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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 8/13/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1. Claims 1-19 are pending, with claims 18-19 withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 8/13/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the arguments are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed in the prior art rejection that follows and therefore are deemed moot.
Examiner offers the following for completeness. Applicant’s argue that the instant claim requires the functional group formed on the surface of the substrate inhibits the absorption of the second precursor gas on the substrate. Applicant’s argue that the Winkler reference fails to disclose the relationship between the first metal phase precursor and additional precursor and the reference does not disclose that there is a functional group that inhibits the adsorption of the additional precursor. Applicant’s argue that the ALD process will not prevent adsorption of the chemically distinct species at or near the previously adsorbed species.
Here, Figure 1A-1B disclose the functional group as specifically noted in the claims when taken in view of the totality of references. Specifically, the supplied gases will necessarily have a functional group is formed on the substrate, by adsorption on the site of the substrate and the presence of that functional group, as it has taken up the site, will necessarily inhibit adsorption of the gases on that site, including the second precursor gas. The functional groups are only required to inhibit and not prevent the adsorption and therefore, the applicant’s argument that adsorption “at or near the previously adsorbed species” is not persuasive as adsorption is not required to be foreclosed by the claims. Regardless, the presence of the adsorption on a site of the substrate can reasonably read on preventing further absorption on that site.
Here, additional analysis is offered herein. As noted by Figure 1A-1B, the presence of the HCl inhibiting gas and the TiCl4 will have a functional group, i.e. Cl, that will necessarily “inhibit” further adsorption at that site on the substrate. Further, the HCl is taught as inhibiting the adsorption of the chloride “primarily physisorbed to the reactive surface sites on a hydrogen terminated surface in a vapor deposition process, such as an ALD process, which may effectively block the reactions between the reactive sites and one or more of the reactants” and “With the addition of growth inhibitor, as shown in FIG. 1B, the growth inhibitor, such as HCl, may be physisorbed to some of the active sites on the surface and block the absorption of TiCl.sub.4 precursor to those active sites.” (0041-0042).
As the Cl is the functional group, the Cl meets the claim requirement as it blocks absorption at those active sites. See also 0043 related to the various metal halide precursors in combination with 0040 and 0076 related to ternary films “Additional phases may be added in which the substrate is contacted with additional precursors, for example to form ternary or more complex materials.” (0040) and “the ternary thin film may comprise at least of: titanium aluminum nitride (TiAlN), titanium aluminum carbide (TiAlC), titanium niobium nitride (TiNbN), or titanium silicon nitride (TiSiN)” (0076).
Therefore, at a minimum, using the metal halide precursors as specifically embodied by the prior art and the HCL inhibitor (as shown by Figures 1A-1B) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the Cl functional groups would reasonably inhibit further adsorption at that site as evidenced by the applicant’s specification that discloses the Cl functional group will inhibit the adsorption of the halide precursors.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20230175129 by Winkler et al.
Claim 1: Winkler discloses a method of processing a substrate comprising performing a first cycle of forming a layer containing a first element and a second element (0076 related to ternary metal nitride), the first cycle including performing:
(a) supplying a first precursor gas containing the first element to the substrate including a recess on a surface of the substrate (0040, “first vapor phase metal precursor”, 0035, “ the thin film is deposited on a three-dimensional structure in a patterned substrate, such as a trench, hole or via”);
(b) supplying a first adsorption inhibitor gas to the substrate (0040, “third stage of the deposition (“the inhibitor phase”), the substrate surface on which deposition is desired may be contacted with a vapor phase halide growth inhibitor, such as, hydrochloric acid (HCl) vapor”);
(c) supplying a second precursor gas containing the second element, different from the first element, to the substrate (0040, with 0076, specifically “Additional phases may be added in which the substrate is contacted with additional precursors, for example to form ternary or more complex materials”); and
(d) supplying a reactant gas to the substrate (“ the second vapor phase reactant”),
Winkler discloses “Although labelled the first, second and third stages, the stages may be provided in any order. In addition, the growth inhibitor may be provided in one or more of the first and second phases, rather than in a separate phase” and therefore taking the level of one of ordinary skill I the art at the time of the invention, providing the pulses in the order as claimed would have been obvious as predictable as Winkler explicitly discloses rearrangement of the order is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and such would lead to predictable results.
As for the requirement, wherein a functional group formed on the substrate in (a) and (b) inhibits adsorption of the second precursor gas on the substrate, and wherein at least a part of (c), the second precursor gas is supplied to the substrate on which the first precursor gas and the first adsorption inhibitor gas are adsorbed. This requirement is met by the pulsing and absorption of the gases during the ALD process, specifically, as the gases are absorbed on the surface inhibit absorption of later gases on the substrate by their presence on the substrate surface as well as made obvious as the varying sequence of stages as set forth above (see also Figure 1A-1B).
As the Cl is the functional group, the Cl meets the claim requirement as it blocks absorption at those active sites. See also 0043 related to the various metal halide precursors in combination with 0040 and 0076 related to ternary films “Additional phases may be added in which the substrate is contacted with additional precursors, for example to form ternary or more complex materials.” (0040) and “the ternary thin film may comprise at least of: titanium aluminum nitride (TiAlN), titanium aluminum carbide (TiAlC), titanium niobium nitride (TiNbN), or titanium silicon nitride (TiSiN)” (0076).
Therefore, at a minimum, using the metal halide precursors as specifically embodied by the prior art and the HCL inhibitor (as shown by Figures 1A-1B) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and the Cl functional groups would reasonably inhibit further adsorption at that site as evidenced by the applicant’s specification that discloses the Cl functional group will inhibit the adsorption of the halide precursors.
Claim 6: Winkler discloses HCl as the first adsorption inhibitor gas and such does not contain the first element (See 0040).
Claim 7: Winkler discloses the reactant gas removes the functional group formed on the substrate in (b) through a chemical reaction (removal of HCL from the surface via nitridation of the film, see 0040).
Claim 8: Winkler discloses “a number” of the first element (e.g. atomic number of Ti) would be greater than a number of the second element (e.g. atomic number of Al) and thus makes obvious a ternary film that meets this broadly drafted claim requirement (see 0076, not defined as the metes and bounds of this term to be any more than a generic number and thus the number can include atomic number, atomic weight or any of various quantifiable “number” within the broadly drafted claims)
Claim 9: Winkler discloses an amount of the second precursor gas adsorbed on the substrate is controlled by a processing condition in (a), see 0055 related to temperature.
Claim 10: Winkler discloses compounds that meet this requirement (see HCl and compound disclosed at 0043)
Claim 11: Winkler discloses chlorine (Figure 1) as well as chlorine comprising reactants and inhibitors (0042-0043) and as evidenced by the applicant’s specification, such is a hydrophilic group.
Claim 12: Winkler discloses a plurality of cycles that include a first adsorption inhibitor and thus would include a cycle that the first precursor gas is supplied to the substrate on which the first adsorption inhibitor gas is adsorbed as claimed. At the very least, as outlined above, Winkler makes obvious any order of stages, “Although labelled the first, second and third stages, the stages may be provided in any order”, and thus would make obvious this requirement.
Claim 13: Winkler discloses growth inhibitors include HCl and may comprise organic materials (0036) and thus using a second adsorption inhibitor gas, different from the first adsorption inhibitor gas, to the substrate would have been obvious as predictable combination of known materials for the same purpose. Additionally, 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 would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See KSR Int'l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d.
Winkler discloses a plurality of cycles that include a first adsorption inhibitor and thus would include a cycle that the first precursor gas is supplied to the substrate on which the first adsorption inhibitor gas and second inhibitor gas are adsorbed as claimed. At the very least, as outlined above, Winkler makes obvious any order of stages, “Although labelled the first, second and third stages, the stages may be provided in any order”, and thus would make obvious this requirement.
Claim 14: Winkler discloses chlorine (Figure 1) as well as chlorine comprising reactants and inhibitors (0042-0043) and as evidenced by the applicant’s specification, such is a hydrophilic group.
Claim 15: Winkler discloses the plurality of cycles in the deposition and using the growth inhibitor in one or more the cycles, i.e. one of a plurality of cycles, and thus discloses a second cycle that does not include the growth inhibitor (see 0031). At the very least, Winkler suggests including the growth inhibitor during any of the cycles and not all of the cycles and thus it would have been obvious, based on this disclosure, to provide the inhibitor in one or more, including only one of a plurality of deposition cycles, i.e. a second cycle without deposition inhibitor, as such would have led to predictable results (see 0070-0073)
Claim 16: Winkler discloses the reactant gas is a nitriding gas (0040, 0052), and wherein the first precursor gas, the first adsorption inhibitor gas, and the second precursor gas contain a halogen element in a molecular structure (0042-0043, 0040 related to additional precursors). Here, as noted above, Winkler explicitly discloses additional precursors ternary materials, 0040, 0076, and using the precursors that include chlorine would have been obvious as such are explicitly taught as predictable precursors for the deposition of the claimed materials at 0043. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Claim 17: Winkler discloses such at 0002 (“ field of semiconductor device manufacturing”)
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20210395888 by Cho et al.
Claims 2 and 4: Winkler discloses all that is taught above and discloses the reaction inhibitor and deposition within a recess as claimed (“ the thin film is deposited on a three-dimensional structure in a patterned substrate, such as a trench, hole or via”); however, fails to discloses the claimed relationship of the absorption and the recess. However, Cho, also in the art of the reaction inhibitor and deposition within a recess as claimed and discloses the inhibitor has a concentration gradient along the recess such that the inhibitor gradient is reduced toward the bottom (0094, “In an ALD process for a bottom-up gap filling method, the first reaction inhibition layer 111 may have to be coated on a wall surface of the gap 150 to have a density gradient in which a density of the reaction inhibitor decreases toward the bottom 150b of the gap 150.”) and Cho discloses that such allows for bottom-up gap filling so that the precursors are absorbed on the bottom (0094, 00102, “reactant may be adsorbed onto the exposed bottom 150b of the gap 150 and the exposed side wall 150a around the bottom 150b, to form the first precursor layer 121”, Figure 3-4). As such, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have included an amount greater for the reactant gas absorption on the bottom of the recess versus the top, so as to provide controlled gap filling and bottom up gap filling of the trench.
Claims 3 and 5: Cho discloses the amount of reaction inhibitor and the gradient thereof is a result effective variable, directly affecting the gradient of the material. (0094, “The density gradient of the first reaction inhibition layer 111 may be obtained by adjusting the amount of exposure of the reaction inhibitor.” As such, determination of the optimum amount of inhibitor, through routine experimentation, to provide the desired gradient or application of inhibitor would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation as Cho explicitly discloses the exposure amount of the inhibitor gas will directly affecting the inhibition area.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler et al. taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20240254619 by Chun et al.
Examiner maintains the position as set forth above and notes Chun, also in the art of inhibitor for gas filling, discloses using various deposition inhibiting gases known in the art, including “one or more selected from the group” that includes various compounds, such as HCl, SiCl4 and other halogen containing inhibitors (0062). As such, using the known inhibitors for gap filling, including one or more of the disclosed gases, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14: Winkler with Chun discloses chlorine (Figure 1) as well as chlorine comprising reactants and inhibitors (0042-0043) and as evidenced by the applicant’s specification, such is a hydrophilic group.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
