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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 11-15 & 18-23 are rejected 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.
With regards to claim 1, the limitation of “wherein the second surface contains silicon nitride so that the precursor gas and the reaction gas are not mixed with each other” is unclear. How can a surface prevent the mixing of two gases? Does the limitation of “so that the precursor gas and the reaction gas are not mixed with each other” happen because the second surface contains silicon nitride or does it occur because of the alternating supplying of precursor and reaction gas? To further prosecution, the Examiner interprets that the gases are not mixed due to the alternating supply of the precursor and reaction gas. Appropriate correction is required to clear up the ambiguity of the claim.
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, 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 Godet (US Pub no. 2017/0323778 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Murakami et al discloses a method of processing a substrate(201), including a first surface(202) that contains oxygen and a second surface (203)that contains silicon nitride, comprising: modifying the first surface of the substrate(201) 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); and selectively growing a film (205) on the second surface (203) of the substrate by alternatively supplying a precursor gas and a reaction gas that reacts with the precursor gas[0041-0042], as a deposition gas, to the substrate(201) wherein the second surface (203) contains silicon nitride fig.4 so that the precursor gas (DCS)and the reaction gas(NH3) are not mixed with each other[0041-0042](Based on the 112 rejection the Examiner interprets that “the not mixed by each other” is a function of the alternating supply of precursor and reaction gas).
Murakami et al fails to teach a fluorine containing gas.
Godet et al discloses a method of performing ALD process in selected zones of a workpiece which includes treating oxide surface(105-1 Material A) with a fluorocarbon(CF4 – fluorocarbon gas is a requirement for CF4 plasma [0004] ) to inhibit atomic layer growth [0030-0031]. Since fluorocarbon gas is one of finite solution to inhibit growth of an oxide surface, 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 11, Murakami et al discloses wherein the modifying gas(BCl3 or HCl) and the precursor gas(DCS) 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”).
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).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami et al discloses A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device processing the substrate by performing the method of claim 1 [0003]
Regarding claim 20, Murakami et al in view of Godet et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying the first surface, halogen termination is formed on the first surface by adsorbing fluorine in the fluorine-containing gas on the first surface[0030].
Regarding claim 21, Murakami et al in view of Godet et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying the first surface, halogen termination is formed on the first surface by adsorbing fluorine in the fluorine-containing gas more on the first surface than on the second surface[0030].
Regarding claim 22, Murakami et al in view of Godet et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying
the first surface, halogen termination is formed on the first surface by replacing the
oxygen contained in the first surface with fluorine in the fluorine-containing gas[0030].
Regarding claim 23, Murakami et al in view of Godet et al discloses wherein in the act of modifying
the first surface, halogen termination is formed on the first surface by causing a
reaction of a molecule in the fluorine-containing gas with the first surface[0030].
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 Godet (US Pub no. 2017/0323778 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 Godet 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 & Godet et al with the teachings of Patterson et al to control spatial plasma uniformity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1, 5, 7-11, 13-14,18, & 19-23 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection. Claims 5, 7-11 and 13-14 previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter but formally objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim are now finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because of the amendment made to claim 1.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights