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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, & 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation of “wherein the act of modifying the first surface is performed while heating the substrate at 300 degrees C or lower” is not enabling because the claim range includes temperatures less than 30 degrees Celsius , where the reaction fails to occur and the halogen termination is not formed. The specification states[0079] pp 19-20: When the temperature of the wafer 200 is set higher than 30 degrees C, the reaction between the SiO₂ layer and the fluorine component (F) contained in the WF₆ gas occurs to form halogen termination on the SiO₂ layer, but when the temperature of the wafer 200 is set lower than 30 degrees C, the WF₆ gas may not react with the SiO₂ layer on the surface of the wafer 200 and the halogen termination may not be formed on the SiO₂ layer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7,10,11, 12,15 & 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US Pub no. 2017/0278705 A1) in view of Degai (US Pub no. 2019/0304791 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami et al discloses a method of processing a substrate(201, [0032], fig. 3), including a first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3) that contains oxygen and a second surface (203, [0037], fig. 3)that contains silicon nitride, comprising: modifying the first surface of the substrate(201, [0032], fig. 3)by supplying a modifying gas, which is a first halide, containing a halogen-containing gas (204-BCl3 or HCl) to the substrate(201)[0037][0040] ,wherein the first surface contains oxygen(202,[0037], fig. 3); and selectively growing a film (205, [0039], fig. 4) on the second surface (203, [0039], fig. 4) of the substrate (201)by alternatively supplying a precursor gas and a reaction gas that reacts with the precursor gas[0041-0042][0045], as a deposition gas, to the substrate(201) wherein the second surface (203, [0039], fig. 4) contains silicon nitride fig.4 so that the precursor gas (DCS)and the reaction gas(NH3) are not mixed with each other[0041-0042]( the not mixed by each other” is a function of the alternating supply of precursor and reaction gas).
Murakami et al further teaches wherein the act of modifying the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3) is performed while heating the substrate (201)[0040] but fails to teach at 300 degrees C or lower; and that the modifying gas is a fluorine containing gas. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a temperature of 300 degrees or less through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Degai et al discloses exposing a silicon oxide film to a halogen termination step supplying WF6 gas [0092][0094]. Since WF6 gas is one of finite solution to terminate surfaces of an oxygen containing surface of a substrate with a halogen component[0094] as taught by Degai et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Murakami et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Regarding claim 7, Murakami et al discloses wherein the precursor gas is a second halide[0045].
Regarding claim 10, Murakami et al discloses wherein the second halide is a
chlorine-containing gas[0045].
Regarding claim 11, Murakami et al in view of Degai et al discloses wherein the modifying gas(WF6)( Degai et al [0094]) and the precursor gas(DCS) (Murakami et al)each have a ligand which is electrically negative[0040][0035](Examiner notes DCS,HCl,BCl3 have chlorine ligands and are more electrically negative than hydrogen , boron, and silicon and inherently meet “negative ligand”/ fluorine of WF6 has a negative ligand).
Regarding claim 12, Murakami et al discloses wherein the act of selectively growing the film(nitride) on the second surface is performed while heating the substrate at 500 degrees C or higher[0042].
Regarding claim 15, Murakami et al discloses wherein the first surface is a
silicon oxide layer (202,[0037], fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami et al in view of Degai et al discloses A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device processing the substrate by performing the method of claim 1[0037][0039]- Murakami et al/ [0092][0094]- Degai et al
Regarding claim 20, Murakami et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3)[0040], halogen termination is formed on the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3) but fails to teach by adsorbing fluorine in the fluorine-containing gas on the first surface.
Degai et al discloses exposing a silicon oxide film to a halogen termination step supplying WF6 gas [0092][0094]. Since WF6 gas is one of finite solution to terminate surfaces of an oxygen containing surface of a substrate with a halogen component[0094] as taught by Degai et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Murakami et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Regarding claim 21, Murakami et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3), halogen termination is formed on the first surface by adsorbing a halogen gas [0037][0040]but fails to teach the halogen gas is fluorine in the fluorine-containing gas more on the first surface than on the second surface.
Degai et al discloses exposing a silicon oxide film to a halogen termination step supplying WF6 gas [0092][0094]. Since WF6 gas is one of finite solution to terminate surfaces of an oxygen containing surface of a substrate with a halogen component[0094] as taught by Degai et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Murakami et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Regarding claim 22, Murakami et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3), halogen termination is formed on the first surface by replacing the oxygen contained in the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3) [0040] but fails to teach with fluorine in the fluorine-containing gas.
Degai et al discloses exposing a silicon oxide film to a halogen termination step supplying WF6 gas [0092][0094]. Since WF6 gas is one of finite solution to terminate surfaces of an oxygen containing surface of a substrate with a halogen component[0094] as taught by Degai et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Murakami et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Regarding claim 23, Murakami et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying
the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3), halogen termination is formed on the first surface(202,[0037], fig. 3) [0040] but fails to teach by causing a
reaction of a molecule in the fluorine-containing gas with the first surface.
Degai et al discloses exposing a silicon oxide film to a halogen termination step supplying WF6 gas [0092][0094]. Since WF6 gas is one of finite solution to terminate surfaces of an oxygen containing surface of a substrate with a halogen component[0094] as taught by Degai et al , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Murakami et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (US Pub no. 2017/0278705 A1) in view of Degai (US Pub no. 2019/0304791 A1) applied to claim 1 and further in view of Paterson (US Pub no. 2008/0230008 A1)
Regarding claim 18, Murakami et al as modified by Degai et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the act of modifying the first surface includes pulse-supplying the modifying gas.
However, Paterson et al pulse-supplying the modifying gas[0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Murakami et al & Degai et al with the teachings of Patterson et al to control spatial plasma uniformity.
Related Art
Godet et al (US Pub no. 2017/0323778 A1)discloses treatment of a T-oxide or TEOS surface with a fluorocarbon plasma to achieve a hydrophilic surface and further teaches growth material formed on a second surface of Cu or TiN , Godet et al fails to teach or suggest: the second surface is comprised of silicon nitride and the specific heating temperature used during the fluorocarbon plasma step.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
