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 .
The amendment of July 14, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claim 3 is canceled, claims 1-2, 4-11 and new claims 13-18 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the amendments of July 14, 2026 clarifying the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 14, B2H6, SiH4, SiH2F2 and GeH4 should be provided with the correct subscripts to give B2H6, SiH4, SiH2F2 and GeH4. In claim 15, W(CO)6 should be provided with the correct subscript of W(CO)6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over WO 2020/096817 (hereinafter ‘817) in view of Mizuno et al (US 2003/0157378).
Claim 1: ‘817 teaches a substrate processing method (note 0004). In a step (a), a substrate is prepared having a first region containing a first material and a second region containing a second material different from the first material (note figures 6A, 7A, with first material 405 or 502 and second material 300, where 405 can be BARC layer that can be polymer with silicon and 300 is a target layer that can be amorphous carbon, note 0092, 0097, 0102, so different materials, or layer 502 can be SiO2, SiN, note 0092, so a different material from 300). In a step (b), a metal containing deposit is formed on the first region by using a first plasma generated from a first processing gas (note layer 600 or 700 in figures 6A, 7A, 0097, 0102, and note plasma features at 0055-0064, 0069, 0072-0074). The first processing gas can contain metal, fluorine and carbon, for example (note 0073-0074, 0084—0086). In a step (c), a surface of the metal containing deposit is modified after forming the deposit, by using a second plasma generated from a second processing gas different from the first processing gas (note 0072-0074, where plasma can be provided to both gas treatments in a cycle, so a second plasma provided from a second processing gas different from the first processing gas, and as to the surface of the metal containing deposit being modified by the second processing gas, it is provided that the first gas can contain tungsten halide (as in present claim 4) and the second gas can contain hydrogen (as in present claim 2), so since the same materials and treatment provided by applicant used either the same deposit then modification provided, or alternatively, at the least it would be predictably expected that deposit then modification occurs, since both plasma treatments are used to provide the desired tungsten coating, so suggested that the second plasma treatment also has an effect on the initial deposit from the first plasma. Note Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)). In a step (d), steps (b) and (c) can be repeated (note 0077, 0072-0077). Further as to repeating steps (b) and (c) to control a thickness of the resulting region obtained from the process, ‘817 indicates that the number of cycles can depend on the desired thickness of the mask /coating being formed (note 0069, 0077),
As to specifically providing that the metal containing deposit contains metal oxide and the second processing gas contains a reducing agas that reduces the metal oxide to metal, such that a reduced region is obtained by the reducing the metal oxide to the metal with the second plasma on the first region, ‘817 does not specifically provide that the first plasma treatment provides a deposited metal oxide, where the second processing gas reduces the metal oxide. ‘817 does provides that second gas can have hydrogen (note 0072-0074). Furthermore, for the metal containing gas, ‘817 provides that tungsten containing gases with tungsten halides can be used or various other gases and metals can be used (note 0055), where the formed vertical growth mask can be tungsten metal or other materials (note 0054).
Mizuno further teaches how a metal film can be formed on a surface of a substrate using reactive processing gas treated with plasma to form a first metal oxide coating with further providing of a reducing gas provided with plasma to reduce the metal oxide film to metal (note 0007-0008, 0011), where the reducing gas can be hydrogen (note 0014) and the metal provided using a metal compound that is desirably an organometallic compound (note 0015, 0020, 0024), where it is indicated that the metal film formed can include W (tungsten) (note 0064).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘817 to provide that the first processing gas is formed with a tungsten metal compound for example that deposits to form a metal oxide and then treating with the hydrogen reducing gas as the second processing gas to provide tungsten metal at a reduced region on the first region by reducing the metal oxide as suggested by Mizuno with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘817 indicates providing a tungsten compound such as tungsten halide as the first processing gas for the plasma treatment, and then providing a second processing gas with hydrogen for depositing tungsten with the second plasma generated from the second processing gas and Mizuno indicates that a predictably acceptable tungsten/metal compound to provide in processing gas for plasma treatment to be followed by a reducing gas such as hydrogen would be a tungsten/metal organometallic compound that deposits metal/tungsten oxide and then is reduced using hydrogen gas in a plasma, such that when providing the second plasma generated from second processing gas as discussed for ‘817, it would be suggested to provide reducing gas such as hydrogen that reduces the metal oxide. Mizuno also notes providing fluorine and carbon as well as metal in the gas components (note 0039). Additionally as to repeating steps (b) and (c) to control the thickness of a reduced region obtained by reducing the metal oxide to the metal with the second plasma on the first region, Mizuno further suggests that the deposition and reducing of the metal oxide film can be repeated plural times to give a desired precise film reduction, and indicates thicknesses provided for each cycle, so to provide a controlled built up thickness the steps would be repeated, where ‘817 also notes controlling the number of cycles to provide a desired thickness (note 0077).
Claim 2: in ‘817, the second processing gas can contain a hydrogen containing gas (note 0072-0074). This is also indicated by Mizuno as discussed for claim 1 above.
Claim 4: in ‘817, the metal can be tungsten (note 0072-0074, 0097, 0102).
Claim 5: In ‘817, the first processing gas can contain tungsten halide (note 0072-0074), and multiple gases can be used (note oo55), so at the least it would have been obvious that multiple process gases can be used including tungsten halide and gas as in Mizuno, where Mizuno can also include halides for the gas components (note 0039).
Claim 6: In ‘817, first processing gas can include fluorine containing gas, where fluorocarbon gas can be provided (note 0072-0074, with tungsten hexafluoride, and also note 0084, 0086), and note discussion for claim 5 above, and how Mizuno can also use fluorine gas (note 0039), as well.
Claim 7: In ‘817, the first processing gas can contain a carbon containing gas (note 0084, and also 0055). As to also providing a hydrocarbon gas, ‘817 indicates that gases such as methane, acetylene and propylene (hydrocarbons) can be provided (note 0055), and thus a carbon coating gas comprising a hydrocarbon gas can be provided. Mizuno also notes that carbon can be provided in the gas (note 0039).
Claim 8: In ‘817, the first material can contain silicon nitride (note 0047, 0085, 0092, 0097). The second material can contain silicon oxide (note the target material can be any suitable material 0092, where indicated that want to etch substrate, so that can be considered the target material, and the substrate can have a silicon oxide layer that would also be etched, noting 0030, 0042, so either taught to use silicon oxide as the target material, or at least suggested that this can be the case with an expectation of predictably acceptable results).
Claim 9: In ‘817, the second region can be etched by the first plasma (note 0082-0086).
Claim 10: In ‘817, the first region can have a recess and the second region is present in the recess (note recess can be considered as formed between the two pillars of the material of the first region, note figures 6A, 7A). Alternatively, the first region can be modified to predictably and acceptably have a recess and have the second region be present in the recess with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since the indication is for the surface between the pillars of the first region be second region materials to be etched, and therefore, the second material can predictably and acceptably be provided in a recess between joined first regions as long as the etching is not desired to be deeper than the second material thickness.
Claim 11: ‘817 provides a substate processing apparatus (note figure 9, 0004). The apparatus includes a chamber 901 (note figure 9, 0110). A substrate support/chuck 917 is provided that is configured to support a substrate within the chamber (note figure 9, 0110). The substrate has a first region containing a first material and second region containing a second material different from the first material (as discussed for claim 1 above). A gas supply 960 is provided that is configured to supply a first processing gas and a second processing gas different from the first processing gas into the chamber, where the first processing can contain a metal, carbon and fluorine (note figure 9, 0112-0113, and note the gas used as discussed for claim 1 above). A plasma generator is provided configured to generate a first plasma and second plasma from the first processing gas and second processing gas, respectively, within the chamber (note generator that can generate plasma in the chamber, see figure 9, coil 933, 0111, 0114, 0115, treatment for each gas as discussed for claim 1 above). A controller 930 is provided (note figure 9, 0118), which is configured to control the gas supply and the plasma generator to provide steps (b)-(d) of claim 1 as discussed with regard to ‘817, as noted above (note 0118-0119, the controller controls operations of the process including gas supply/deliver, power, generator settings, etc). Furthermore, Mizuno as discussed for claim 1 above, would further suggest the forming of the metal deposit containing metal oxide, the reducing of the metal oxide to metal using the second plasma generated from the second processing gas and containing a reducing gas that reduces the metal oxide, and the repeating of the depositing and modifying to control a thickness of a reduced region obtained by the reducing of the metal oxide to the metal with the second plasma on the first region, and therefore, when providing the controller as suggested by ‘817 to control the gas supply and generator to provide the process, the controller would be suggested to provide the steps of claim 1 as claimed.
Clam 12: In ‘817, the first processing gas can further contain a noble gas (note 0058, for example). This is also suggested by Mizuno at 0021.
Claim 13: As to the processing time of step (c) being shorter than step (b), ‘817 indicates that for a cycle, the pulse of the first gas and pulse of the second gas can have different durations, with a possible range of 100 milliseconds to 10 seconds given for each as an example (note 0075), and it would have been obvious to optimize the time for each pulse/step, giving the claimed processing time of step (c) being shorter than step (b).
Claim 18, as to the first and second plasma gases generated in the chamber comprise ICP or CCP, this would be suggested by ‘817 (note 0064).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘817 in view of Mizuno as applied to claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18 above, and further in view of Ogawa et al (US 2015/0111378).
Claim 14: As to using reducing gas with B2H6, for example, as discussed for claim 1 above, ‘817 and Mizuno describe using hydrogen.
Ogawa further describes forming a tungsten layer from WF6 gas, where reducing gas B2H6 can be provided separately in time as a reducing gas for form a tungsten layer as well as H2 reducing gas (note 0059-0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘817 in view of Mizuno to also use B2H6 as a reducing gas as well as H2 as suggested by Ogawa, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘817 in view of Mizuno indicates using WF6 and hydrogen gas to reduce (note the discussion for claims 1, 5 above and ‘817 at 0074), and Ogawa teaches that for reducing to form tungsten using WF6, both H2 and B2H6 can be used for reducing gas.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘817 in view of Mizuno as applied to claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18 above, and further in view of Faguet (US 2007/0116887).
Claim 15: As to providing tungsten with the first processing gas containing W(CO)6 gas, ‘817 and Mizuno describe providing tungsten as discussed for claim 1 above, where the tungsten source can be WF6 (note ‘817 at 0086, for example, and note the discussion for claim 5 above.
Faguet further describes forming a tungsten layer by PEALD, where the tungsten source can be WF6 or W(CO)6, and reduction gas can be H2, for example (note 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘817 in view of Mizuno to also use W(CO)6 as tungsten source gas as well as WF6 as suggested by Faguet, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘817 in view of Mizuno indicates using WF6 and hydrogen gas to reduce, and Ogawa teaches that for reducing to form tungsten can include using WF6 or W(CO)6 as the tungsten source, which can be reduced with H2.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘817 in view of Mizuno as applied to claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18 above, and further in view of Krishnan et al (US 2004/0043567).
Claim 16: as to providing the first material containing silicon nitride and also silicon oxide, as discussed for claim 8 above, ‘817 would suggest this. ‘817 also indicates the system used for semiconductor device manufacturing (note 0030, 0041). Further as to each of a plurality of the first regions forming a gate region of a transistor,
Krishnan further describes providing regions on a semiconductor substrate (note 0021), where the substrate can have regions with transistors with gates (gate regions) (note the first set of transistors with first gate dielectric of peripheral region, for example (note 0023). It is described that the peripheral region can have a first gate dielectric layer 207 with silicon dioxide (note 0025-0027), and a further silicon nitride coating is provided over the first peripheral gate dielectric, note layer 209, which can be patterned (note 0028-0030). A further region with silicon dioxide 213 can also be provided (note 0032-0033). Multigates can be provided (note 0036, figure 5, note 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘817 in view of Mizuno to also provide that a plurality of the first regions of silicon nitride are provided, each of which forms a gate region of a transistor as suggested by Krishnan, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘817 in view of Mizuno indicates providing regions of silicon nitride and silicon oxide and semiconductor device making, and Krishnan indicates that when providing semiconductor devices with areas of silicon nitride and silicon oxide, the silicon nitride can be provided as a plurality of regions each of which forms a gate region of a transistor, giving a format to use when providing the semiconductor device making.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘817 in view of Mizuno as applied to claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18 above, and further in view of Japan 10-032245 (hereinafter ‘245) and Peter et al (US 2022/0122848).
Claim 17: As to further including a mask provided on the second region, with the mask containing metal or silicon and having an opening corresponding to a recess of the second region, as discussed for claim 8 above, ‘817 indicates that regions of silicon nitride (first regions) and silicon oxide (second regions) can be provided, and etching can be provided as discussed for claim 9 above.
‘245 describes forming layers on a semiconductor substrate (note page 2, translation). Layers of silicon nitride (note for example 11, 8, 8a) can be provided and also a layer 9 of silicon oxide, where this layer applies over higher and lower areas, such that the silicon oxide layer 9 initially has a recessed area (note figure 2b, where the layer 9 is more recessed in the center over the opening area, page 2, translation), thereafter a mask would be provided over the silicon leaving an opening corresponding to the recess of the second region (since is masked to allow etching in the center/recess region, described as areas not requiring etching masked with photoresist, note page 2, translation), which after etching leaves exposed silicon oxide regions and silicon nitride regions (note figure 2c).
Peter further describes that when masking an area not to be etched, where the masking is on silicon oxide (higher oxygen containing region) a metal oxide mask (so metal containing) can be applied to the higher oxygen containing region (note 0034, 0013).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘817 in view of Mizuno to also provide masking on the second region of silicon oxide, where the mask contains metal, where the mask has an opening corresponding to a recess in the second region as suggested by ‘245 and Peter, with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since ‘817 in view of Mizuno indicates providing regions with silicon oxide and silicon nitride, and ‘245 would indicate how it can be desired to provide silicon nitride and silicon oxide regions, where the silicon oxide is applied having a recess area to be etched, and a mask can be applied to the non-recessed areas not to be etched of the silicon oxide, and then etching, and Peter describes how it is known to use metal oxide (so metal containing) masks on silicon oxide to mask before etching.
Izumi (US 5306666) notes vapor deposition of metal with plasma treatment, and describes how tungsten hexafluoride can be deposited, adsorbed onto a surface, and then treated with hydrogen gas excited with plasma to reduce to tungsten metal (note column 1, line 60 to column 2, line 60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2026 have been fully considered.
Note the adjustment to the rejections due to the amendments to the claims, and the new claim objections to new claims 14 and 15.
Note that claim 1 is now rejected using ‘817 in view of Mizuno due to the claim amendments. It is argued that ‘817 does not provide the oxide formation and Mizuno provides blanket deposition, which lacks teaching or appreciation of area selective material processing, and there would be no suggestion to incorporate Mizuno into the area-selective features of ‘817 or suggest the step (d) now claimed.
The Examiner has reviewed these arguments, however, the rejections above are maintained. ‘817 indicates providing the area selective mask deposition, when applying the mask over a surface with silicon nitride and silicon oxide regions, or other different materials as discussed for claims 1, 8. While Mizuno does not specifically describe the effect on substrates with different materials, it indicates the effects of using the a tungsten or other metal precursor and hydrogen reducing gases, where ‘817 also indicates using a tungsten or other metal precursor and hydrogen reducing gases, so it is expected that the same selective deposition as in ‘817 occurs, based on the effect of the substrate material on the applying coating. As noted by ‘817, based on the second material used (such as silicon oxide), the second material will be etched by the first plasma (note 0082-0084), where the material etched by the gas will obviously have less/no coating deposited because the surface is being etched (note rejection of claim 9). As to step (d) this is suggested b ‘817 and Mizuno as discussed in the rejections above. The new claims are rejected as discussed in the above rejections.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights