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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 17 recites “overfilling” which does not appear to be supported by the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi (JP H 10-144884) in view of Ishii (JP 2009-080897), Sun (US 2005/0274622), Jiang (US 2021/0125864) and Ishikawa (JP 2002-324313 see translation for citations).
Regarding claims 1 and 21, Kiyotoshi is directed to forming a semiconductor device using thin films. It provides ruthenium films for producing capacitors. It teaches a method for semiconductor manufacturing, the method comprising:
providing a substrate into a plasma processing chamber;
forming a ruthenium layer (113, 213, Fig. 1c, 2b) over the substrate with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas,
the physical vapor deposition being performed at a substrate temperature of less than 100 ˚C;
and forming a ruthenium feature from the ruthenium layer with a subtractive process (photoetching, polishing, pg. 8 and 9).
Kiyotoshi does not teach forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas comprising krypton or xenon.
Ishii teach forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas comprising krypton or xenon (pg. 3). Ishii is directed to method of forming a ruthenium layer for use in a magnetic recording medium.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas of Kiyotoshi by providing the sputtering gas comprises krypton or xenon, as taught by Ishii, because it would increase the migration of atoms deposited on the substrate allowing film thickness to be more uniform and surface roughness to be reduced (pg. 3).
Kiyotoshi does not teach heat-treating the ruthenium layer at a temperature up to 400 ˚C with an anneal performed with hydrogen gas.
Sun teaches a Ru layer formed by PVD ]0044] which is then annealed in hydrogen gas. the ruthenium layer at a temperature up to 400 ˚C with an anneal performed with hydrogen gas [0049-0050] because it would clean the surface of metal oxide or organic contaminants to prepare it for plating with a copper film ([0049].
The Examiner notes Sun is directed to a method of forming a ruthenium layer by PVD for multilevel interconnect using features such as lines [0005-0009].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer by providing the ruthenium layer is heat-treating the ruthenium layer at a temperature up to 400 ˚C with an anneal performed with hydrogen gas, as taught by Sun, because it would clean the surface of metal oxide or organic contaminants to prepare it for plating with a copper film ([0049].
The prior art cited above teaches the method of depositing Ruthenium and forming a feature by a subtractive process but does not explicitly teach depositing a ruthenium line.
Jiang teaches depositing ruthenium by PVD (108 or 112, pg. 3, [0050-0053] and forming a line by a subtractive process ([0059-0061], Fig. 3, 212, 202).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium feature by a subtractive process of Kiyoshita by providing a ruthenium line by a subtractive process, as taught by Jiang, because it would allow formation of chips based on 10 nm Node and smaller feature sizes [0044]).
Kiyoshita does not explicitly teach a chamber pressure for sputtering ruthenium.
Ishikawa teaches forming a ruthenium layer on the substrate by sputtering using a Krypton as the sputtering gas and a plasma processing chamber pressure of 0.1 – 5 mtorr [0058] because it would control the density of the crystal lattice during film formation [0058].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plasma processing chamber pressure of Kyotoshi by providing a pressure of 0.5 mTorr, as taught by Ishikawa, because it would control the density of the crystal lattice during film formation [0058].
Regarding claim 4, Ishii teaches the sputtering gas consists essentially of krypton (claim 2, pg. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Ishii teaches the sputtering gas consists essentially of xenon (claim 2, pg. 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi, Ishii, Sun, Jiang and Ishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Jung (US 2020/0225185).
Regarding claim 3, Kiyotoshi does not teach the ruthenium feature has a width of 10 nm or less.
Jung directed to a nanostructure teaches a line width of 10 nm [0010].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ruthenium feature of Kiyotoshi by providing a ruthenium feature has a width of 10 nm or less, as taught by Jung because it would provide a low cost sensor with excellent sensitivity [0010].
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi, Ishii, Sun, Jiang and Ishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uwazumi (US 2003/0113588).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 8, Kiyotoshi does not teach the sputtering gas consists essentially of a combination of argon and another noble gas, wherein the another noble gas is xenon.
Uwazumi teaches the sputtering as is a combination of argon and xenon or a combination of argon and krypton [0015], [0027]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate of with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas of Kiyotoshi by providing using a combination of argon and xenon or a combination of argon and xenon, as taught by Uwazumi, because it would reduce the amount of trapped inert gas in the layer and allow the structure of layer to be precisely controlled [0015].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi, Iishi, Sun, Jiang and Ishikawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imakita (US 2010/0173174).
Regarding claim 9, neither prior art reference teaches the sputtering gas consists essentially of a combination of krypton and xenon.
Imakita directed to sputtering teaches the sputtering gas consists essentially of a combination of krypton and xenon [0089].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate of with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas of Kiyotoshi by providing the sputtering gas consists essentially of a combination of krypton and xenon, as taught by Imakita, because it would allow the energy of recoil particles to be decreased reducing damage to the layer [0058].
Claim 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi (JP H 10-144884), Ishii (JP 2009-080897), Takahashi (US 2005/0252767), Nire (US 2002/0031917) and Jiang (US 2021/0125864) and Ishikawa (JP 2002-3243131 see translation for citations).
Regarding claim 10, Kiyotoshi teaches a method for metal deposition, the method comprising: providing a substrate into a physical vapor deposition (PVD) processing chamber, the PVD processing chamber comprising a substrate holder for supporting the substrate, sputtering a ruthenium metal layer onto the substrate at a first substrate temperature of less than 100 ˚C; and heat-treating the ruthenium metal layer at a second substrate temperature of 400˚ C or less (pg. 8 and 9).
Kiyotoshi does not teach sputtering a ruthenium metal layer onto the substrate with a plasma excitation of a noble gas comprising krypton or xenon. Nor does it teach multiple sputtering targets comprising ruthenium metal, the multiple sputtering targets being at oblique angles to a top surface of the substrate.
Ishii teach sputtering a ruthenium metal layer onto the substrate with a plasma excitation of a noble gas comprising krypton or xenon (pg. 3, clm. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate with a physical vapor deposition using a sputtering gas of Kiyotoshi by providing the sputtering gas comprises krypton or xenon, as taught by Ishii, because it would increase the migration of atoms deposited on the substrate allowing film thickness to be more uniform and surface roughness to be reduced (pg. 3).
Takahashi teach multiple sputtering targets comprising the same material, the multiple sputtering targets being at oblique angles to a top surface of the substrate (Fig. 2 [0010-0012], [0029]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer over the substrate of Kiyotoshi by providing multiple sputtering targets comprising ruthenium metal, the multiple sputtering targets being at oblique angles to a top surface of the substrate, as taught by Takahashi, because it would achieve a decrease in costs and a yield rate of the substrate can be increased because film thickness and film quality of the substrate is uniform [0012].
None of the above prior art teaches a substrate holder with a heater.
Nire teaches a substrate holder (61) with a heater for heat treating a layer on a substrate (60, [0100]). Kiyoshita is silent regarding how the substrate is heated when discussing the heat treatment of the Ru film. Therefore the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would be drawn naturally to prior art Nire because it teaches a method of heating a substrate using a substrate holder with a heater. Therefore substrate holders with heaters are operable and well known. It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used a substrate holder with a heater for heat treating a substrate with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of heat treating the ruthenium layer Kiyotoshi by providing a substrate holder with a heater, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results.
The prior art cited above teaches the method of depositing Ruthenium and forming a feature by a subtractive process but does not explicitly teach forming a ruthenium line.
Jiang teaches forming a ruthenium metal line by PVD (212, 202) from the ruthenium metal layer (108, 112, pg. 3 [0050-0053]) with a subtractive process [0059-0061], Fig. 3, 212, 202)., the ruthenium metal line being part of an interconnect layer [0044].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium feature by a subtractive process of Kiyoshita by forming a ruthenium metal line from the ruthenium metal layer with a subtractive process, the ruthenium metal line being part of an interconnect layer, as taught by Jiang, because it would allow formation of chips based on 10 nm Node and smaller feature sizes ([0044]).
Kiyoshita does not explicitly teach a chamber pressure for sputtering ruthenium.
Ishikawa teaches forming a ruthenium layer on the substrate by sputtering using a Krypton as the sputtering gas and a plasma processing chamber pressure of 0.1 – 5 mtorr [0058] because it would control the density of the crystal lattice during film formation [0058].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plasma processing chamber pressure of Kyotoshi by providing a pressure of 0.5 mTorr, as taught by Ishikawa, because it would control the density of the crystal lattice during film formation [0058].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Kiyotoshi teaches the first substrate temperature is less than 50˚ C (room temperature, pg. 8 and 9).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kiyotoshi does not teach the noble gas consists essentially of krypton or xenon.
Ishii teach the noble gas consists essentially of krypton or xenon (any one of, claim 2, pg. 8, pg. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sputtering of the method of Kiyotoshi by providing the noble gas consists essentially of krypton or xenon, as taught by Ishii, because it would increase the migration of atoms deposited on the substrate allowing film thickness to be more uniform and surface roughness to be reduced (pg. 3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi, Ishii, Takahashi, Nire, Jiang and Ishikawa as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view Jung (US 2020/0225185).
Regarding claim 15, Kiyotoshi does not teach the ruthenium metal line having a width of 10 nm or less.
Jung directed to a nanostructure teaches a line width of 10 nm [0010].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ruthenium feature of Kiyotoshi by providing a ruthenium feature has a width of 10 nm or less, as taught by Jung because it would provide a low cost sensor with excellent sensitivity [0010].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiyotoshi, Ishii, Takahashi, Nire, Jiang and Ishikawa as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ramalingam (US 10,388,532).
Regarding claim 16, Kiyotoshi does not teach the ruthenium metal layer has a thickness in a range of 200 Å to 800 Å.
Ramalingam teach the ruthenium line has a thickness in a range of 200 Å to 800 Å (col. 2, ln. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ruthenium line of Kiyotoshi by providing the ruthenium line has a thickness in a range of 200 Å to 800 Å, as taught by Ramalingam, because it would deposit a film with lower bitline resistivity and insensitivity to oxidation (Col. 1, ln. 15).
Claims 17, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2005/0274622) in view of Kiyoshita (JP H 10-144884), Ishii (JP 2009-080897) Jiang (US 2021/0125864), Jung (US 2020/0225185) and Yang (CN110494971).
Regarding claim 17, Sun teaches a method for forming an interconnect layer [0037], the method comprising:
providing a substrate, the substrate having a top surface comprising a dielectric layer ((102) fig. 1a-1c) the dielectric layer comprising an opening (Fig. 1a-1c);
depositing by physical vapor deposition [0037] a ruthenium metal layer (108) onto the dielectric layer (102),
heating the ruthenium metal layer to a temperature of 400 ˚C or less ([0049-0050];
forming a ruthenium feature [0040] from the ruthenium metal layer as part of the interconnect layer [0037], [0050].
While Sun teaches physical vapor deposition, it does not explicitly teach sputtering. Therefore Sun does not teach providing a substrate onto a substrate holder of a plasma sputtering chamber.
Kiyotoshi teaches providing a substrate onto a substrate holder into a plasma processing chamber; sputtering a ruthenium layer (113, 213, Fig. 1c, 2b) onto a dielectric layer (107, pg. 5,8) having a temperature less than 100 deg. C (room temperature; pg. 8 and 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the PVD deposition of Sun by providing a substrate onto a substrate holder of a plasma sputtering chamber; sputtering a ruthenium layer (113, 213, Fig. 1c, 2b) onto a dielectric layer (107, pg. 5,8) having a temperature less than 100 deg. C., as taught by Kiyotoshi, because it would provide an electrode with a preferred orientation (pg. 8-9).
Ishii teaches sputtering ruthenium using a plasma excitation of a noble gas comprising krypton, xenon, or radon (pg. 3, clm. 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium layer of Sun by providing a plasma excitation of a noble gas comprising krypton, xenon, or radon, as taught by Ishii, because it would increase the migration of atoms deposited on the substrate allowing film thickness to be more uniform and surface roughness to be reduced (pg. 3).
The prior art cited above teaches the method of depositing Ruthenium and forming a feature by a subtractive process but does not explicitly teach forming a ruthenium line.
Jiang teaches forming a ruthenium line ([0059-0061], Fig. 3, 212, 202) from the ruthenium metal layer (108 or 112, pg. 3, [0050-0053]) deposited by PVD as part of the interconnect layer [0044].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of forming a ruthenium feature of Sun by forming a ruthenium line from the ruthenium metal layer as part of the interconnect layer, as taught by Jiang, because it would allow formation of chips based on 10 nm Node and smaller feature sizes [0044]).
Jung directed to a nanostructure teaches a line width of 10 nm [0010].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ruthenium feature of Kiyotoshi by providing a ruthenium feature has a width of 10 nm or less, as taught by Jung, because it would provide a low cost sensor with excellent sensitivity [0010].
Sun does not teach a ruthenium metal layer overfilling the opening. Sun does teach depositing ruthenium into an opening of a dielctric layer to form an interconnect structure. Sun fills its hole with copper on top of the ruthenium.
Yang directed to forming an interconnect structure teaches a dielectric layer (208, 210, 214, fig. 8) comprising an opening (230, fig. 7) and teaches sputtering a ruthenium metal (234) to overfill the opening. Yang teaches overfill because it removes excess conductive layer 234 to form interconnect structure 236 (see top of page 9 of translation). Yang teaches that overfill of the hole in a dielectric layer is operable to produce a interconnect structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have used the ruthenium overfill as the fill material of Sun with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method for forming the interconnect layer of Sun by providing the dielectric layer comprising an opening and the ruthenium metal layer overfilling the opening, as taught by Yang, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143. A.
Regarding claim 18, Sun does not teach the noble gas is free of argon.
Ishii teaches the noble gas is free of argon (clm. 2, pg. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sputtering of the method of Kiyotoshi by providing the noble gas is free of argon, as taught by Ishii, because it would increase the migration of atoms deposited on the substrate allowing film thickness to be more uniform and surface roughness to be reduced (pg. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Sun does not teach the noble gas consists essentially of krypton.
Ishii teaches the noble gas consists essentially of krypton (pg. 3, clm. 2).
Ishii teach the noble gas consists essentially of krypton or xenon (any one of, claim 2, pg. 8, pg. 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sputtering of the method of Kiyotoshi by providing the noble gas consists essentially of krypton, as taught by Ishii, because it would increase the migration of atoms deposited on the substrate allowing film thickness to be more uniform and surface roughness to be reduced (pg. 3).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, Kiyotoshi, Ishii and Yang as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Ramalingam (US 10,388,532).
Regarding claim 19, Sun does not teach the ruthenium line has a thickness in a range of 200 Å to 800 Å.
Ramalingam teach the ruthenium line has a thickness in a range of 200 Å to 800 Å (col. 2, ln. 4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ruthenium line of Sun by providing the ruthenium line has a thickness in a range of 200 Å to 800 Å, as taught by Ramalingam, because it would deposit a film with lower bitline resistivity and insensitivity to oxidation (col. 1, ln. 15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection set out above.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
/JOHN J BRAYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights