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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 05/18/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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)1-3, 5-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Smith [US 20200006073].
Claim 1: Smith teaches a substrate processing method [abs] comprising providing a substrate [abs], and supplying a first processing gas containing silane containing reactants such as aminosilane [0070-0072] to form a first layer on the substate [0066]; causing a second processing gas containing a metal halide containing gas to react with the first layer to form a metal containing film [0065-0066]. Alternatively, in the event that Smith does not anticipate claim 1 by providing an example, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from the finite number of listed combinations of reactants and gases provided by Smith.
Claim 2: Smith teaches also etching the substrate with a plasma from a third processing gas [0048].
Claim 3: Smith teaches the substrate has a recess [abs].
Claim 5: Smith teaches the first gas is an aminosilane gas [0070].
Claim 6: Smith teaches the first gas contains at least one typical element among hydrogen [0070].
Claim 7: Smith teaches the metal halide containing gas comprises tungsten [0008].
Claim 8: Smith teaches the substrate temperature may be 200 to 400 degrees C [0007], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 9: Smith teaches temperature is 150 degrees or lower [0032].
Claims 10-11: Smith teaches the deposition is performed by one or more cycles [0008], where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by performing more than one cycle the steps of repeating b and c and b to d are also naturally performed.
Claim 13: Smith teaches modifying the metal film with plasma [0048].
Claim 14: Smith teaches the steps can be performed in different chambers [0073].
Claim 15: Smith teaches the thickness of the film changes in depth direction of the recess by changing at least a processing time [0047].
Claim 16: Smith teaches the at least one of the first processing gas may be silane gas [0008].
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chandrashekar [US 20120009785].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, where Smith teaches the recess has a sidewall, bottom, upper surface connected to upper end of the sidewall [Fig. 5], but does not appear to teach all the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 4: Chandrashekar teaches a substate recess that have sidewalls, bottom, and upper surface, and where the metal film can be thinner at the bottom than at the upper surface [Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide this step wise coverage in a high aspect ratio recess as taught by Chandrashekar so as to minimize large seams that can lead to high resistance and contamination for circuits [0002].
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kow-Ming [SiH4 ‐ WF 6 Gas‐Phase Nucleated Tungsten as an Adhesion Layer in Blanket Chemical Vapor Deposition for Ultralarge Scale Integration].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the electric resistivity range. Kow-Ming is provided.
Claims 17-18: Kow-Ming teaches a method of forming a tungsten-based film using SiH4 and WF6 [abstract] wherein the resistivity lies about 167 [abstract]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the film such to have the claimed resistivity range since Kow-Ming teaches lower resistivity values are more desirable for circuits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights