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 .
Status of Application
Claims 11, 14-20 and 24-29 are pending. Claim 29 is withdrawn. Claims 11, 14-20 and 24-28 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Sprenger does not disclose or suggest the specific mechanism of forming dangling bonds selectively on the bottom surface by an electron-only beam and allowing raw material gas to be selectively adsorbed on the bottom surface by the dangling bonds. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that in the abstract Sprenger teaches that “Electron-stimulated desorption (ESD) of hydrogen surface species and the corresponding creation of reactive dangling bonds are believed to facilitate borazine adsorption”. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Sprenger is teaching the selective formation of dangling bonds with an electron beam followed by selective adsorption at those locations by interaction of the dangling bonds with the precursor species.
Applicant also argues that Ranjan teaches away from applying a negative bias to the showerhead to irradiate only electrons to the bottom surface while attracting argon ions. However, Ranjan specifically teaches that the bias voltage can be used in a step for creating a situation where ions bombard the electrode and electrons are emitted (0025). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the prior art makes obvious the newly claimed limitations, and the rejections of record are maintained as presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
1. Claim(s) 11, 14-19 and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0146568) in view of Furuta et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7972470) and Sprenger et al. (“Electron-Enhanced Atomic Layer Deposition of Boron Nitride Thin Films at Room Temperature and 100 ºC”) and Ranjan et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0088371).
I. Regarding claims 11, 14, 15, 24 and 27, Haukka teaches an ALD process (abstract) comprising: providing a substrate, such as a dielectric substrate (0057) supported on a stage/susceptor in a chamber (see 0102), which can be patterned with recesses (0084); a step of supplying a first precursor gas (abstract and 0023), such as a metal halide (0023), to the substrate such that the metal halide is adsorbed (0025) on a bottom surface of a recess (0084); and a third step of supplying a reactant (abstract and 0023), such as hydrogen radicals (0023), to the substrate and reacting with the adsorbed first precursor to provide a film that partially fills the recesses (0031 and 0084). Haukka teaches that the hydrogen radicals can be supplied from a remote plasma source (0032). Haukka also teaches that the first precursor can be a boron metal precursor (0089). Haukka fails to teach the stage is grounded, and a first step of irradiating the substrate with an electron beam by introducing a plasma gas (Argon) into the chamber via a showerhead which is a first electrode facing the substrate and applying a negative DC bias to the showerhead to form a plasma from the plasma gas in the chamber and generate the electron beam that forms dangling bonds selectively on the bottom surface of the recess and the first precursor gas is selectively adsorbed on the bottom of the recess via the dangling bonds. Haukka further fails to teach the argon ions generated in the plasma are attracted to the showerhead while the generated electrons are selectively irradiated onto the bottom surface.
Frist, Furuta teaches asymmetrically grounding a susceptor/stage that holds a substrate in a plasma processing chamber (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haukka’s process by asymmetrically grounding the susceptor/stage as disclosed by Furuta. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Furuta teaches that grounding the susceptor/stage in this manner provides improved deposition uniformity (abstract).
Second, Sprenger teaches a first step of irradiating a substrate surface comprising recesses with an electron beam (Section 3.6, page 9462) from an electron beam gun (FRA-2x1-2, see Section 2.1, page 9456 and note this type of electron gun operates by applying a DC bias to an electrode arranged to face the substrate) which selectively forms dangling bonds on the bottom surface (abstract) of the recess prior to ALD deposition of a boron nitride thin film (Section 2.1, page 9456). Sprenger teaches that the use of the electron beam allows for ALD to be selectively performed on the horizontal surface (bottom surface) of the recess (Section 3.6, page 9462) and that the precursor gas for forming the film is then selectively adsorbed on the bottom of the recess via the dangling bonds (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haukka’s process by including an initial electron beam irradiation step of the trenches to allow for selectively forming dangling bonds and then having the precursor gas selectively adsorbed via the dangling bonds for filling the trenches from the bottom up. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Sprenger teaches that use of the electron beam allows for selective deposition on the bottom of a trench and prevents pinch-off where deposition on the sidewalls of a trench closes off the trench opening and creates voids in the trench (Section 3.6, page 9463).
Third, Ranjan teaches generating an electron beam (0024) by positioning a showerhead above a substrate (0024 and Figure 4), introducing plasma gas, such as argon (0021), via the showerhead (0024) and then applying a negative DC bias to the showerhead (0024) which both forms a plasma from the gas and generates an electron beam (0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger’s process by generating the electron beam by using the showerhead as an electrode and applying a negative DC bias as disclosed by Ranjan to generate a plasma and electron beam from the argon gas. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow for the generation of the electron beam without requiring a separate electron gun to generate and thereby simplifying the process and apparatus used. Furthermore, the DC bias voltage will inherently also attract the argon ions that are generated in combination with the formation of the electron beam as noted by Ranjan at paragraph 0025.
II. Regarding claims 16-19 and 25-26, Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger and Ranjan teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 15, and the hydrogen radicals being supplied by a remote plasma (see above). Additionally, Haukka teaches that the ALD deposition steps may be sequentially repeated as many times as necessary to build up a desired film thickness (0034-0037), and that a surface pre-treatment step or other steps (which is consistent with Sprenger’s electron beam irradiation step) may occasionally be omitted in the repeating cycles (0039). Therefore, Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger and Ranjan also make obvious sequentially repeating the steps and occasionally omitting the electron beam irradiation step.
2. Claim(s) 20 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger and Ranjan as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Yamazawa et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0236148).
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger and Ranjan teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 18 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach the hydrogen radicals activated by applying a RF to the showerhead and a second electrode adjacent to the substrate has a “high” impedance.
However, Yamazawa teaches providing RF power to an electrode showerhead (0097) opposing a substrate and then using an impedance controller to provide “high” impedance to an electrode adjacent to the substrate for generating a plasma and propelling radicals to the substrate (abstract and Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger and Ranjan’s process by utilizing using Haukka in view of Furuta and Sprenger and Ranjan’s showerhead electrode in addition to Yamazawa’s RF electrodes and impedance controller for generating the hydrogen radicals in place of the remote plasma and then propelling them to the substrate. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Yamazawa teaches that the use of the RF plasma with impedance controller allows for optimal control of the plasma state such that planar uniformity can be maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 11, 14-20 and 24-29 are pending.
Claim 29 is withdrawn.
Claims 11, 14-20 and 24-28 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
February 4, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717