DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 17851812 application filed June 28, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on September 2, 2025. Claims 13-19 and 21-30 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-12 and 20 acknowledged. Unless stated otherwise, all referral to the specification in this Office action is based on the published version.
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 .
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 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.
Drawings
There were two sets of drawings received on June 28, 2022. They appear to be identical. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 recites the limitation “(t)he substrate treating method of claim 13, wherein the treating the semiconductor substrate includes a plurality of treating a plurality of semiconductor substrates performed consecutively, and the passivating the insulation member includes a plurality of passivating the insulation member performed consecutively and between each of the plurality of treating the plurality of semiconductor substrates”. Although the specification teaches “Referring to FIG. 3, the substrate treating method in accordance with an embodiment of the inventive concept contains a passivation step S100 and a plasma annealing step S200. The passivation step S100 and the plasma annealing step S200 are sequentially performed. The plasma annealing step S200 is performed after the passivation step S100. The passivation step S100 and the plasma annealing step S200 may be repeated for multiple times. Prior to the hydrogen plasma annealing step S200, a corresponding passivation step S100 is performed once. The number of times the passivation step S100 is performed may be the same as the number of times the hydrogen plasma annealing (plasma annealing step) S200 is performed” ([0097]). Thus the specification clearly teaches that “(p)rior to the hydrogen plasma annealing step S200, a corresponding passivation step S100 is performed once”, and does not teach that “the passivating the insulation member includes a plurality of passivating the insulation member performed consecutively” (all emphases added). This is interpreted the sequence of step S100 and S200 may be repeated multiple time, and that step S100 is performed only once prior to each of step S200. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this limitation has support in the specification.
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 25 recites the limitation “(t)he concentration of the nitrogen-based gas is a concentration sufficient to maintain a constant nitrogen concentration in each semiconductor substrate of the plurality of semiconductor substrates.”. Although the specification teaches “a difference in the nitrogen concentration between the plurality of substrates W may be minimized or maintained constant” ([0101]), this is not equivalent to the limitation “maintain a constant nitrogen concentration in each semiconductor substrate of the plurality of semiconductor substrates”. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that this limitation has support in the specification.
Claims 26 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 25.
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.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites “supplying a passivation gas into the reaction space while no semiconductor substrate is present in the reaction chamber; and exciting the passivation gas into plasma while no semiconductor substrate is present in the reaction chamber wherein the passivation gas includes a nitrogen-based gas provided in concentration sufficient for nitrogen passivation of the insulation member.” (emphasis added); however, one of skill in the art would not be clear whether the term “concentration” refers to the concentration of the nitrogen-based gas in the in the passivation gas or the concentration of the nitrogen-based gas in the reaction space. In view of Fig. 9 and paragraph [0119], for the purpose of examining it will be assumed that the concentration refers to the concentration of the nitrogen-based gas in the reaction space. Furthermore, since the specification fails to specify a value for the sufficient concentration, for the purpose of examining the limitation “wherein the passivation gas includes a nitrogen-based gas provided in concentration sufficient for nitrogen passivation of the insulation member” will be interpreted as the nitrogen-based gas is present in the reaction chamber at a concentration that is equal or higher than a minimum concentration that nitrogen passivation of the insulation member occurs.
Claims 14-19 and 21-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 13, 23-26 and 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200161094), hereinafter “Zhang”:--Claims 13, 23, 24: Zhang teaches a method for a chamber treatment prior to performing a hydrogen radical treatment on a semiconductor workpiece in the chamber (abstract), comprising (Fig. 2)i) providing a process chamber comprising a sidewall made of quartz ([0039]);ii) forming a hydrogen-radical-affecting-layer on the interior surface, e.g. sidewall or a dome (Fig. 10), of the chamber ([0049], Step 60 in Fig. 2);iii) generating hydrogen radicals in the chamber (Step 70 in Fig. 2) by using a plasma comprising a gas mixture of hydrogen and a carrier gas, such as N2 and He ([0031]), the generating may comprise supplying the gas mixture to a plasma chamber portion of the process chamber then generate a plasma, wherein the plasma is directed through a separation grid that filters out ions and allows passage of neutral species to the process chamber ([0050-0053]);iv) exposing the workpiece to the plurality of hydrogen radicals (step 80 in Fig. 2, [0054]) Zhang further teaches that the forming a hydrogen-radical-affecting-layer in step ii) may be formed by (a) performing a plasma etch on a workpiece in the chamber, or, alternately, (b) exposing the chamber to silane, disilane or trisilane ([0045-0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to perform option (b) while not including a workpiece in the chamber. Likewise, since Zhang does not specify a workpiece in the chamber in step iii), it would have been obvious for one of skill in the art to perform option (b) while not including a workpiece in the chamber. It is noted that Zhang does not specify that the plurality of hydrogen radicals in step iv) are the same as those from step iii), and further teaches that step iii) and ii) may be performed simultaneously or rearranged ([0048]). Fig. 9 and 10 clearly shows the hydrogen radical affecting layer 270 and 870 are formed on the interior sidewall/dome of the chamber, but not on the workpiece In another embodiment, Zhang further teaches that the hydrogen-radical-affecting-layer may include silicon oxide or aluminum oxide ([0065]), and that the exposing the workpiece to a plurality of hydrogen radicals may include heating the workpiece then exposing the workpiece to hydrogen radicals (Fig. 6, [0069-0072]). Zhang further teaches that the ratio H2:N2 can be about 2 to about 100 ([0070]) and the treatment time may be 30 sec – 5 minutes (Claim 3) It is noted that the neutral species passed through the separation grid include nitrogen radicals and hydrogen radicals. Although Zhang is silent about the nitrogen radicals and hydrogen radicals cause nitrogen passivation of the sidewall in the process chamber, since the specification discloses “(w)hen the hydrogen gas is supplied together at a supply stage S120 of the nitrogen-based gas, an effective nitrogen passivation is possible since the nitrogen is dissociated well in hydrogen” ([0101]), and that “(a)lthough FIG. 5 illustrates a case where a material is a quartz (SiO2), those skilled in the art will understand that the same may be applied to other insulating materials (e.g., Al2O3, AlN, and Y2O3). Referring to FIG. 6, it may be seen that a portion of a surface of a quartz component is converted into a silicon oxynitride (SiON). That is, the SiON was not deposited as a new layer on the previous quartz surface, but the previous quartz surface was converted into the SiON with a preset thickness by the passivation” ([0104-0105]). Since the hydrogen radicals and nitrogen radicals in the invention of Zhang are the same as taught by Applicant, the hydrogen radicals and nitrogen radicals would inherently cause nitrogen passivation of the chamber sidewall, i.e. quartz, or the hydrogen radical affecting layer, e.g. silicon oxide, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 25: Zhang further teaches that the exposing the workpiece to the plurality of hydrogen radicals in step (iv) also forms a hydrogen-radical-affecting-layer on the interior surface of the chamber so that method may further comprise repeating step (iii) and (iv) to treat the next workpiece (Fig. 3, [0055-0059]). Zhang further teaches that “(t)he pre-treatment process can generate a hydrogen radical affecting layer on a surface of the processing chamber, such as workpiece surroundings and/or one or more paths through which the hydrogen radical passes. After the pre-treatment process, the hydrogen radical based surface treatment process can then be implemented on a surface of the workpiece. In this manner, improved process uniformity can be obtained for semiconductor processing (e.g., surface treatment, etching, surface smoothing, etc.)” ([0024]). Therefore, although Zhang is silent about loading and unloading the substrate from the chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include loading the workpiece into the chamber at the start of step (iii) and to include unloading the workpiece from the chamber at the end of step (iv), and continue repeating step (iii) and (iv) a plurality of times to treat a plurality of substrates.--Claim 26: Zhang further teaches that the ratio H2:N2 can be about 2 to about 100 ([0070]). It is noted that this overlaps the ratio taught in the specification, i.e. 10 sccm to 1000 sccm flow for each of the H2 and N2 ([0027-0028]). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to maintain a sufficient nitrogen in the plasma to result in a constant nitrogen concentration in each workpiece, as taught by Applicant.--Claim 30: Since the nitrogen radicals and the quartz sidewall of the chamber in the invention of Zhang are the same as Applicant, the nitrogen radicals would react with the quartz, i.e. SiO2, to form SiON, as taught by Applicant.
Claims 14-19, 21-22 and 28-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Shaviv et al (U.S. PGPub. No. 20160126134), hereinafter “Shaviv”:--Claims 14, 21: Zhang teaches the invention as above, wherein a plasma comprising a gas mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen is generated and the neutral species are directed into the process chamber to treat the chamber, wherein the ratio H2:N2 can be about 2 to about 100 ([0070]) and the treatment time may be 30 sec – 5 minutes (Claim 3). Zhang is silent about the pressure in the chamber.Shaviv, also directed to hydrogen radical treatment during fabrication of a semiconductor device, teaches that a hydrogen radical treatment is conducted by using a mixture of hydrogen and nitrogen at 10-200 mTorr ([0043, 0049, 0055-0063]).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to maintain the pressure in the process chamber at 10-200 mTorr in the invention of Zhang because Zhang teaches treating the chamber to radicals of hydrogen and nitrogen but is silent about the pressure in the chamber, and Shaviv teaches that such pressure would be effective. It is noted that the pressure overlaps the claimed range in claim 14.--Claim 15, 16: It is noted that the treatment time of 30 sec-5 minutes overlaps the claimed time range recited in claim 15. Although Zhang modified by Shaviv is silent about a nitrogen gas flow, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the H2 and N2 gas flows, such as 10-1000 sccm, to maintain the pressure since it’s been established that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). --Claim 17: It is noted that step (iv) is performed after step (iii)--Claims 18, 19: Zhang further discloses that the workpiece may be processed by direct plasma, and that the hydrogen radicals may be generated directly above the workpiece (Fig. 9-10, [0092-0093, 0102-0105]).--Claim 22: Zhang further teaches that the plasma may comprise a gas mixture of hydrogen and a carrier gas, such as N2 and He ([0031]).--Claims 28, 29: Zhang further teaches that the workpiece is treated in a process chamber 110 comprising a sidewall 122, wherein process gases are supplied to an annular distribution channel 151 adjacent to the sidewall (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, the process gases exit the annular distribution channel 151 at a first hole and a second hole opposite from the first hole. Thus, a portion of the treatment gas mixture of hydrogen and a carrier gas N2 exits through the first hole and a portion of the process gases, i.e. silane, disilane or trisilane, exits through the second hole.
Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Lee et al (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220190139), hereinafter “Lee”:--Claim 27: Zhang teaches the invention comprising treating a semiconductor workpiece with hydrogen radicals as above. Zhang is silent about a subsequent process after the treatment, and fails to teach the claimed growing an oxide film. Lee, also directed to a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, teaches that the method comprises treating a semiconductor substrate with hydrogen radicals ([0034-0040]), and subsequently form an oxide layer on the treated surface of the semiconductor substrate ([0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form a native oxide layer on the semiconductor workpiece subsequent to the treating the workpiece with the hydrogen radicals because Zhang is silent about a subsequent process after the treatment, and Lee teaches that forming an oxide layer subsequent to the treating the workpiece with the hydrogen radicals is common in the art. Although Lee is silent about the thickness of the native oxide layer, it is well known that such native oxide layer maintains a constant thickness after being formed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive, as explained above.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that Zhang fails to teach the claimed limitation “wherein the passivation gas includes a nitrogen-based gas provided in concentration sufficient for nitrogen passivation of the insulation member”, this argument is not persuasive. First, this feature is not clear under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since one of skill in the art would not be clear whether the term “concentration” refers to the concentration of the nitrogen-based gas in the in the passivation gas or the concentration of the nitrogen-based gas in the reaction space. Secondly, since the specification fails to specify a value for the sufficient concentration or how to determine that this limitation is satisfied, for the purpose of examining this limitation will be interpreted as the nitrogen-based gas is present in the reaction chamber at a concentration that is equal or higher than a minimum concentration that nitrogen passivation of the insulation member occurs. Thus, the only indicator that this feature has been satisfied is when nitrogen passivation is detected. Third, since the specification discloses “(w)hen the hydrogen gas is supplied together at a supply stage S120 of the nitrogen-based gas, an effective nitrogen passivation is possible since the nitrogen is dissociated well in hydrogen” ([0101]), and that “(a)lthough FIG. 5 illustrates a case where a material is a quartz (SiO2), those skilled in the art will understand that the same may be applied to other insulating materials (e.g., Al2O3, AlN, and Y2O3). Referring to FIG. 6, it may be seen that a portion of a surface of a quartz component is converted into a silicon oxynitride (SiON). That is, the SiON was not deposited as a new layer on the previous quartz surface, but the previous quartz surface was converted into the SiON with a preset thickness by the passivation” ([0104-0105]). Since the hydrogen radicals and nitrogen radicals in the invention of Zhang are the same as taught by Applicant, the hydrogen radicals and nitrogen radicals would inherently cause nitrogen passivation of the chamber sidewall, i.e. quartz, or the hydrogen radical affecting layer, e.g. silicon oxide, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that “Applicants note that as seen above in FIG. 9 and paragraph [0049] of Zhang, the hydrogen radical affecting layer 270 is formed by generating hydrogen radicals in a plasma from a gas comprised of primarily of a "a silicon containing gas (e.g., silane (SiH4) disilane (Si2H6) or trisilane (Si3H8))”, Examiner disagrees. Zhang clearly teaches that “the hydrogen radical affecting layer can be defined as a layer to reduce hydrogen radical recombination. The layer can absorb hydrogen radicals (also referred to as a hydrogen radical consuming layer) or can provide low hydrogen radical recombination (also referred to as a hydrogen radical non-consuming layer). For instance, the hydrogen consuming layer can be a silicon-containing layer generated by semiconductor byproduct material, or a layer generated by silane deposition. As another example, the hydrogen non-consuming layer can be a layer containing silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2) and/or aluminum oxide (Al.sub.2O.sub.3)” ([0025]) Zhang further teaches that “the hydrogen radical affecting layers 270 (e.g., hydrogen radical consuming layers) can be generated by exposing the processing chamber 110 to a silicon containing gas (e.g., silane (SiH4) disilane (Si2H6) or trisilane (Si3H8))” ([0046]). In another embodiment Zhang further teaches other method to generate the hydrogen radical affecting layers by “conducting a plasma etch process on the workpiece 114 in the processing chamber 110 for a process period to deposit semiconductor by-product material on the surface of the processing chamber 110” ([0045]). Thus, Zhang does not teach the hydrogen radical affecting layer 270 is formed by generating hydrogen radicals in a plasma from a gas comprised of primarily of a "a silicon containing gas (e.g., silane (SiH4) disilane (Si2H6) or trisilane (Si3H8)).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (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 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.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713