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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/US2023/062877. Amended claim 15 and canceled claim 23 are noted.
The preliminary amendment dated 02/23/2026 amending claim 15 and canceling claim 23 has been entered. In view of canceled claim 23, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn.
The preliminary amendment dated 08/09/2024 amending claims 5-6, 20, 22 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/20/204, 02/23/2026
contain 61 pages of references. The examiner invites the applicant to point out the more relevant references.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
It is noted that the abstract begins with “Provided is”. The examiner suggests amending the abstract to reflect same.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the title recites a logic source/drain contacts. However, there is no recitation of a logic source/drain contact in the claims. The examiner suggests amending the title and/or the claims.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 11-12, 15-22 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.
In claim 11, from which claim 12 depends, the phrase “filling the feature with metal” appears to be not further limiting. Independent claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, requires “depositing metal in the feature”. If one skilled in the art is depositing metal in the feature, would it not be filling metal in the feature? Clarification and appropriate amendments, if necessary, are requested.
In independent claim 15 line 7, from which claims 16-20 depend, the phrase “exposing the substrate to a molybdenum precursor to preferentially etch” is deemed confusing. If a substrate is exposed to a precursor, by definition, wouldn’t deposition occur as opposed to etching? For example, in line 5, would not “selectively depositing a molybdenum film” entail exposing to a molybdenum precursor? If so, how does exposure to a molybdenum precursor cause deposition in one case and etching in another? Clarification and appropriate amendments, if necessary, are requested. The same issue applies to independent claim 21, from which claim 22 depends.
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.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na et al. (WO 2021/046058) in view of Chandrashekar et al. (2014/0349477).
Na teaches a method of selectively depositing a molybdenum film (408) on a metal containing surface on a substrate which includes a feature which fills the feature (0005 and Figure 4). The feature has a bottom and sidewalls which are covered with oxide or nitride surfaces (0005 and Figure 4), which meets the claimed limitation of a conformal layer. The precursors can be molybdenum-containing oxyhalide precursor and a reducing agent (0005 and Figure 6B). However, the reference fails to teach preferential etching from the sid4ewalls over the base.
Chandrashekar teaches a method for filling a 3-D structure of a semiconductor substrate with a tungsten-containing material (abstract) in which preferential etching of vertical sidewalls versus horizontal features (0103). It would have been obvious to utilize preferential etching on the sidewalls with the expectation of success depending on the desired final product because Chandrashekar teaches of using preferential etching of vertical sidewalls.
Regarding claim 2, Na teaches hydrogen (0005).
Regarding claim 3, Na teaches titanium nitride (0005).
Regarding claim 4, Na teaches molybdenum oxyhalide (0005).
Regarding claim 5, Chandrashekar teaches sequential etching (0004).
Regarding claim 6, the applicant requires simultaneous etching. Chandrashekar teaches sequential etching (0004). Generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence.
Regarding claim 7, Na teaches molybdenum oxyhalide (0005).
Regarding claim 8, Na teaches molybdenum tetrafluoride oxide (0032).
Regarding claim 9, Na teaches a temperature of 350-600oC (0033).
Regarding claim 10, Na teaches a pressure from 1 to 100 Torr (0037).
Regarding claim 11, Na teaches filling the feature with metal (0005).
Regarding claim 12, the applicant requires titanium disilicide. It is noted that Na teaches titanium silicide (0005). Given Na’s teaching, it would have been obvious to utilize titanium disilicide in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, Chandrashekar teaches cleaning (0008).
Regarding claim 14, Chandrashekar teaches etching sidewalls only (0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-22 are allowed.
Colinjivadi et al. (WO 2020/041213) teaches a method of etching a feature in a substrate in which a protective film of molybdenum is used followed by etching with fluorocarbon etchants. JP 2020-29617 teaches a method of filling a gap feature on a substrate surface with a molybdenum metal film and etching with a molybdenum chloride etching gas. However, the prior art references fail to teach preferential etching with a molybdenum precursor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 03/10/2026