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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 2/13/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims 1, cancellation of claim 6 and the addition of new claim 23. Claims 1-23 remain pending with claim 21-22 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed herein and are not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-20 and 23 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for using Silicon as the predetermined element according to the claimed recipe, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of the broadly drafted “predetermined element” that is required to include a first precursor that include the predetermined element bonded to a halogen (but no bond between the atoms of the predetermined element) and a second precursor that includes a bond between the predetermined element and also has a thermal decomposition temperature that meets the claims as drafted. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The nature of the invention involves a substrate processing method comprising a specific sequence of steps to deposit a nitride layer of predetermined element, where the predetermined element is selected from an all possible elements and using a first precursor (element and a halogen bonded to the element but no bond between atoms of the predetermined element) and second precursor (bond between atoms of the predetermined element), each of which can be selected from a large list of possible compounds, and providing the gases into the chamber to deposit a film using a very specific sequence. The state of the prior art is silent to various “predetermined elements” capable of being utilized in such a manner and while the skill of one ordinary in the art is relatively high, the claims required a chemical reactions and conversions of coatings which is a highly exact science with little predictability. Additionally, while the specification clearly describes with sufficient specificity the application of the claimed species of silicon as the predetermined element with the compounds that meet the requirements of the first and second precursor, followed by nitride gas along the recipe, results in the proper deposition of a nitride and further oxidizing, the specification fails to include any working examples or direction as to a representative number of species of the seemingly infinite number of possible “predetermined element” and multiple precursors thereof that would result in the claimed film according to the recipe without undue experimentation. This undue experimentation would encompass determining which “predetermined element” can be supplied as the first and second precursors as claimed, which second precursors meet the thermal decomposition requirement as claimed and can be used and successfully depositing a nitride layer including predetermined element and further oxidized as claimed as required by the present claims. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior art cited or reviewed by the examiner, alone or in combination, reasonably discloses or makes obvious the claimed first and second precursors used in the specific gas supply recipe as claimed in instant claim 1.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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 on 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights