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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the crystal structure of the formed TiN film can be controlled by increasing the ratio of stable (111)/(220) interfaces and reducing the ratio of the relatively unstable (200) interface, while Degai (US 2019/0304791, hereafter Degai ‘791) and Omata et al. (US 2009/0181518, hereafter Omata ‘518) do not disclose or suggest any motivation to control the crystal structure of the film. This is not found persuasive because there are no limitations in the claims directed towards the crystal structure of the film. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that the combination of Degai ‘791 and Omata ‘518 would not be obvious because the present invention provides unexpected results. This is not found persuasive because there is insufficient evidence to indicate that using ammonia-hydrogen peroxide mixture to form the hydrophilic surface provides unexpected results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0304791, hereafter Degai ‘791) in view of Omata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0181518, hereafter Omata ‘518).
Claims 1-2: Degai ‘791 teaches a method of forming a titanium nitride film on a substrate ([0056]) comprising:
performing hydrophilic treatment on a base film formed on a substrate having a surface on which the base film is formed to increase the hydrophilicity of the base film (abstract, [0056], [0084]); and
forming a titanium nitride film by vapor phase growth on a top surface of the treated base film ([0056], [0084], [0116]).
Degai ‘791 further teaches that the method can be for manufacturing a semiconductor device ([0002]).
With respect to claim 1, Degai ‘791 does not explicitly teach that the hydrophilic treatment is liquid processing performed using an ammonia-hydrogen peroxide mixture liquid.
Omata ‘518 teaches a semiconductor device manufacturing method (abstract, [0002]) comprising terminating an element on the surface of a film with a hydroxy group ([0015], [0019]). Omata ‘518 teaches that terminating an element on the surface of a film with a hydroxy group can be performed by a liquid processing on the surface using a mixed solution of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide ([0015], [0019]). Both Omata ‘518 and Degai ‘791 teach semiconductor device manufacturing methods (‘791, [0002]; ‘518, abstract, [0002]) comprising terminating an element on the surface of a film with a hydroxy group (‘791, abstract, [0056]; ‘518, [0015], [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the liquid processing on the surface using a mixed solution of ammonia and hydrogen peroxide taught by Omata ‘518 as the step of terminating an element on the surface of a film with a hydroxy group in the method taught by Degai ‘791 because it would have been a simple substitution that would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 3: Degai ‘791 teaches that the hydrophilic treatment can comprise terminating an element on the surface of the base film with a hydroxy group (Fig. 8A, abstract, [0056], [0084]).
Claim 5: Degai ‘791 teaches that forming the titanium nitride film can comprise supplying a TiCl4 gas, which corresponds to the claimed raw material gas containing titanium, to the substrate so that it is adsorbed on the surface of the substrate ([0116], [0118]), and then supplying an NH3 gas, which corresponds to the claimed reaction gas for nitriding, to the substrate so that a film of titanium nitride is formed ([0122], [0124]), and repeating the steps of supplying TiCl4 gas and supplying NH3 gas ([0127]).
Claim 6: Degai ‘791 teaches that the base film can be a silicon oxide film (Fig. 8A, [0056], [0084]).
Claim 11: Degai ‘791 teaches that forming the titanium nitride film can comprise supplying a TiCl4 gas, which corresponds to the claimed raw material gas containing titanium, to the substrate so that it is adsorbed on the surface of the substrate ([0116], [0118]), and then supplying an NH3 gas, which corresponds to the claimed reaction gas for nitriding, to the substrate so that a film of titanium nitride is formed ([0122], [0124]), and repeating the steps of supplying TiCl4 gas and supplying NH3 gas ([0127]).
Claim 12: Degai ‘791 teaches that the base film can be a silicon oxide film (Fig. 8A, [0056], [0084]).
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 BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713