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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2023/0049464 A1) in view of Tarafdar et al. (US 2018/0114694 A1) and in further view of KR 10-2014-0092421 A (hereafter KR).
As to claims 1 and 11, Liu et al. teaches a method of forming an alloy thin film including a low work function metal through a super-cycle atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (abstract, Figures, para 0062), the method comprising: performing a first unit process of forming an oxide of the low work function metal; and performing a second unit process of forming a film of a different type metal on the oxide (para 0061, claim 1, for example, oxygen coreactants in para 0051), wherein the second unit process includes (a) injecting a precursor of a source of the different type metal for a first time, (b) injecting a purge gas, (c) injecting a reactant, and (d) injecting a purge gas (para 0041-0042, 0059-0060).
Liu does not teach that the second unit process further includes, prior to the injecting of the precursor of the source of the different type metal, injecting the precursor of the source of the different type metal for a second time to reduce the low work function metal. However, Tarafdar teaches supplying an extra pulse of a molybdenum precursor layer in a similar ALD layer stack (paras 0033-0034, Figure 4) before deposition of the metal layer (para 0042) to remove oxygen (reduce) a lower metal nitride. Removing oxygen prevents defects and improves adhesion in para 0032. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have an extra precursor pulse as taught by Tarafdar in between the ALD cycles of Liu in order to reduce oxidation levels of the lower metal film, reduce defects and promote adhesion.
While Tarafdar teaches removing the oxygen, KR, as previously cited by the Applicant on an IDS, discloses the deposition of an RuO4 film reduced to a RuO2 layer where the RuO2 layer nucleates on the SrO layer forming islands and growing into a continuous film. KR also does this to improve adhesion in paras 0025-0025 and 0052. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu and Tarafdar to include reducing the oxide to a suboxide on the substrate surface as taught by KR in order to improve adhesion.
As to claim 2, the time of the precursor treatment is taught in para 0035 of Tarafdar with the pulsing of Liu ‘substantially’ the same as broadly claimed in paras 0060-0064.
As to claims 3 and 5, the treatment of Tarafdar is designed to effectively removing oxygen present in a form of an OH functional group on a surface of the low work function metal immediately after the first unit process (paras 0033-0042, as a native oxide layer typically takes the form of -OH on the surface and removal of oxide increases conductivity). The barrier layer, or lower metal layer, of Tarafdar is exposed to air or oxidizing chemistry before deposition of the metal layer, the Ti/TiN in the barrier layer is partially converted to TiO/TiON, which decreases adhesion of the metal layer, and thus the barrier layer is chemically treated to remove oxidation therefrom (para 0035-0036).
As to claim 4, as the prior art teaches the method in the claim as disclosed, and resistivity of the film is a direct result of that method, it follows that the resistivity of the film produced from the prior art combination would naturally flow from its performance.
As to claims 6-7, island growth that turns into a continuous film is normal in film formation via the instant specification prior art disclosure para 0005. KR, as previously cited by the Applicant on an IDS, discloses the deposition of an RuO4 film reduced to a RuO2 layer where the RuO2 layer nucleates on the SrO layer forming islands and growing into a continuous film. KR also does this to improve adhesion in paras 0025-0025 and 0052.
As to claims 8 and 10, Liu teaches the claimed metals (para 0041-0042, 0059-0060) as does Tarafdar (Figures, para 0032-0045) and KR (entire document).
As to claim 9, Liu teaches the claimed ALD process in paras 0041-0060.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights