed along the sidewalls and the bottom of the trench, See fig. 3B, ref. no. 302); and
treating the barrier layer with microwave radiation to form a treated barrier layer (irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See paragraphs 35 and 39).
Regarding Claim 14:
Wang discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped or undoped tantalum nitride (TaxNy) (undoped tantalum nitride, See paragraph 34), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy).
Regarding Claim 15:
Wang discloses wherein the barrier layer is not exposed to a plasma (irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See paragraphs 35 and 39. The examiner notes that no plasma is generated while irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves, thus, the barrier seed layer is not exposed to plasma.).
Regarding Claim 16:
Wang discloses wherein the low-k dielectric material is substantially undamaged by the method (the thermal conductivity of the interlayer dielectric is low the aforementioned radiation will not have a significant impact on the performance of the interlayer dielectric, See paragraph 39).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wang discloses wherein the method reduces resistivity of the treated barrier layer compared to a method that treats the barrier layer with a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) or an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) (Wang discloses depositing a barrier seed layer on a bottom and sidewalls of a trench formed in a low-k interlayer dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate using a conformal deposition method and irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See figs. 3B, ref. nos. 300, 301, 302, paragraphs 34-35 and 38-39 paragraphs 35 and 39. The examiner now notes that Wang discloses performing the recited fabrications steps, and thus, Wang produces the results from performing the recited fabrication steps).
Regarding Claim 18:
Wang discloses wherein the method reduces a thickness of the barrier layer by less than or equal to 10 angstroms to 25 angstroms (Wang discloses maintaining a same overall thickness of the barrier seed layer by moving excess material from thicker portions of the barrier seed layer to thinner portions of the barrier seed layer so that the barrier seed layer has a more consistent thickness. See figs. 3B-3C and paragraph 39).
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 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 103311174A) in view of Kuo et al. (US 2022/0367376).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wang discloses above stated method of forming a microelectronic device.
Wang does not disclose wherein the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped tantalum nitride (TaxNy), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy).
Kuo discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped tantalum nitride (TaxNy), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy) (undoped titanium nitride, See paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a microelectronic device of Wang to include wherein the barrier layer comprises titanium nitride as taught by Kuo since it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding Claim 14:
Wang discloses above stated method of forming a microelectronic device.
Wang does not disclose wherein the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped tantalum nitride (TaxNy), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy).
Kuo discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises one or more of doped tantalum nitride (TaxNy), or doped or undoped titanium nitride (TixNy) (undoped titanium nitride, See paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a microelectronic device of Wang to include wherein the barrier layer comprises titanium nitride as taught by Kuo since it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 103311174A) in view of Kuo et al. (US 2022/0367376) further in view of Sowa (US 2017/0194204).
Regarding Claim 4:
Wang discloses the above stated method of forming a microelectronic device.
Wang does not disclose exposing the barrier layer to a gas flow while treating the barrier layer with microwave radiation.
Kuo discloses a post-deposition treatment of a barrier layer that exposes the barrier layer to gas flow during annealing. (See fig. 8, ref. nos. 50, 52 and paragraph 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include exposing the barrier layer to gas flow during post-deposition treatment of the seed barrier as taught by Kuo in order to remove byproducts and/or contaminates generated during irradiation of the seed barrier layer. (The examiner notes that Sowa discloses using a continuous flow of gas to remove contaminates from a process chamber. See paragraph 66.)
Regarding Claim 5:
The above stated combination of Wang, Kuo, and Sowa discloses continuous gas flow during treatment of the barrier layer. (See Kuo paragraph 41. The examiner notes that Kuo discloses flowing gas into an anneal chamber at a flow rate of 600 sccm to 3000 sccm during a post-deposition treatment of a barrier layer.)
The examiner respectfully points out that the duty cycle for treatment with microwave radiation is a result effective variable because adjusting the duty cycle adjusts the irradiation depth of microwaves. The examiner next points out that the duty cycle for treatment with microwave radiation is recognized by the prior art a result-effective variable. The examiner notes that Wang discloses adjusting the duty cycle for treatment with microwaves adjusts the irradiation depth of the microwaves. See paragraph 39. The examiner next notes that optimization of result effective variables through routine experimentation is an obviousness expedient and not a patentable distinction. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to continuously treat the barrier seed layer to melt the surface of the barrier seed layer without damaging other devices on the semiconductor substrate. (See Wang paragraph 39.) (The examiner notes that a duty cycle of 100% continuously treats the seed barrier layer with microwaves.)
Regarding Claims 6 and 8:
Kuo discloses wherein the gas flow comprises hydrogen gas (H2) (H2 gas, See paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 7:
The above stated combination of Wang, Kuo, and Sowa discloses the above stated method of forming a microelectronic device.
The above stated combination of Wang, Kuo, and Sowa does not disclose wherein the reactant is supplied at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm to 1000 sccm.
Kuo discloses a gas flow rate of 600 sccm to 3000 sccm (See paragraph 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a microelectronic device of Wang, Kuo, and Sowa to include the reactant is supplied at a flow rate in a range of 1 sccm to 1000 sccm as taught by Kuo in order to reduce fabrication costs by using less gas. (The examiner also notes that it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 Section I.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 103311174A) in view of Sowa (US 2017/0194204).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wang discloses the above stated method of forming a microelectronic device.
Wang does not disclose wherein the semiconductor substrate is maintained at a temperature in a range of 150°C to 400°C.
Sowa discloses maintaining the substrate at temperature 200°C to 400°C (See paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a microelectronic device of Wang to include maintaining the substrate at temperature 200°C to 400°C as taught by Sowa in order to prevent devices on the semiconductor substrate from being damaged by high or low temperatures.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 103311174A)
Regarding Claim 10:
The examiner respectfully points out that the time period for treatment with microwave radiation is a result effective variable because adjusting time period adjusts the irradiation depth of microwaves. The examiner next points out that the time period for treatment with microwave radiation is recognized by the prior art a result-effective variable. The examiner notes that Wang discloses adjusting the time period for treatment with microwaves adjusts the irradiation depth of the microwaves. See paragraph 39. The examiner next notes that optimization of result effective variables through routine experimentation is an obviousness expedient and not a patentable distinction. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the barrier layer treated with microwave radiation for a period in a range from 1 minute to 10 minutes to melt the surface of the barrier seed layer without damaging other devices on the semiconductor substrate. (See Wang paragraph 39.)
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 2023/0115211) in view of Wang et al. (CN 103311174A).
Regarding Claim 19:
Xie a method of forming a microelectronic device, the method comprising:
selectively depositing a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) (selectively depositing a self-assembled monolayer on a exposed surface in the bottom of a feature of a dielectric layer, See fig. 1, ref. no. 104, fig. 2A, ref. nos. 235, 240, 245, fig. 2B, ref. nos. 235, 240, 255, and paragraph 35) on a dielectric layer (dielectric layer, See figs. 2A, 2B, ref. no. 235 and paragraph 21) on a semiconductor substrate (semiconductor substrate, See figs. 2A, 2B, ref. no. 210 and paragraph 21), the dielectric layer comprising at least one feature (feature, See figs. 2A, 2B, ref. no. 240 and paragraphs 21-22) defining a gap (the feature defines a gap in the dielectric layer, See figs. 2A, 2B, ref. nos. 235, 240 and paragraph 22) including sidewalls (sidewalls in the dielectric layer, See figs. 2A, 2B, ref. nos. 235, 240) comprising a low-k dielectric material (low-k dielectric material, See paragraph 30) and a bottom (bottom surface, See fig. 2A, ref. no. 245 and paragraph 22), the SAM selectively deposited on the bottom of the gap;
depositing a barrier layer (depositing a liner on the sidewalls of the feature, See fig. 1, ref. no. 106, fig. 2C, ref. no. 260 and paragraph 53) in the gap along the sidewalls;
removing the SAM after treating the barrier layer (removing the SAM, See fig. 1, ref. no. 106, fig. 2D, and paragraph 54. The examiner notes that the SAM blocks the metal interface, thus, the SAM will be removed after treatment so that melted material from the liner does not flow onto the metal interface. See paragraph 53);
depositing a metal liner (depositing a metal adhesion layer, See fig. 1, ref. no. 112, fig. 2F, ref. no. 265 and paragraph 59) on the treated barrier layer; and
performing a gap fill (depositing a conductive material, See fig. 1, ref. no. 114, fig. 2G, ref. no. 270 and paragraph 60)process on the metal liner.
Xie does not disclose treating the barrier layer with microwave radiation to form a treated barrier layer.
Wang treating the barrier layer with microwave radiation to form a treated barrier layer (irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See paragraphs 35 and 39)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of forming a microelectronic device of Xie to include treating the barrier layer with microwave radiation to form a treated barrier layer as taught by Wang in order to reduce defect density of the liner. (See Wang paragraph 20)
Regarding Claim 20:
Wang discloses wherein the barrier layer is not exposed to a plasma (irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See paragraphs 35 and 39. The examiner notes that no plasma is generated while irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves, thus, the barrier seed layer is not exposed to plasma.), and the method reduces resistivity of the treated barrier layer compared to a method that treats the barrier layer with a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) or an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) (Wang discloses depositing a barrier seed layer on a bottom and sidewalls of a trench formed in an interlayer dielectric layer on a semiconductor substrate using a conformal deposition method and irradiating the barrier seed layer with microwaves to form a barrier seed layer with reduced defect density, See figs. 3B, ref. nos. 300, 301, 302, paragraphs 34-35 and 38-39 paragraphs 35 and 39. The examiner now notes that Wang discloses performing the recited fabrications steps, and thus, Wang produces the results from performing the recited fabrication steps).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/B.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights