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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of an RCE filed on 03/11/26 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim #1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2013/0183835), hereinafter referred to as "Nguyen" as modified by NAKAMURA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Nakamura”, CHIU et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Chiu”, Blanquart et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0182613), hereinafter referred to as “Blanquart” and in further view of Mukai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0017267), hereinafter referred to as “Mukai”.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system of forming a silicon nitride layer (fig. #2a, item 204), the method comprising the steps of: providing a substrate (fig. #1, item 190) (paragraph 0020) comprising a surface (fig. #1, item 195) (paragraph 0025) within a reaction chamber (fig. #1, item 125) (paragraph 0021); and after the pretreatment step, depositing a layer of silicon nitride (paragraph 0010).
Nguyen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 and 21 above.
Nguyen fails to show, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system comprising performing a pretreatment step, wherein the pretreatment step comprises exposing the silicon oxide to activated species from a pretreatment gas, wherein the pretreatment gas consists of one or more of ammonia, hydrazine, diatomic nitrogen (N2), and diatomic hydrogen (H2) and optionally an inert gas.
Nakamura teaches, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system comprising performing a pretreatment step (paragraph 0003, 0064) wherein the pretreatment step comprises exposing the silicon oxide (fig. #2, or surface of item 200) (paragraph 0072) to activated species from a pretreatment gas (paragraph 0052, 0099), wherein the pretreatment gas consists of one or more of ammonia, hydrazine and optionally an inert gas, wherein the pretreatment step comprises forming N-H or N-H2 bonds on the surface (paragraph 0156).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, to modified the invention of Nguyen, with the modification as shown by the invention of Nakamura, which teaches a method comprising performing a pretreatment step, wherein the pretreatment step comprises exposing the silicon oxide to activated species from a pretreatment gas, wherein the pretreatment gas consists of one or more of ammonia, hydrazine, and optionally an inert gas, to incorporate material capable of suppressing a degradation of a function of a nitride film as a protective film, as taught by Nakamura.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1, 21 and 22 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, fail to show, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system, wherein the pretreatment step comprises a pulsed plasma process.
Chiu teaches, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system, wherein the pretreatment step comprises a pulsed plasma process (paragraph 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, with the modification as shown by the invention of Chiu, which teaches a method/structure/system, wherein the pretreatment step comprises a pulsed plasma process, to incorporate a manufacturing condition that offers superior control advantages, enhanced material properties (hardness, wear resistance), higher efficiency, and environmental benefits (less gas/water) across various applications, which allows for the managing of the plasma energy in a cleaner, faster, process with enhanced, uniform results, minimal thermal damage, as taught by Chiu.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura and Chiu, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1, 21 and 22 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura and Chiu, fail to show, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system comprising on the treated surface within the reaction chamber using a plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process, wherein a deposition cycle comprises providing a silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber and providing a reactant comprising a nitrogen source to the reaction chamber.
Blanquart teaches, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system comprising on the treated surface within the reaction chamber using a plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process (paragraph 0031), wherein a deposition cycle comprises providing a silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber and providing a reactant comprising a nitrogen source to the reaction chamber (paragraph 0033, 0035, 0072).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura and Chiu, with the modification as shown by the invention of Blanquart, which teaches a method comprising on the treated surface within the reaction chamber using a plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process, wherein a deposition cycle comprises providing a silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber and providing a reactant comprising a nitrogen source to the reaction chamber, to incorporate a manufacturing condition wherein the silicon-containing species are adsorbed to a surface of the substrate, as taught by Blanquart.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu and Blanquart, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu and Blanquart, fail to show, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system of providing a substrate comprising a surface within a reaction chamber, wherein the surface comprises silicon oxide.
Mukai teaches, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, a method/structure/system of providing a substrate comprising a surface within a reaction chamber, wherein the surface comprises silicon oxide (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, 21 and 22, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu and Blanquart, with the modification as shown by the invention of Mukai, which teaches a method of providing a substrate comprising a surface within a reaction chamber, wherein the surface comprises silicon oxide, to incorporate a manufacturing condition desired for deposition of further materials, as taught by Mukai.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1, 21 and 22 above.
Nguyen as modified by Blanquart, Chiu and Mukai, fail to show, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the pretreatment gas comprises two or more of ammonia, hydrazine.
Nakamura teaches, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the pretreatment gas comprises two or more of ammonia (NH3), hydrazine (N2H4), (paragraph 0156).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Blanquart, Chiu and Mukai, with the modification as shown by the invention of Nakamura, which teaches a method comprising a method wherein the pretreatment gas comprises two or more of ammonia, hydrazine, to incorporate material capable of suppressing a degradation of a function of a nitride film as a protective film, as taught by Nakamura.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the surface comprises one or more features having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 10, and wherein the layer of silicon nitride is deposited into the one or more features with a step coverage greater than approximately 90% (paragraph 0010-0011, 0020-0021).
The Examiner notes that the prior of record does not state explicitly the structural/device of the limitation of claim #4; wherein the surface comprises one or more features having an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 10 and wherein the layer of silicon nitride is deposited into the one or more features with a step coverage greater than approximately 90%. However, the Examiner notes that the current claim language is directed to a device requirement where the method is to be performed. The Examiner takes the position that defining the location of the deployment of the method has not shown an effective method of it’s creation. Notwithstanding, the applicant has not established the critical nature of a method wherein the surface comprises an aspect ratio greater than or equal to 10 or wherein the layer of silicon nitride is deposited with a step coverage greater than approximately 90%. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ. Thus, the position of the Examiner is that to present structure of the presently presented claim language fails to show a criticality of the chosen location to the method of manufacturing. For these reasons, the Examiner takes the position that the method claim by claim #4 and claim #1 of which it depends, is indeed taught by Nguyen as modified by Blanquart and Mukai.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the pretreatment gas comprises an inert gas (paragraph 0010-0011, 0022).
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the pretreatment step is less than 45 seconds (paragraph 0049).
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown above in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu and Mukai fail to show, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the deposition cycle further comprises: after providing the silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber, purging the reaction chamber, and after providing a reactant comprising a nitrogen source to the reaction chamber, performing a second purge and wherein the deposition cycle is repeated until a desired thickness of the layer of silicon nitride is achieved.
Blanquart teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the deposition cycle further comprises: after providing the silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber (paragraph 0032, 0035), purging the reaction chamber, and after providing a reactant comprising a nitrogen source to the reaction chamber, performing a second purge and wherein the deposition cycle is repeated until a desired thickness of the layer of silicon nitride is achieved (paragraph 0032-0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu and Mukai, with the modifications of Blanquart, which teaches a method wherein the deposition cycle further comprises: after providing the silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber, purging the reaction chamber, and after providing a reactant comprising a nitrogen source to the reaction chamber, performing a second purge and wherein the deposition cycle is repeated until a desired thickness of the layer of silicon nitride is achieved, to incorporate a low power plasma capable of producing diatomic characteristics, as taught by Blanquart.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein a reactant is continuously flowed during the steps of providing a precursor to the reaction chamber and forming activated reactant species within the reaction chamber (paragraph 0038).
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein the step of forming activated reactant species within the reaction chamber comprises forming activated species from one or more gases comprising nitrogen and hydrogen (paragraph 0010-0011).
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein a power used to form a plasma during the step of forming activated reactant species within the reaction chamber is between about 10 W and about 4 kW (paragraph 0034).
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein the pretreatment step comprises forming N-H or N-H2 bonds on the surface of the substrate (paragraph 0010, 0018. 0038).
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #15, a method wherein a power used to form a plasma during the step of exposing the substrate to activated species is between about 10 W and about 4 kW (paragraph 0034).
//
Claim #7, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2013/0183835), hereinafter referred to as "Nguyen" as modified by NAKAMURA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Nakamura”, CHIU et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Chiu”, Blanquart et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0182613), hereinafter referred to as “Blanquart” and Mukai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0017267), hereinafter referred to as “Mukai” as shown in the rejection of claim #1 and in further view of Swaminathan et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0028454), hereinafter referred to as “Swaminathan”.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, fail to show, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein a pulse frequency of the pulsed plasma process is about 1000 Hz to about 100000 Hz.
Swaminathan teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein a pulse frequency (paragraph 0066, 0127) of the pulsed plasma process is about 1000 Hz to about 100000 Hz (50kHz and 500kHz which equates to 50,000 to 500,000 Hz) (paragraph 0236).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Mukai and Blanquart, with the modification of Swaminathan’s invention, which teaches, a method wherein a pulse frequency of the pulsed plasma process is about 1000 Hz to about 100000 Hz, to incorporate a method that can be appreciated to provide suitable parameters that may be modulated discretely or continuously to provide plasma energy for the surface reactions, as taught by Swaminathan.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Mukai, Blanquart and Swaminathan substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #7 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu Mukai and Swaminathan, fail to show, with respect to claim #12, a method ,wherein the pulsed plasma process comprises a pulsed plasma with an on-time duty ratio greater than 50%.
Blanquart teaches, with respect to claim #12, a method ,wherein the pulsed plasma process comprises a pulsed plasma with an on-time duty ratio greater than 50% (paragraph 0051, 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #12, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Mukai and Swaminathan, with the modification as shown by the invention of Blanquart, which teaches, a method wherein the pulsed plasma process comprises a pulsed plasma with an on-time duty ratio greater than 50%to incorporate a low power plasma capable of producing diatomic characteristics, as taught by Blanquart.
///
Claim #16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2013/0183835), hereinafter referred to as "Nguyen" as modified by CHIU et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Chiu” and in further view of Bayman et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,787,483), hereinafter referred to as “Bayman”.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #16, a method of forming a silicon nitride layer, the method comprising the steps of: providing a substrate (fig. #1, item 190) (paragraph 0020) with a surface within a reaction chamber (fig. #1, item 125) (paragraph 0021, 0028); performing a pretreatment process, wherein the pretreatment process comprises the sub-steps of exposing the substrate to a silicon-containing precursor (precursor gases; paragraph 0010, 0011) for thermal adsorption of silicon onto a surface of the substrate (paragraph 0007); and after the pretreatment process depositing a layer of silicon nitride (fig. #2a, item 204) on the treated surface within the reaction chamber (paragraph 0027, 0054).
Nguyen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #16 above.
Nguyen fails to show, with respect to claim #16 a method comprising performing a pretreatment step, wherein the pretreatment step comprises exposing the silicon oxide to activated species from a pretreatment gas, wherein the pretreatment gas consists of one or more of ammonia, hydrazine, diatomic nitrogen (N2), and diatomic hydrogen (H2) and optionally an inert gas.
Chiu teaches, with respect to claim #16 a method comprising performing a pretreatment step (fig. #2, item 21) (paragraph 0015) wherein the pretreatment step comprises exposing the silicon oxide to activated species from a pretreatment gas, wherein the pretreatment gas consists of one or more of ammonia, hydrazine, diatomic nitrogen (N2), and diatomic hydrogen (H2) and optionally an inert gas, wherein the pretreatment step comprises forming N-H or N-H2 bonds on the surface (paragraph 0014, 0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #16, to modified the invention of Nguyen, with the modification as shown by the invention of Chiu, which teaches a method comprising performing a pretreatment step, wherein the pretreatment step comprises exposing the silicon oxide to activated species from a pretreatment gas, wherein the pretreatment gas consists of one or more of ammonia, hydrazine, diatomic nitrogen (N2), and diatomic hydrogen (H2) and optionally an inert gas, to incorporate a manufacturing condition desired for deposition of further materials, depositing a layer of silicon nitride, to incorporate a manufacturing condition that provides an insulating layer, as taught by Chiu.
Nguyen as modified by Chiu, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #16 above.
Nguyen as modified by Chiu, fails to show, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein the silicon-containing precursor consists of silicon and hydrogen and on the treated surface within the reaction chamber using a plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process on the surface within the reaction chamber.
Bayman teaches, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein the silicon-containing precursor consists of silicon and hydrogen (column #2, line 46-58) on the treated surface within the reaction chamber using a plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process (column #1, line 58-67, column #2, line 1-3, 16-25), on the surface within the reaction chamber (column #7, line 17-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #16, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Chiu, with the modification as shown by the invention of Bayman, which teaches a method wherein the silicon-containing precursor consists of silicon and hydrogen and on the treated surface within the reaction chamber using a plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process on the surface within the reaction chamber, to incorporate a structure that provides the desired thickness, as taught by Bayman.
////
Claim #17, 18, 23, 24, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2013/0183835), hereinafter referred to as "Nguyen" as modified by CHIU et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Chiu” and Bayman et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,787,483), hereinafter referred to as “Bayman” as shown in the rejection of claim #16 above and in further view of Blanquart et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0182613), hereinafter referred to as “Blanquart”.
Nguyen as modified by Chiu, Bayman and Blanquart substantially shows the clamed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #16 above.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #17, a method wherein the step of exposing the substrate to a silicon-containing precursor adsorbs silicon-containing molecules on the surface of the substrate, such that the surface is terminated with Si-H bonds (paragraph 0046).
Nguyen as modified by Chiu, Bayman and Blanquart, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #17 above.
Nguyen as modified by Chiu and Bayman, fail to show, with respect to claim #18, wherein a cycle of the plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process comprises: providing the silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber, purging the reaction chamber, forming activated reactant species within the reaction chamber, and purging activated reactant species; and wherein the cyclical deposition process is repeated until a desired thickness of the layer of silicon nitride is achieved.
Blanquart teaches, with respect to claim #18, wherein a cycle of the plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process comprises (paragraph 0031): providing the silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber (paragraph 0072), purging the reaction chamber (paragraph 0072), forming activated reactant species within the reaction chamber, and purging activated reactant species (paragraph 0046, 0060); and wherein the cyclical deposition process is repeated until a desired thickness of the layer of silicon nitride is achieved (paragraph 0031, 0046, 0060)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #18, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Chiu and Bayman, with the modification of the invention of Blanquart, which teaches, wherein a cycle of the plasma-enhanced cyclical deposition process comprises: providing the silicon halide precursor to the reaction chamber, purging the reaction chamber, forming activated reactant species within the reaction chamber, and purging activated reactant species; and wherein the cyclical deposition process is repeated until a desired thickness of the layer of silicon nitride is achieved, to incorporate a structural condition that would a high purity of deposited material as well as provide a desired thickness, as taught by Blanquart.
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #23, a method wherein the silicon-containing precursor consists of one or more of silane (SiH4), disilane (Si2H6), and trisilane (Si3H5), (paragraph 0011, 0030).
Nguyen shows, with respect to claim #24, a method wherein the one or more gases comprising nitrogen and hydrogen comprise one or more of ammonia (NH3) and hydrazine (N2H4), (paragraph 0156).
/////
Claim #19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2013/0183835), hereinafter referred to as "Nguyen" as modified by NAKAMURA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Nakamura”, CHIU et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0103885), hereinafter referred to as “Chiu”, Blanquart et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0182613), hereinafter referred to as “Blanquart” and Mukai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0017267), hereinafter referred to as “Mukai”, as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of KALUTARAGE et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0243323), hereinafter referred to as "Kalutarage".
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown above in the rejection of claim #1.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, fail to show, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the step of exposing the substrate to activated species comprises a pulsed plasma process.
Kalutarage teaches, with respect to claim #19, a method of introducing the plasma into the process utilizing pulses of precursors or reactive gases and plasma to process layer (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #19, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Blanquart, Chiu and Mukai, with the modification of the invention of Kalutarage, which teaches, a method comprising a step of exposing the substrate to activated species comprises a pulsed plasma process, to incorporate a structure wherein the pulse delivery allows for an increased tuning of the plasma characteristics, as taught by Kalutarage
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Blanquart, Chiu, Mukai and Kalutarage substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #19 above.
Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Blanquart, Chiu and Mukai, fails to show, with respect to claim #20, a method wherein a power to produce a plasma is pulsed during the step of exposing the substrate to activated species.
Kalutarage teaches, with respect to claim #20, a method of introducing the plasma into the process utilizing pulses of precursors or reactive gases and plasma to process layer (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #20, to modified the invention of Nguyen as modified by Nakamura, Chiu, Blanquart and Mukai, with the modification of the invention of Kalutarage, which teaches, a method of introducing the plasma into the process utilizing pulses of precursors or reactive gases and plasma to process layer, to incorporate a structure wherein the pulse delivery allows for an increased tuning of the plasma characteristics, as taught by Kalutarage.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
03/28/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899