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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 17 and 18 are pending and rejected. Claims 4 and 9-16 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 2 are amended. Claims 17 and 18 are newly added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/2/2026 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won, US 2015/0221507 A1 in view of Sager, US 2005/0186342 A1 and Wolden, US 2008/0199632 A1.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5, Won teaches depositing an IGZO film by PECVD in a PECVD processing chamber (abstract). They teach exposing a substrate surface to a plasma where separate gas flows are combined to produce a precursor gas mixture that includes indium, gallium, zinc, and oxygen at the surface of the substrate (0072). They teach that the first of the gas flows include indium, gallium, and zinc metal-organic precursors such as TMI, TMG, and DEZ, but that other metal precursors can be used for the three metals (0074). They teach that the second of the gas flows include oxygen (0075). They teach that the ratio of the gas flows used for the IGZO film are set to a desired ratio (0076). Therefore, they provide a first, second, and third precursor to a chamber, introducing a first oxidizer into the chamber, and generating a plasma while introducing the first oxidizer into the chamber, where the first to third precursors are different. Therefore, the first precursors comprises indium, the second precursor comprises gallium, and the third precursor comprises zinc.
As to the temperature, they teach that the substrate is preheated to the temperature required for depositing an IGZO layer, where the temperature is between 100°C and 600°C, where they provide an example of a substrate support temperature of 375°C (0067 and 0082).
They teach using precursors such as diethyl zinc (DEZ), trimethyl indium (TMI), and trimethyl gallium (TMG), where other precursors can be used (0074).
They do not teach that the precursors do not include hydrogen or carbon.
Sager teaches forming an absorber layer using atomic layer deposition (abstract). They teach that the proper choice of precursor materials is important for the ALD process to proceed effectively (0035). They teach that material must have sufficient volatility at the reaction temperatures, thermal stability with minimal or no self-decomposition, significant reactivity with the second precursor, etc. (0035). They teach that suitable ALD precursors for indium include indium chloride, trimethyl indium, etc. (0041). They teach that for gallium, suitable precursors include diethyl gallium chloride, gallium triiodide, or other gallium halides, gallium(I) salts such as gallium chloride, etc. (0041). They teach that for forming zinc oxide, precursors include zinc chloride, diethyl zinc, dimethyl zinc, etc. (0047-0048 and Table II). They teach that oxygen gas is typically used as a second reactant, as is a mixture of water and hydrogen peroxide (0051). They teach that the temperature used during ALD typically ranges from 150°C to 600°C depending upon the chemistry and physical properties of each precursor material (0056).
From the teachings of Sager, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used indium chloride, gallium chloride, and zinc chloride as the first, second, and third precursors because Sager teaches that such precursors are suitable alternatives to the trimethyl or diethyl precursors of Won for depositing IGZO films by a vapor phase process such that it will be expected to provide the films as desired. Therefore, each of the first to third precursors will be a substance that does not comprise carbon or hydrogen and comprises chlorine.
They do not teach supplying the plasma after the first, second, and third steps. Won teaches that ALD processes can meet TFT carrier density requirements, but that the low throughput is a problem (0008).
Wolden teaches forming thin films by pulsed plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) with simultaneous delivery of O-2- and the metal precursor (abstract). They teach that by appropriately controlling the gas-phase environment, self-limiting deposition at controllable rates was obtained (abstract). They teach that the constant deposition rate was observed from 90-350°C (abstract). They teach that pulsed PECVD eliminates the need for gas actuation and inert purge steps required by ALD (abstract). They teach that the process increases the net deposition rate while providing ALD-type behavior (0010). They teach that the process comprises providing at least one gaseous, metal-containing precursor compound to a PECVD reactor, providing to said reactor at least one additional gaseous reactant material; and pulsing a power supply to said reactor to produce plasma and to create a power cycle consisting of a plasma OFF time and a plasma ON time; under conditions selected such that no deposition would occur if the plasma OFF time were continuous (0011). They teach that the metal-containing precursor can be any such precursor known to the art, where typical precursors include organometallic compounds, metal halide, and metal hydrides (0014). They teach that combinations of precursors can be used, where combinations typically include about tow to about four metals (0014). They teach that the gaseous reactant material is selected from a group including oxygen for forming a metal oxide (0015). They teach that the reactor conditions must be such that the metal containing precursors must not react thermally with the other gaseous reactants in the reactor if the plasma is OFF, where the choice is a function of the precursor and the reactant material, but that typically involves low pressure, short residence times, and low temperature, and combinations thereof (0017). They teach that the approach dramatically simplifies ALD processing by eliminating both purge steps and the need for mechanical flow actuation, which deposition rate enhancements (0023). They teach that the process can provide self-limiting growth like ALD (0025). They teach that all reagents are delivered continuously and cycle times are controlled by electronically pulsing the plasma (0039).
From the teachings of Wolden, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Won in view of Sager to have used pulsed PECVD to deposit the IGZO film because Wolden teaches that such a process provides the benefits of ALD (self-limiting growth) while increasing the throughput and deposition rate by eliminating pulsing, where Won indicates that ALD provides desirable IGZO film with lower throughput, such that it will be expected to provide the IGZO film with desirable carrier density and properties while having improved throughput and deposition rate by combining the benefits of ALD and PECVD. Therefore, the plasma will be provided after the first, second, and third steps when it is provided in a pulsed manner.
As to the temperature, as noted above Wolden teaches that the temperature should be low enough that the gases do not react without the plasma present. Won teaches performing the PECVD process at between 100°C and 600°C (0067). Sager teaches using an ALD temperature of from 150°C to 600°C depending upon the chemistry and physical properties of each precursor material, where the precursor material must have sufficient volatility at the reaction temperatures, thermal stability with minimal or no self-decomposition, significant reactivity with the second precursor, etc. (0035 and 0056). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature of the process to be within the claimed range from the overlapping range of Won and the teachings of Wolden and Sager because Wolden indicates that the temperature must be set so that the precursors do not react with the gaseous reactant without the plasma present, where the temperature is dependent on the precursors and the reactant, Won indicates that a temperature of 100-600°C is suitable for plasma reaction, and Sager teaches that the temperature should be below the self-decomposition temperature, where the temperature for ALD reactivity depends on the materials used, such that it will be expected to provide a suitable temperature range for the pulsed PECVD process while preventing thermal CVD growth by maintaining the temperature below the decomposition temperature. Therefore, the temperature will be optimized to be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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).
Regarding claim 6, Won in view of Sager and Wolden suggest the process of claim 1. As noted above, Wolden provides the suggestion of using pulsed PECVD, they teach that the total thickness of the film deposited on the substrate can be controlled by repeating the pulse sequence until the desired thickness is achieved, where the pulsed PECVD pulse cycle is defined by the plasma on and off times (0043, claim 13, and Fig. 2). Therefore, the method will comprise a plurality of cycles comprising each of the first to fourth steps one or more times, i.e. the first to third steps will be continuously provided while the fourth step is repeated cyclically.
Regarding claim 8, Won in view of Sager and Wolden suggest the process of claim 6. Won further teaches treating the IGZO layer after deposition, where treating includes annealing for passivating the film (0064, 0083, and Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have annealed or heated the film after completing deposition because Won teaches that such a process is desirable for passivating the film. As noted above Wolden teaches performing the cycles until the desired thickness is provided. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the annealing of the film to be provided after two or more cycles of the deposition process are completed to as to provide heat treatment on a completed film having a desirable thickness. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “[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).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Won in view of Sager and Wolden suggest the process of claims 1 and 2. Won teaches that the second gas flows include oxygen, ozone, and other gases which do not react with oxygen (0075). They teach using at least one oxidizing gas selected from the group consisting of oxygen, ozone, etc. (claims 1 and 4).
Wolden teaches that in metal oxide synthesis molecular oxygen is much less reactive than ozone or water and as a result, no deposition is observed when certain metal precursors and oxygen are simultaneously exposed to various substrates at the combination of low pressure, temperature, and residence time (0025).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added ozone during the fourth step of generating plasma because Won teaches that a combination of ozone and water can be used in a PECVD reaction and Wolden indicates that ozone is more reactive than oxygen, suggesting that it should not flow when plasma is OFF so as to prevent gas phase reactions such that providing it during the fourth step it will be expected to further react with the precursors during the plasma ON phase as indicated by Won while not affecting the self-limiting behavior during the OFF phase.
Claim 6 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won in view of Sager and Wolden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong, US 2014/0210835 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Won in view of Sager and Wolden suggest the process of claim 1, where the metal precursors flow continuously together and the plasma is pulsed to provide the cycle.
They do not teach that each of the first, second, third, and fourth steps are repeated a plurality of times.
Hong teaches methods for a forming TFT on a substrate using ALD (abstract). They teach forming a metal oxide layer by ALD, where plasma may be combined with thermal energy to drive the reaction between the gases (0067-0068). They teach depositing with a zinc-containing precursor and an oxygen-containing precursor, an indium-containing precursor such as indium chloride and an oxygen-containing precursor such as oxygen, and a gallium-containing precursor such as gallium chloride and an oxygen-containing precursor such as oxygen plasma (0071-0073). They teach that multi-component metal oxide thin films can be achieved sequentially by ALD where a first metal oxide layer (A) is formed using a first precursor pulse and a first oxidant pulse, a second metal oxide layer (B) is formed using a second precursor pulse and a second oxidant pulse, and then a third metal oxide layer (C) is formed using a third precursor pulse and a third oxidant pulse (0078-0079). They teach that the sequence of layers can be tuned to provide the desired composition, where sequences include A-B-C-A, A-B-C-B, etc. (0078-0079). They teach that the first, second, and third precursors can share the same oxidant precursor (0080). They teach that the cycles may be repeated as many times as desired to form a film of a suitable thickness (0068).
From the teachings of Hong, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Won in view of Sager and Wolden to have sequentially supplied the first, second, and third precursors because Hong teaches that forming a multi-component metal oxide film using an ALD method can be done by sequentially supplying the precursors so as to provide an IGZO film, where the composition of the film is controlled by the sequence of pulsing the flows such that it will be expected to provide the film as desired as an alternative method of flowing gases for forming an IGZO film, while controlling the film composition. Therefore, the first step will be provided and then plasma will be generated to provide the first oxide film, the second step will be provided and then plasma will be generated to provide the second oxide, and the third precursor will be provided and then plasma will be generated to provide the third film in the IGZO film, where the cycles of A, B, and C are repeated as desired to provide the desired composition, such that a plurality of cycles each comprising each of the first to fourth step one or more times will be provided.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won in view of Sager, Wolden, and Hong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asrami, US 2016/0284859 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Won in view of Sager, Wolden, and Hong suggest the process of claim 6, where Hong suggests providing cycles A, B, and C a desired number of times to provide the desired film composition.
They do not specifically teach that the ratios are the same.
Asami teaches forming an In-Ga-Zn-O semiconductor film by ALD for a semiconductor device (0232). They teach that indium gas and ozone are sequentially introduced plural times to form the In-O layer, a gallium precursor and ozone are sequentially provided plural times to form a GaO layer, and then a zinc precursor and ozone are sequentially provided plural times to provide the ZnO layer (0232). Asami further teaches that oxide semiconductor is formed to include In:M:Zn=1:1:1 (0135).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same ratio of cycles for the first, second, and third step because Asrami teaches that such a ratio is desirable in forming an IGZO film in a semiconductor device such that it will be expected to provide a desirable film.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong, US 2014/0210835 A1 in view of Wolden, US 2008/0199632 A1 and Sager, US 2005/0186342 A1.
Regarding claim 1-3 and 5, Hong teaches methods for a forming TFT on a substrate using ALD (abstract). They teach forming a metal oxide layer by ALD by providing a first precursor gas, purging, and providing a second precursor gas to react with the first in a chamber (0067-0068). They teach that plasma may be combined with thermal energy to drive the reaction between the gases (0067-0068). They teach that the cycles may be repeated as many times as desired to form a film of a suitable thickness (0068).
They teach depositing with a zinc-containing precursor and an oxygen-containing precursor, an indium-containing precursor such as indium chloride and an oxygen-containing precursor such as oxygen, and a gallium-containing precursor such as gallium chloride and an oxygen-containing precursor such as oxygen plasma (0071-0073). They teach that multi-component metal oxide thin films can be achieved sequentially by ALD where a first metal oxide layer (A) is formed using a first precursor pulse and a first oxidant pulse, a second metal oxide layer (B) is formed using a second precursor pulse and a second oxidant pulse, and then a third metal oxide layer (C) is formed using a third precursor pulse and a third oxidant pulse (0078-0079). They teach that the sequence of layers can be tuned to provide the desired composition, where sequences include A-B-C-A, A-B-C-B, etc. (0078-0079). They teach that the first, second, and third precursors can share the same oxidant precursor (0080). They teach using the process to form an IGZO film (0080).
Therefore, they provide a first step of supplying a first precursor comprising indium to a chamber, a second step of supplying a second precursor comprising gallium to the chamber, and a third step of supplying a third precursor comprising zinc to the chamber, where after each of the first, second, and third steps, a fourth step is provided of introducing an oxidizer into the chamber, where when the oxidizer includes plasma energy, plasma will be generated.
They do not teach that the oxidizer flows while the metal precursor flows.
Wolden teaches forming thin films by pulsed plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) with simultaneous delivery of O-2- and the metal precursor (abstract). They teach that by appropriately controlling the gas-phase environment, self-limiting deposition at controllable rates was obtained (abstract). They teach that the constant deposition rate was observed from 90-350°C (abstract). They teach that pulsed PECVD eliminates the need for gas actuation and inert purge steps required by ALD (abstract). They teach that the process increases the net deposition rate while providing ALD-type behavior (0010). They teach that the process comprises providing at least one gaseous, metal-containing precursor compound to a PECVD reactor, providing to said reactor at least one additional gaseous reactant material; and pulsing a power supply to said reactor to produce plasma and to create a power cycle consisting of a plasma OFF time and a plasma ON time; under conditions selected such that no deposition would occur if the plasma OFF time were continuous (0011). They teach that the metal-containing precursor can be any such precursor known to the art, where typical precursors include organometallic compounds, metal halide, and metal hydrides (0014). They teach that combinations of precursors can be used, where combinations typically include about tow to about four metals (0014). They teach that the gaseous reactant material is selected from a group including oxygen for forming a metal oxide (0015). They teach that the reactor conditions must be such that the metal containing precursors must not react thermally with the other gaseous reactants in the reactor if the plasma is OFF, where the choice is a function of the precursor and the reactant material, but that typically involves low pressure, short residence times, and low temperature, and combinations thereof (0017). They teach that the approach dramatically simplifies ALD processing by eliminating purge steps, which deposition rate enhancements (0023). They teach that the process can provide self-limiting growth like ALD (0025). They teach that all reagents are delivered continuously and cycle times are controlled by electronically pulsing the plasma (0039).
From the teachings of Wolden, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Hong to have used pulsed PECVD to deposit the IGZO film by continuously supplying oxygen during the metal precursor flows and cyclically providing plasma because Wolden teaches that such a process provides the benefits of ALD (self-limiting growth) while increasing the throughput and deposition rate by eliminating purging such that it will be expected to provide the IGZO film as desired while having improved throughput and deposition rate by combining the benefits of ALD and PECVD. Therefore, oxygen, an oxidizer, will be provided throughout the first, second, and third steps, and the plasma will be provided after the first, second, and third steps when it is provided in a pulsed manner.
As to the precursors, Hong teaches using indium chloride and gallium chloride (0072 and 0073). They teach using diethyl zinc or dimethyl zinc as the zinc precursors (0071).
Therefore, they do not teach that all precursors do not include carbon and hydrogen.
Sager teaches forming an absorber layer using atomic layer deposition (abstract). They teach that the proper choice of precursor materials is important for the ALD process to proceed effectively (0035). They teach that material must have sufficient volatility at the reaction temperatures, thermal stability with minimal or no self-decomposition, significant reactivity with the second precursor, etc. (0035). They teach that suitable ALD precursors for indium include indium chloride, trimethyl indium, etc. (0041). They teach that for gallium, suitable precursors include diethyl gallium chloride, gallium triiodide, or other gallium halides, gallium(I) salts such as gallium chloride, etc. (0041). They teach that for forming zinc oxide, precursors include zinc chloride, diethyl zinc, dimethyl zinc, etc. (0047-0048 and Table II). They teach that oxygen gas is typically used as a second reactant, as is a mixture of water and hydrogen peroxide (0051). They teach that the temperature used during ALD typically ranges from 150°C to 600°C depending upon the chemistry and physical properties of each precursor material (0056).
From the teachings of Sager, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used zinc chloride as the third precursors because Sager teaches that such a zinc precursor is a suitable alternatives to the trimethyl or diethyl precursors of Hong for depositing IGZO films by a vapor phase process and because Wolden teaches that metal halides are suitable precursors such that it will be expected to provide the films as desired. Therefore, each of the first to third precursors will be a substance that does not comprise carbon or hydrogen and comprises chlorine.
As to the temperature, as noted above Wolden teaches that the temperature should be low enough that the gases do not react without the plasma present. Hong teaches that the temperature is set in the range of about 20°C to about 600°C (0067). Sager teaches using an ALD temperature of from 150°C to 600°C depending upon the chemistry and physical properties of each precursor material, where the precursor material must have sufficient volatility at the reaction temperatures, thermal stability with minimal or no self-decomposition, significant reactivity with the second precursor, etc. (0035 and 0056). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature of the process to be within the claimed range from the overlapping range of Hong and the teachings of Wolden and Sager because Wolden indicates that the temperature must be set so that the precursors do not react with the gaseous reactant without the plasma present, where the temperature is dependent on the precursors and the reactant, Hong indicates that a temperature of 20-600°C is suitable for ALD reactions, which can include plasma, and Sager teaches that the temperature should be below the self-decomposition temperature, where the temperature for ALD reactivity depends on the materials used, such that it will be expected to provide a suitable temperature range for the pulsed PECVD process while preventing thermal CVD growth by maintaining the temperature below the decomposition temperature. Therefore, the temperature will be optimized to be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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).
Regarding claim 6, Hong in view of Wolden and Sager suggest the process of claim 1. As noted above, Hong teaches that forming a multi-component metal oxide film using an ALD method can be done by sequentially supplying the precursors so as to provide an IGZO film, where the composition of the film is controlled by the sequence of pulsing the flows, where the process is repeated to provide the desired thickness. Therefore, the cycles of A, B, and C, i.e., indium, zinc, and gallium oxide-forming steps are repeated as desired to provide the desired composition and film thickness, such that a plurality of cycles each comprising each of the first to fourth step one or more times will be provided.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Wolden and Sager as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asrami, US 2016/0284859 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Hong in view of Wolden and Sager suggest the process of claim 6, where Hong suggests providing cycles A, B, and C a desired number of times to provide the desired film composition.
They do not specifically teach that the ratios are the same.
Asami teaches forming an In-Ga-Zn-O semiconductor film by ALD for a semiconductor device (0232). They teach that indium gas and ozone are sequentially introduced plural times to form the In-O layer, a gallium precursor and ozone are sequentially provided plural times to form a GaO layer, and then a zinc precursor and ozone are sequentially provided plural times to provide the ZnO layer (0232). Asami further teaches that oxide semiconductor is formed to include In:M:Zn=1:1:1 (0135).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the same ratio of cycles for the first, second, and third step because Asrami teaches that such a ratio is desirable in forming an IGZO film in a semiconductor device such that it will be expected to provide a desirable film.
Claims 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Wolden and Sager as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Won, US 2015/0221507 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Hong in view of Wolden and Sager suggest the process of claim 6.
They do not teach heating the film after a certain number of cycles.
As discussed above, Won further teaches treating the IGZO layer after deposition, where treating includes annealing for passivating the film (0064, 0083, and Fig. 4).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have annealed or heated the film after completing deposition because Won teaches that such a process is desirable for passivating an IZGO film such that it will also be expected to beneficially passivate the film of Hong in view of Wolden and Sager. As noted above Hong teaches performing the cycles until the desired thickness is provided. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the annealing of the film to be provided after two or more cycles of the deposition process are completed to as to provide heat treatment on a completed film having a desirable thickness. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “[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).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Hong in view of Wolden and Sager suggest the process of claims 1 and 2. Wolden teaches that in metal oxide synthesis molecular oxygen is much less reactive than ozone or water and as a result, no deposition is observed when certain metal precursors and oxygen are simultaneously exposed to various substrates at the combination of low pressure, temperature, and residence time (0025).
They do not teach including a second oxidizer in the fourth step.
As discussed above, Won teaches that the second gas flows include oxygen, ozone, and other gases which do not react with oxygen (0075). They teach using at least one oxidizing gas selected from the group consisting of oxygen, ozone, etc. (claims 1 and 4).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added ozone during the fourth step of generating plasma because Won teaches that a combination of ozone and water can be used in a PECVD reaction and Wolden indicates that ozone is more reactive than oxygen, suggesting that it should not flow when plasma is OFF so as to prevent gas phase reactions such that providing it during the fourth step it will be expected to further react with the precursors during the plasma ON phase as indicated by Won while not affecting the self-limiting behavior during the OFF phase.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated 1/2/2026, have been fully considered.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the rejection has been modified as indicated above.
Applicant’s arguments over Wang are not addressed herein because the reference is no longer used.
As to Applicant’s arguments over Asrami, the reference is now used only for the suggested ratio, such that the arguments are not considered applicable to how the reference is currently being used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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 at 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights