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 .
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 1-8 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 preamble of Claim 1 indicates that the selective metal oxide deposition is to be performed on a metal surface relative to a dielectric surface; however, the last two limitations of Claim 1 indicate that the selective metal oxide deposition occurs on the dielectric surface relative to the inhibited metal surface. This renders the intended scope of Claim 1 unclear. Claims 2-8 do not correct the deficiency.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is examining Claims 1-8 on the basis of the claim limitations in Claim 1, requiring that the selective metal oxide deposition occurs on the dielectric surface relative to the metal surface.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann ‘615 (U.S. PGPub 2020/0013615) in view of Yudovsky ‘858 (U.S. PGPub 2015/0299858).
Claim 9 – Hausmann ‘615 teaches an apparatus for selective oxide deposition (Abstract, silicon oxide selective deposition thereof; metal oxide deposition specifically is held as intended use and there is nothing in the apparatus as claimed which restricts the apparatus to metal oxide deposition only), the apparatus comprising (Figure 6, PG 0075-0088):
A processing chamber (PG 0075, process chamber body 602);
A substrate holder in the processing chamber (PG 0080, pedestal 608);
one or more processing gas outlets for flowing gases into the processing chamber (direct gas line, also implicit in showerhead 606);
a vacuum source for removing gases from the processing chamber (PG 0084, not shown in figures but disclosed as downstream of butterfly valve 618);
a process liquid source (PG 0077, liquid reactant contemplated; Figure 6, Process Liquid element to right of element 603):
a plasma generator for generating a plasma within the processing chamber (PG 0086, radio frequency power supply 614 and matching network 616 in tandem constitute a plasma generator commensurate with the claim), and
one or more controllers comprising machine-readable instructions for operating the one or more processing gas outlets, vacuum source, and plasma generator to deposit onto a semiconductor substrate (PG 0088, controller 650), the machine-readable instructions of the one or more controllers comprising instructions for:
(a) causing operation of the plasma generator to provide a plasma generated from a hydrogen-containing source and an oxygen-containing source to generate hydroxy species to pre-treat a surface of the semiconductor substrate (PG 0088, e.g. “A fourth recipe phase may include instructions for modulating a flow rate of a weak oxidant gas, instructions for igniting a plasma, instructions for modulating the flow rate of a carrier or purge gas, and time delay instructions for the fourth recipe phase.”; PG 0063 expressly discloses plasma generated from water to hydroxylate the silicon oxide surface of the substrate being exemplified); and
(b) causing operation of the one or more processing gas outlets to flow an inhibitor into the processing chamber and provide an inhibitor layer on a first region of a semiconductor substrate held in the substrate holder (PG 0088, “”For example, a first recipe phase may include instructions for setting a flow rate of a copper- or metal-blocking reagent gas, instructions for setting a flow rate of a carrier gas (such as argon), instructions for igniting a plasma, and time delay instructions for the first recipe phase.”), wherein the first region comprises a metal or a semiconductor (PG 0051 discloses an example substrate having an exposed silicon oxide surface and an exposed copper surface; PG 0003 discloses that the disclosed teachings are for processing semiconductor substrates; PG 0052 discloses blocking of the copper surface; the exposed copper surface is mapped to the first region of the instant claim), wherein the semiconductor
PNG
media_image1.png
7
6
media_image1.png
Greyscale
substrate further comprises a second region comprising a different material than the first region (PG 0051, the silicon oxide surface is mapped to the second region of the instant claim).
Hausmann ‘615 does not fairly teach or suggest the following limitations of Claim 9:
Wherein the process liquid source is an ampoule assembly.
Wherein the ampoule assembly comprises an ampoule configured to hold a liquid inhibitor.
Yudovsky ‘858 discloses an ampoule intended for holding liquid compounds to be injected as gases into process chambers (Abstract, PG 0020 for CVD / ALD chambers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Hausmann ‘615 to use the ampoule assembly of Yudovsky ‘858 as the process liquid source of Hausmann ‘615, as Hausmann ‘615 broadly contemplates a process liquid source which may lead to gasification of the process liquid prior to injection into a process chamber and Yudovsky ‘858 discloses a specific liquid source which would be suitable for the purpose of Hausmann ‘615.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hausmann ‘615 / Yudovsky ‘858 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Choi ‘933 (U.S. PGPub 2008/0099933).
Claim 10 – Hausmann ‘615 / Yudovsky ‘858 renders obvious the apparatus of claim 9,wherein the ampoule assembly further comprises (Figure 1, Figure 3):
A flow-over-vapor(FOV%) gas inlet comprising a mass flow controller for controlling a flow of a carrier gas into the ampoule (Yudovsky ‘858 PG 0022, inlet line 130, flow controllers disclosed as part of this inlet line);
A FOV gas outlet (Yudovsky ‘858 PG 0022, outlet line 140),
A bulk fill port configured for refilling the ampoule with the liquid inhibitor (Yudovsky ‘858 PG 0022, fill line 150), and
One or more flow sensors configured to sense flow of the liquid inhibitor in the ampoule (Yudovsky ‘858 PG 0035, flow sensors in combination with controller 210; position of the sensors is discussed as a design choice throughout the fluid delivery circuit);
One or more ampoule heaters configured to heat the ampoule (Yudovsky ‘858 PG 0027, thermal element 156 on precursor line 153; the heater transfers thermal energy to the ampoule via precursor flow and thus is held as commensurate with the claim as presented); and
One or more heated gas lines that lead from the FOV gas outlet of the ampoule to the one or more processing gas outlets (Hausmann ‘615 PG 0077; in systems that vaporize liquid reactant, the piping downstream of the vaporizer may be heated to prevent condensation).
Hausmann ‘615 / Yudovsky ‘858 do not expressly teach or disclose the following limitation of Claim 10:
One or more liquid level sensors configured to sense a level of the liquid inhibitor in the ampoule (the sensors at Yudovsky ‘858 PG 0035 are not expressly liquid level sensors).
Choi ‘933 is drawn to an ampoule capable of holding a liquid precursor and providing it for vapor introduction to a process chamber (Abstract) comparable to the intended function of Yudovsky. Choi ‘933 in particular includes a continuous level sensor for monitoring the amount of precursor in the ampoule (Abstract, PG 0025 for liquid precursor embodiment, PG 0031-0032 for explicit disclosure of level sensors for purpose of measuring level of fluids within the ampoule) and discloses that the use of said sensor advantageously increases accuracy of refill period determination, enhancing the efficiency of the process (PG 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Hausmann ‘615 / Yudovsky ‘858 to incorporate a continuous liquid level sensor in the ampoule as suggested by Choi ‘933, as Yudovsky ‘858 wants to monitor the liquid precursor and Choi ‘933 teaches a specific sensor setup that enhances monitoring of the liquid precursor in a fashion that enhances efficiency of the deposition process the ampoule serves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Examiner notes that alteration of Claim 1 in a fashion that leads away from the claim interpretation discussed above will lead to reconsideration of the allowability of the subject matter of the altered claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner holds Haukka ‘330 (U.S. PGPub 2015/0217330) in view of Winter ‘273 (U.S. PGPub 2015/0159273) to be the closest prior art to Claim 1.
Claim 1 -Haukka ‘330 discloses a method for selective metal oxide deposition on an exposed metal surface relative to a dielectric material on a substrate (PG 0182 and title thereof, “Selective Deposition of Metal or Metal Oxide on Dielectric”; PG 0182, second undeposited surface may be e.g. metal; see also PG 0030 for express recognition of dielectric and metal substrate surfaces on the same substrate and PG 0028 for express recognition of oxides as dielectric materials for deposition), the method comprising the steps of:
(a) providing the substrate comprising the dielectric material and the exposed metal surface (PG 0033, PG 0182);
(b) contacting the substrate with a hydrogen-containing source and an oxygen-containing source to generate hydroxy species (PG 0031, e.g. water vapor), wherein the hydroxy species react with the dielectric material to form hydroxy-terminated dielectric material (PG 0032, treatment of e.g. silica with water vapor leads to a hydroxyl-terminated silica surface);
(c) exposing the oxidized metal surface and hydroxy-terminated dielectric material to a deposition inhibitor that selectively modifies the oxidized metal surface, forming an inhibited metal surface (PG 0188) and then
(d) selectively depositing metal oxide on the hydroxy-terminated dielectric material relative to the inhibited metal surface on the substrate (PG 0189).
Haukka ‘330 does not expressly teach or suggest the following limitations of Claim 1:
Wherein the contacting the substrate with a hydrogen-containing source and an oxygen-containing source to generate hydroxy species involves forming a plasma from said sources.
Wherein the hydroxy species react with the exposed metal surface to form an oxidized metal surface.
Winter ‘273 is drawn to ALD processes and precursors (Abstract) and contemplates the formation of metal oxides (PG 0052). PG 0052 expressly contemplates contacting metal with oxidizing agents to form a metal oxide, said oxidizing agents inclusive of water and plasma-activated water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Haukka ‘330 to use plasma generated from water to oxidize the metal portion of its substrate as suggested by Winter ‘273, as Haukka ‘330 wants to oxidize a metal surface prior to deposition to control deposition on its substrate and Winter ‘273 teaches that plasma from water vapor is a known oxidant for metal.
However, even with the combined teachings of these references, there is still not a teaching or suggestion that the hydroxylation of the dielectric material and the oxidation of the metal occur simultaneously as required by Claim 1 as presented. This specific timing limitation, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, sets Claims 1-8 clear of the prior art.
References of Record
Examiner cites US PGPub 2015/0299848, US PGPub 2016/0222504, US PGPub 2017/0037513, US PGPub 2017/0323776, US PGPub 2018/0010247, and US PGPub 2018/0151345 as references of record to Claims 1-8. All cited references have at least one common inventor to the Haukka ‘330 reference and are drawn to selective deposition of materials on one portion of a substate relative to a second portion of the same substrate. Said materials to be deposited comprise metal oxides in all references. These references are not currently being applied in any current rejection. Examiner particularly notes US PGPub 2017/0037513, the abstract of which exemplifies selective deposition on a metal surface relative to a dielectric surface, said selectively deposited material comprising metal oxide. This reference may be more relevant if Claim 1 was intended to be selective deposition on a metal layer instead of selective deposition on a dielectric layer, as per the compact prosecution discussion above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712