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 1-10 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2-5, 7, 9 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 2 line 4, the term “thermal chemical vapor deposition (thermal CVD)” is deemed vague and confusing. The use of parenthetical elements creates confusion as to which item is being claimed. The same issue applies to claims 3-5.
In claim 7 lines 2-3, the terms “high frequency”, “very high frequency”, and “low frequency” are deemed relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high”, “very high”, “low” are 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. The same issue applies to claim 9.
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 1-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (6,221,174) in view of Chang et al. (Surface and Coatings Technology article).
Chen teaches a method of performing titanium/titanium nitride integration (title) in which a titanium nitride film is deposited by CVD using titanium tetrachloride and ammonia (abstract). It is noted that a substrate 190 is placed on a support pedestal 150 located in a process chamber 100 (col.3 lines 13-33, Figure 1). However, the reference fails to teach a post treatment plasma step.
Chang teaches plasma treating a TiN film (title) using a hydrogen/nitrogen plasma (abstract). Specifically, the plasma treatment occurs in two repeated cycles in which flow rates of H2 and N2 were used (p.648 col.2). It would have been obvious to utilize a plasma treatment step in Chen with the expectation of success because Chang teaches of using a two step plasma treatment process for a TiN film.
Regarding claim 2, Chen teaches a temperature of 450-750oC (col.3 lines 23-33).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches titanium nitride (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches titanium tetrachloride (abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches ammonia (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Chang teaches hydrogen (p.648 col.2).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (6,221,174) and Chang et al. (Surface and Coatings Technology article) and further in view of Pyo (KR 20020048268) (see English Translation). The combination of Chen/Chang fails to teach a dual frequency.
Pyo teaches of depositing a titanium nitride film (p.2 paragraph 6) followed by performing a dual frequency plasma treatment (paragraph bridging pp.2-3). The dual frequency uses a high frequency and a low frequency (paragraph bridging pp.2-3). It would have been obvious to utilize a dual frequency plasma treatment step in the combination with the expectation of success because Pyo teaches of using a dual frequency plasma treatment on a titanium nitride film.
Regarding claim 7, Pyo teaches a single or dual frequency plasma treatment (paragraph bridging pp.2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Pyo teaches a dual frequency plasma treatment (paragraph bridging pp.2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Pyo teaches a single or dual frequency plasma treatment (paragraph bridging pp.2-3).
JP 2001-507514 teaches of annealing a titanium nitride layer using an RF plasma and has been cited as relevant art. Chen et al. (Thin Solid Films article) teaches the plasma treatment of a TiN film barrier using an RF plasma treatment and has been cited as relevant art. Huang et al. (Thin Solid Films article) teaches of using a N2/H2 plasma treatment on an MOCVD titanium nitride film to reduce impurities and has been cited as relevant art.
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 09/17/2026
Prosecution Insights