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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3- 8, 10-14, 16-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (US 2007/0105375) in view of Gordon et al. (US 20100092667).
As to claims 1 and 14, Lavoie et al. discloses a process for forming a metal film the process comprises forming a catalyst layer on a semiconductor substrate (See 408, 508 of Figs, 0038); exposing the catalyst layer to a reducing agent (see 0024, 0030); and exposing the layer to an organometallic precursor (see 0033) to form a copper layer using ALD or CVD process (see 0031-0033). Lavoie et al. teaches the metal catalyst can be palladium, platinum, ruthenium, rhodium, osmium (see 0011 and claim 7).
Lavoie et al. fails to teach exposing the catalytic layer to a hydrogen source as required by claims 1 and 14.
Gordon et al. discloses a process for forming metal films of copper or cobalt using an organometallic precursor and hydrogen gas as a reducing agent (see abstract, 0026). Gordon et al. further states such films can be used as electrical interconnects in microelectronics (see abstract). Gordon et al. states when depositing a metal using an ALD process, a metal precursor is used along with a second gas such as hydrogen (see 0043, 0063). Gordon et al. further teaches the process results in a film of pure copper (see 0092).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lavoie et al. to include the hydrogen reduction organometallic deposition process of Gordon et al. in order to form a pure layer of cobalt to allow for further processing of the substrate without contamination.
As to claims 3, 7, 16 and 19, Gordon et al. teaches the film can be cobalt (see abstract).
As to claims 4 and 17, the hydrogen source is hydrogen (see abstract of Gordon et al.).
As to claim 5, the method comprises atomic layer deposition.
As to claims 6, 18, and 22, the hydrogen source is reacted at a temperature of 180-300 (see 0099).
As to claim 8, the organometallic precursor and hydrogen source are exposed sequentially (see Gordon ALD process 0092).
As to claim 10, the substrate is purged before exposing to the hydrogen (see examples of Gordon)
As to claim 11, purging comprises the use of a vacuum pump (See 0064 of Gordon).
As to claim 12, the growth rate per cycle can vary between 0.1 to 0.5 depending upon the temperature and the process can be ran for 500 cycles (See example 14, 0096, Fig. 6 of Gordon) this would equate to 5 to 25 nm which overlaps the claimed range.
As to claims 13 and 20, the purge gas can be nitrogen (see 0067).
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (US 2007/0105375) in view of Gordon et al. (US 20100092667) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Gatineau et al. (US 20160010204).
The teachings of Lavoie et al. and Gordon et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Lavoie et al. and Gordon et al. fail to teach the catalytic seed layer is exposed to the organometallic precursor and hydrogen source simultaneously as required by claim 9.
Gatineau et al. discloses a process for forming a cobalt layer which comprises using an ALD process such as spatial ALD where a metallic precursor and a co-reactant can be provided simultaneously (see 0108-0128). Gatineau et al. states the cobalt layer can be pure cobalt (see 0123) and the co-reactant can be hydrogen (see 0129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Lavoie et al. and Gordon et al. to include using spatial ALD/ exposure to the reactants at the same time as taught by Gatineau et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming a pure cobalt film and Gatineau et al. teaches an alternative method where the reactants can be provided simultaneously. It has been established that the mere substitution of known alternatives provided predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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 Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights