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 without traverse of Species VII in the reply filed on July 9, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 6-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species.
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 1-5 and 12-20 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.
The term “low” in claims 1, 14 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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 reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how low a dielectric constant must be to be considered “low.” Volksen et al (Chem Rev. 2010) describes several ranges of dielectric constant for dielectric materials. It is unclear which range is encompassed by the instant invention.
Claims 2-5, 12-13, 15 and 17-20 fail to cure the indefiniteness of the base claim and are therefore also rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al (US 2012/0270339 A1).
Xie discloses a method comprising:
positioning a substrate 101 [0013] (comprising a dielectric film 100, [0015], [0029] and metal material 107 such as copper in features 104 [0030]) within a process chamber;
introducing a reducing agent (hydrogen or ammonia plasma, [0030]) into the process chamber (plasma chamber) to remove copper oxide from a copper layer on the substrate (“metal oxide removal” [0030], Fig. 1E; which “metal oxide removal process[ ] may re-damage the surface of the dielectric film 100” [0030]);
introducing a recovery precursor (by a repair process [0030], Fig. 1F, such as a “carbon-containing plasma process” [0029], e.g. methane [0029]) into the process chamber to decrease a k-value of a low-k film on the substrate [0031].
Xie fails to explicitly disclose removing the reducing agent from the process chamber. However, it is obvious to remove an agent that is no longer needed for processing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the reducing agent in the method of Xie because it is useful to remove agents that are no longer needed in order to save money and avoid decreasing the yield of the final product because of undesired processing.
As to claim 2, in another embodiment, Xie discloses using a plasma, which forms UV light [0019] when the reducing agent is within the process chamber.
As to claim 3, Xie discloses ammonia [0030].
As to claim 4, Xie discloses in another embodiment in which silylation is the repair process, exposing the substrate to UV light during at least a portion of a time when the recovery precursor (“silylation compound”) is within the process chamber [0023].
As to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to introduce the recovery precursor to the process chamber after the reducing agent is removed from the process chamber in the modified method of Xie because Xie discloses to first reduce the copper oxide, and thereafter to repair the dielectric film, which logically includes introducing the corresponding recovery precursor after the reducing agent.
As to claim 12, Xie discloses methane [0029],
As to claim 13, Xie discloses ammonia (NH3) or hydrogen (H2) [0030].
As to claim 14, Xie discloses a method, comprising:
positioning a substrate 101 [0013] (comprising a dielectric film 100, [0015], [0029] and metal material 107 such as copper in features 104 [0030]) within a process chamber;
introducing a reducing agent (hydrogen or ammonia plasma, [0030]) into the process chamber (plasma chamber) to remove copper oxide from a copper layer on the substrate (“metal oxide removal” [0030], Fig. 1E; which “metal oxide removal process[ ] may re-damage the surface of the dielectric film 100” [0030]), wherein the reducing agent comprises ammonia (NH3) or hydrogen (H2) [0030];
turning on a UV light source to expose the substrate to UV light [0023];
introducing a recovery precursor (“silylation compound” [0023]) into the process chamber to decrease a k value of a low-k film on the substrate [0031].
As to claim 15, in another embodiment Xie discloses turning off the UV light source prior to introducing the recovery precursor into the process chamber (vapor phase silylation followed by UV cure… or vice versa” [0020]).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al (US 2012/0270339 A1) in view of Varadarajan et al (US 2011/0111533 A1).
As to claim 16, Xie discloses a method comprising:
positioning a substrate 101 [0013] (comprising a dielectric film 100, [0015], [0029] and metal material 107 such as copper in features 104 [0030]) within a process chamber;
introducing a reducing agent (hydrogen or ammonia plasma, [0030]) into the process chamber (plasma chamber) to remove copper oxide from a copper layer on the substrate (“metal oxide removal” [0030], Fig. 1E; which “metal oxide removal process[ ] may re-damage the surface of the dielectric film 100” [0030]);
introducing a recovery precursor (by a repair process [0030], Fig. 1F, such as a “carbon-containing plasma process” [0029], e.g. methane [0029]) into the process chamber to decrease a k-value of a low-k film on the substrate [0031].
Xie fails to explicitly disclose removing the reducing agent from the process chamber. However, it is obvious to remove an agent that is no longer needed for processing. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the reducing agent in the method of Xie because it is useful to remove agents that are no longer needed in order to save money and avoid decreasing the yield of the final product because of undesired processing.
Xie fails to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computer system to perform the above steps. Varadarajan teaches that a system controller 325 is employed to control process condition during a UV treatment and a reducing treatment [0063], which includes memory devices [0063] that would store instructions as cited. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide non-transitory computer-readable medium as cited because Xie teaches the steps and Varadarajan teaches that a computer-readable medium is useful for controlling the process.
As to claim 17, Xie discloses turning on a UV light source to expose the substrate to UV light [0023], which would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instructions for in the non-transitory computer-readable medium.
As to claim 18, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn off the UV light source prior to introducing the recovery precursor into the process chamber as cited and to store those instructions on the computer-readable medium in the modified method of Xie in order to complete one step prior to starting a next step.
As to claim 19, Xie discloses a silylation compound flow rate of 0.5 g/min to 5 g/min [0022], which overlaps with the cited range. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store those instructions on the computer-readable medium in the modified method of Xie in order to effectively control the process.
As to claim 20, Xie discloses a pressure inside the process chamber of 1-500 Torr [0022], which overlaps with the cited range, and a film temperature of 100-400 °C [0022], which suggests a chamber temperature of between 75-500 °C, at least close to the substrate. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the cited temperature in the method of Xie and to store those instructions on the computer-readable medium in the modified method of Xie because Xie suggests a similar temperature would be useful and because the temperature can be optimized for best results. MPEP 2144.05, II. A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tohnoe et al (US 2011/0244680 A1) is cited to show exposure to silane [0071] and then ammonia to reduce CuO to Cu [0072]. Knisley et al (US 2015/0221542 A1) is cited to show reducing CuO to Cu and increasing hydrophobicity of a dielectric layer with H2 and UV [0050], [0073], and using a controller to control operation [0059]. Noguchi et al (US 6,730,594 B2) is cited to show reducing CuO to Cu with hydrogen (Figure 9) and ammonia plasma (Fig. 11). Volksen et al (Chem Rev. 2010) is cited to describe several ranges of dielectric constant for dielectric materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA K ALANKO whose telephone number is (571)270-0297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5pm.
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.
/ANITA K ALANKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights