DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-14, and 16-19 are 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.
The claims require “an amine-based gas” but the metes and bounds of the term are unclear. The gas could include gases that comprise amines, but the broad term is generally open to derivatives, as they are “amine-based” but one of ordinary skill would not know which gases are comprised by the language and the specification does not clearly set forth the boundaries of “-based”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (2018/0122631) in view of Kang (2021/0313150).
Xiao teaches a method of processing a substrate comprising:
- forming an oligomer layer on a substrate with a concave portion including supplying a precursor to the substrate, flowing a first nitrogen and hydrogen and flowing a second nitrogen and hydrogen gas – see for example application of the oligomers [0052] (with reference to specific formulas) and the application of first and second hydrogen and nitrogen containing gases including a compound of Formula II is applied along with that of Formula I [0040, 60] and (second gas) an ammonia plasma, a plasma comprising ammonia and hydrogen (or ammonia and argon) and other such mixtures [0055], wherein the steps include applying cycles [0065], and
- wherein the process is performed at a substrate temperature of <100 degrees [0058],
- and a thermal post treatment at a temperature in the range of about 100 – 1000 deg C, thereby teaching the film forming at a second temperature not less than the first.
Regarding the particular cycles, the teachings as noted include that the steps of a cycle are performed in a variety of manners including sequentially or concurrently or any combination therefore, see [0065], as such, to include any combination of reactants together or in sequence as claimed would have been obvious. There is no showing of criticality of any of the variably claimed orders, and a change in the sequence of adding ingredients is generally not patentable without such criticality. To simultaneously perform one step and non-simultaneously another (other) step(s) is obvious from the teachings. The supplying the second and first nitrogen and hydrogen containing gas as part of the step (a) do not require unique gases, therefore even one step meets the claim requirements (i.e. if one gas is supplied for 2 seconds, one second is the first supplying step and 1 second is the second supplying step, even though the claim names “second” and “first” gases they are not required to be distinct.
In specific regard to the process steps performed:
(a-1) simultaneously supplying the precursor and the first N/H gas, exemplified by Xiao above as an amine-based gas, see above Formula I gas, and
(a-2) (a-4) and (a-6) in regard to the use of a purge step – the teachings include that the process is performed cyclically [0065]. The Office first takes the position that a purge step would be understood – see MPEP 2144.01 wherein it is noted that the prior art teachings are applicable for what is implicitly and explicitly taught. In this case, it would be generally understood to purge a chamber in such a cyclical process.
The Office takes the further/alternative position that Xiao teaches that treatments of the substrate are understood as a post-deposition process – such includes inert, oxidizing and/or reducing atmospheres [0039], such a step is understood as being supportive of such a step during / in between such cycles as noted.
(a-3) and (a-5) – the teachings further include the supply of ammonia [0055]. The claims steps are not differentiated – all of steps a-1, a-3 and a-5 read on supplying, for example, the precursor along with the first and second N/H containing gases – steps a-3 and a-5 do not prohibit additional gases.
In regard to the first N/H gas acing as a catalyst, initially, since the instant application and prior art teach the same steps of applying an amine-based gas with a silicon precursor, the prior art is expected to have the same benefit of the N/H gas acting as a catalyst as indicated in the instant specification. Further, as per MPEP 2112 I. and II. the discovery of a new property does not make something patentable and an inherent feature need not be recognized (in the prior art). In this case, Xiao does not explicitly state that the combination of the silicon gas and amide-based gas includes the amide gas acting as catalyst, but as noted the prior art and instant claims include the same process so it necessarily gains the same benefits (with reference particularly to I.). Further, however, Xiao generally teaches about catalysts for silicon precursors [0048-49] and impliedly teaches that the dual compounds of Formula I and II act in the manner of a catalyst (see [0060]). So, while not explicitly stating the amide-based compound acts as a catalyst, based on the background and further teachings such action as a catalyst is implied.
In regard to the N/H gas acting to remove by-products, the teachings generally include using the various N/H gases as noted, and applying the gases in a plasma state for the reaction, see [0052-57, 63]. Kang teaches that it is known to apply a reactant in a non-excited state to act as a purge gas, see [0029]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the N/H gas of Xiao in a non-excited state as taught by Kang such that the gas flow would be maintained. In combining the teachings, the use of the gas as the purge gas necessarily removes byproducts as claimed. Also, the teachings of Kang further supports the inclusion of the above noted purge steps, see [0026-29], wherein a process of forming a film using an aminosilane precursor is taught.
Regarding claims 2-4, the prior art teaches preferably less than 100 degrees, which aligns with the specification teaching of controlling such that physical adsorption occurs preferably over chemical adsorption and/or thermal decomposition. While the prior art does not specifically teach controlling for the thermal decomposition versus chemical and/or physical adsorption, but per the instant specification, this is linked to a control of process conditions, particularly temperature (see particularly [0053]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the teachings include that the material is flowed into the concave portion in a fluid manner [0035].
Regarding claims 10-12, the process includes during the processing flowing inert atmospheres to assist in the flow/fill of the material, which is also understood to effect discharge of components (in addition to the low pressure [0068].
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the precursor gas contains the claimed elements, see particularly the examples of [0070-74].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, as per claim 1 and the denoted structures per Xiao, the first and second gases have different molecular structures and the gases meet the requirements of claim 16, see [0040].
Regarding claims 17 and 18, as per [0052-55] such gases are supplied.
Regarding claim 19, per [0002] a semiconductor device is formed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Office notes that the claimed steps are not exclusive of being a repetition of the same steps, as noted above (see in regard to a-1, a-3 and a-5, wherein the gases comprised in the steps is not limited). The Office holds that the use of purge steps and ‘activation’ is not novel in view of the art and the described steps versus those of the prior art. Limiting some of the process steps to specific precursors and/or reactants could overcome some of the rejections.
Applicants argue that the benefits of the present claims are not available in Xiao and add that they cannot possibly be achieved using Xiao’s method, but that is not clear. There is no further support for the benefits not being able to be achieved by Xiao’s method. Xiao does not explicit teach a purge step and does not describe the catalysis in specific terms, but the Office holds that such elements are understood and necessarily resultant, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights