Applied Materials, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 21, 2021

2020000798 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/297,270 10/19/2016 Mark Saly 023420USA 3562 67251 7590 01/21/2021 SERVILLA WHITNEY LLC/AMT 33 WOOD AVE SOUTH SUITE 830 ISELIN, NJ 08830 EXAMINER TUROCY, DAVID P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1718 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/21/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@dsiplaw.com hservilla@dsiplaw.com lmurphy@dsiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARK SALY, KEIICHI TANAKA, ESWARANAND VENKATASUBRAMANIAN, MANDYAM SRIRAM, BHASKAR JYOTI BHUYAN, PRAMIT MANNA, DAVID THOMPSON, and ANDREW SHORT ____________ Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, GEORGE C. BEST, and JEFFREY R. SNAY, Administrative Patent Judges. BEST, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–11 and 13–20 of Application 15/297,270. Final Act. (February 12, 2019). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. In doing so, we rely upon reasoning that differs from the Examiner. We, therefore, designate our 1 The word “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Applied Materials, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 2 affirmance as constituting a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). I. BACKGROUND The ’270 Application describes methods for depositing thin film layers in microelectronic device fabrication. Spec. ¶ 2. In particular, the Specification describes what are said to be improved methods for filling narrow trenches having aspect ratios greater than 10:1. Id. ¶ 3. The improved methods comprise exposing a substrate surface having at least one feature thereon to an organic-based poisoning agent which preferentially poisons a top of the feature relative to a bottom of the feature. Id. ¶ 5. A film is then deposited in the feature in a bottom-up manner. Id. Claims 1 and 15 are representative of the ’270 Application’s claims and are reproduced below from the Appeal Brief’s Claims Appendix. 1. A processing method comprising: exposing a substrate surface having at least one feature thereon to an organic-based poisoning agent comprising an inhibitor to preferentially poison a top of the at least one feature relative to a bottom of the at least one feature, the at least one feature having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 10:1; and depositing a film comprising silicon in the at least one feature in a bottom-up manner, such that growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the organic-based poisoning agent and such that there are no voids or seams present in the at least one feature. Appeal Br. 27 (emphasis added). 15. A processing method comprising: positioning a substrate surface in a processing chamber, the substrate surface having at least one feature thereon, the at least one feature creating a gap with a bottom, top and Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 3 sidewalls, and having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 10:1; exposing the substrate surface to an organic-based poisoning agent to preferentially inhibit film growth at the top of the at least one feature relative to a bottom of the at least one feature; sequentially exposing the substrate surface to a precursor and a reactant to deposit a layer in the gap; and repeating exposure to the precursor and reactant to fill the gap of the at least one feature in a bottom-up manner, such that growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the organic-based poisoning agent and such that there are no voids or seams present in the at least one feature. Id. at 28 (emphasis added). II. REJECTIONS On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections: 1. Claims 1–11 and 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Tang2 and Ueda.3 Final Act. 6; Answer 3. 2. Claims 1–11 and 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Tang, Ueda, and Chandrashekar.4 Final Act. 6; Answer 8. 2 US 2015/0243545 A1, published August 27, 2015. 3 US 2012/0276306 A1, published November 1, 2012. 4 US 10,256,142 B2, issued April 9, 2019. Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 4 3. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Tang, Ueda, and either Sershen5 or Kato.6 Final Act. 7; Answer 9. 4. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Tang, Ueda, Chandrashekar, and either Sershen or Kato. Final Act. 7; Answer 10. III. DISCUSSION A. Rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–19 as obvious over Tang and Ueda Appellant argues for reversal of this rejection on the basis of limitations in independent claims 1 and 15. Appeal Br. 11–17. Dependent claims 2–11, 13, 14, and 16–19 are alleged to be patentable for the same reasons as their parent independent claims. Id. at 15–17. We, therefore, limit our discussion to the independent claims. 1. The Examiner’s rejection Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15 should be reversed for either of two reasons. First, Appellant argues that the combination of Tang and Ueda is improper. Id. at 13–16. In particular, Appellant argues that “[t]here is no rational reason one skilled in the art faced with the teachings of Tang, which discloses a seamless process[,] would look to the teachings of Ueda[,] which discloses a process resulting in voids and seams.” Id. at 14. This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner relies upon Ueda for its teaching that organic inhibitors, including primary, secondary, or tertiary 5 US 2012/0141676 A1, published June 7, 2012. 6 US 8,808,456 B2, issued August 19, 2014. Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 5 amines, can be used to create plasma that inhibits atomic layer deposition processes. Answer 4. As the Examiner found, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use Ueda’s known inhibitors with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results as a substitute for Tang’s use of ammonia as an inhibitor. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Second, Appellant argues that the combination of Tang and Ueda does not describe or suggest every limitation in independent claims 1 and 15. Appeal Br. 11–13. Both independent claims 1 and 15 recite that “growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the organic-based poisoning agent.” According to Appellant, neither Tang nor Ueda describes or suggests this limitation. Id. In rejecting claims 1 and 15, the Examiner found that “Tang discloses depositing a silicon film in the feature in a bottom-up manner such that the growth on the top is less than 25% of the growth at the bottom after exposure of the poisoning agent such that there are no voids or seams.” Final Act. 3; Answer 5–6 (citing Tang ¶¶ 39–40, Figures 5A–5D). Appellant argues that this finding is erroneous. In particular, Appellant argues that, at most, Tang teaches that deposition on the lower portions of the feature is less inhibited than deposition on the top of the feature, while deposition at the bottom of the feature is not inhibited. See Appeal Br. 12–13 (discussing Tang ¶ 39, Figure 5B). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred by finding that Tang describes or suggests that the growth rate on top of the feature is less than Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 6 25% of the growth rate at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the poisoning agent. For ease of reference, we reproduce Tang’s Figure 5B below: Tang’s Figure 5B shows deposition of an oxide layer after one atomic layer deposition (ALD) cycle. Tang ¶¶ 27, 41. Figure 5B shows substrate 500, including feature 502. Tang ¶ 41. Feature 502 includes sidewalls 504 and bottom 506. Id. Substrate 500 was treated with an inhibitor plasma before the first ALD cycle. Id. After one ALD cycle, oxide layer 512 is deposited upon substrate 500. Id. Oxide layer 522 also is deposited at feature bottom 506 and on the lower portions of sidewalls 504. Id. Oxide layer 512 “has a reduced thickness in areas such as the field and a thickness that increases with a depth in the feature 502.” Id. While Tang qualitatively describes the growth rate of the oxide layer on the top of the feature as less than the growth rate of the oxide layer at the bottom of the feature, Tang does not provide any indication of the quantitative difference between these growth rates. See Tang ¶¶ 39–41. Moreover, there is no indication that Tang’s drawings are to scale. Thus, the Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 7 relative thicknesses of the layers depicted at the top and bottom of feature 502 in Tang’s Figure 5A–5D cannot support the Examiner’s finding. In sum, the Examiner’s finding that Tang describes or suggests that “growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the organic- based poisoning agent” is not supported by the evidence cited in the Final Action. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner advances two new arguments in support of this finding. Neither of these arguments is sufficient to support the finding. First, the Examiner argues that “the claims encompass a process that is taught by Tang at figure 5D, because the claims are drafted to include the complete process.” Answer 12. This argument is unpersuasive because it is based upon an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claims 1 and 15. When the ’270 Application’s claims are read in view of the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims’ language is that the phrase “growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature” is that it refers to the relative rates of growth of the layers deposited at these locations. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 72; Figure 6C. Based upon this interpretation of the language of claims 1 and 15, we determine that Tang’s Figure 5D cannot support a finding that the growth rate the bottom of feature 502 is more than four times greater than the growth rate at the top of feature 502 because feature 502 is filled by a combination of growth from the bottom-up and from the sidewalls 504 of feature 502. Thus, one cannot determine from Tang’s disclosure what the relative growth rates are on the surface of substrate 500 and the bottom surface 506 of the feature 502. Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 8 Second, the Examiner argues that the limitation is described or suggested by the growth of the deposited layer along the outside edges of the bottom of feature 502 in Tang’s Figure 5B. Answer 12. This argument is not persuasive because most of the material that is deposited along the outside edges of the bottom of feature 502 and relied upon by the Examiner is the result of deposition along the side walls of feature 502 rather than deposition on the bottom of feature 502. 2. New ground of rejection As explained above, we do not affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 15 on the basis set forth by the Examiner. Nevertheless, we affirm the rejection because we determine that the limitation at issue, which requires that “growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the organic- based poisoning agent” is insufficient to confer patentability upon the subject matter of claims 1 and 15 for either of two reasons. First, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have arrived at the missing limitation as a matter of routine optimization. To such a person, Tang suggests that the relative rates of oxide film growth at the top and bottom of the isolation trench is a result-effective variable. In particular, Tang describes a method of seamlessly filling shallow trench isolation (STI) features with silicon oxide. Tang ¶¶ 2, 8. Tang teaches that when the surface of the substrate containing an STI feature is not treated with a poisoning agent, “a seam usually remains at a center of the trench after the film that is deposited on the side walls merges.” Id. ¶ 8. Tang further teaches that preferential poisoning of the surface at the top of the STI feature relative to the bottom of the STI feature selectively inhibits Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 9 deposition at the feature top while “deposition in lower portions of the feature proceeds with less inhibition or without being inhibited. As a result, bottom-up fill is enhanced, which creates a more favorable sloped profile that mitigates the seam effect.” Id. ¶ 32. A person of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would recognize that the relative rates of oxide film growth at the top and bottom of the STI feature is a result-effective variable that is subject to optimization. In the process of optimizing the process described and suggested by the combination of Tang and Ueda, the skilled artisan would arrive at the claimed relative growth rates. Second, in rejecting claims 1 and 15, the Examiner found that the combination of Tang and Ueda describe or suggest every step of the claimed process. Appellant does not challenge this finding. Both methods involve exposing the substrate, which has a feature formed thereon, to an organic poisoning agent and then growing a silicon oxide layer on the partially- poiosoned substrate using an ALD process. It has long been the law that under such circumstances, a product produced by a process that is substantially identical to the claimed process may be assumed inherently to have the same properties as the product produced by the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). Thus, we are entitled to assume that the growth rate of the oxide film at the top of the feature grows at a rate that is less than 25% of the growth rate of the oxide film at the bottom of the feature in the process described and suggested by the combination of Tang and Ueda. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims 2–11, 13, 14, and 16–19. Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 10 Because our affirmance relies upon reasoning that differs from that of the Examiner, we designate it as constituting a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b). B. Rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–19 as obvious over Tang, Ueda, and Chandrashekar Appellant presents the same argument for reversal of this rejection that was presented in arguing for reversal of the rejection over the combination of Tang and Ueda. See Appeal Br. 17–19. As discussed above, we have affirmed that rejection, designating our affirmance as setting forth a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims 1–11 and 13–19 as obvious over the combination of Tang, Ueda, and Chandrashekar and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. C. Rejection of claim 20 as obvious over Tang, Ueda, and either Sershen or Kato Independent claim 20 reads: 20. A processing method comprising: placing a substrate having a substrate surface into a processing chamber comprising a plurality of sections, each section separated from adjacent sections by a gas curtain, the substrate surface having at least one feature with a top, bottom and sides and an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 10:1; exposing at least a portion of the substrate surface to a first process condition in a first section of the processing chamber, the first process condition comprising an organic- based poisoning agent to preferentially inhibit film growth at the top of the at least one feature relative to the bottom of the at least one feature, such that growth on the top of the at least one feature is less than about 25% of the growth that occurs at the bottom of the feature after exposure to the organic-based poisoning agent and such that there are no voids or seams present in the at least one feature; Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 11 laterally moving the substrate surface through a gas curtain to a second section of the processing chamber; exposing the substrate surface to a second process condition in the second section of the processing chamber, the second process condition comprising silicon precursor; laterally moving the substrate surface through a gas curtain to a third section of the processing chamber; exposing the substrate surface to a third process condition in the third section of the processing chamber, the third process condition comprising an oxygen-containing reactant to form a SiO2 film; and repeating exposure to the first section, second section and third section including lateral movement of the substrate surface to fill the at least one feature. Appeal Br. 29–30 (emphasis added). Appellant presents the same argument for reversal of this rejection that was presented in arguing for reversal of the rejection of claims 1 and 15 over the combination of Tang and Ueda. See Appeal Br. 19–24. As discussed above, we have affirmed that rejection, designating our affirmance as setting forth a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 20 as obvious over the combination of Tang, Ueda, and either Sershen or Kato and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. D. Rejection of claim 20 as obvious over Tang, Ueda, Chandrashekar, and either Sershen or Kato Appellant presents the same argument for reversal of this rejection that was presented in arguing for reversal of the rejection of claim 20 over the combination of Tang, Ueda, and either Sershen or Kato. See Appeal Br. 19–24. As discussed above, we have affirmed that rejection, designating our affirmance as setting forth a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, we also Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 12 affirm the rejection of claim 20 as obvious over the combination of Tang, Ueda, Chandrashekar, and either Sershen or Kato and designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. IV. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–11, 13–19 103 Tang, Ueda 1–11, 13–19 1–11, 13–19 103 Tang, Ueda, Chandrashekar 1–11, 13–19 20 103 Tang, Ueda, Sershen or Kato 20 20 103 Tang, Ueda, Chandrashekar, Sershen or Kato 20 Overall Outcome 1–11, 13–20 This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), which provides that “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . . Appeal 2020-000798 Application 15/297,270 13 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)