DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The claim requires that (a) and (b) are performed and (a) is performed “immediately following completion of step (b)” without any intervening process – BUT, the claim overall is “comprising” and the steps inclusive of (a) and (b) are NOT limited.
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, 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hashimoto (2016/0203978) in view of Jung (2005/0233598), Kato (2012/0267341) and Thridandam (2008/0207007).
Hashimoto teaches a deposition method comprising:
(a) forming a film including Si, O and N on a substrate, see Fig. 4 and further per [0138] wherein the teachings include modification of the sequence to deposit SiOCN and
(b) supplying a plasma generating gas including NH3 and an inert gas and exposing the substrate to the plasma, see the modifying step.
In regard to the concentration of nitrogen in the film – the claim requires that the nitrogen in the film is adjusted by adjusting a duration of (b) but falls short of actually requiring an adjustment. There is some duration of (b) per the teachings and this meets the requirements of controlling the nitrogen concentration.
The process of (a) and (b) are alternately repeated and (a) is performed after (b) such that SiON layers are formed on top of each other.
The teachings of Hashimoto include an inert plasma for the modification step but do not teach argon and do not include a rotary table or continuingly rotating the rotary table during the process.
Jung teaches a deposition method comprising forming a film including Si, O and N on a substrate – see [0013] particularly, and supplying a plasma generating gas wherein a nitridation in an inert (argon) atmosphere and plasma treatment. The combinations taught by Jung include a step of nitridation and plasma with Ar (inert atmosphere) treatment. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the argon of Jun instead or in addition to the nitrogen of Hashimoto because the teachings include an inert gas and Jung further teaches argon in applying a modifying process to a SiON layer.
In regard to the rotary table, Kato teaches a system that is useful for forming a SiON film – see Fig. 2 particularly and related text. The system includes a rotary table and multiple (first, second and third) processing gas supplies above the rotary table, and also includes at least one plasma supply (221). It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the method of Hashimoto in the rotary ALD system of Kato as Kato teaches a useful system for supply a Si, N and O containing gas to a substrate. In regard to forming the film, one combining the teachings would likewise apply the first, second and third gas to the like positions of the system of Kato as per Fig. 2 or as with appropriate modifications to make the process viable in the combination of the art. As such, the use of the rotating table and deposition stations of Kato would be an obvious combination of the teachings – and Kato further teaches continuously rotating the turntable station by station to continue the process [0064-67].
The teachings do not include the claimed ALD process including DIPAS, ozone and nitriding gas, but Jung teaches ALD [0032-33] and Hashimoto teaches SiON as noted – Thridandam teaches that DIPAS is a useful precursor for forming SiON layers by ALD, see [0031-34]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the DIPAS of Thridandam in the method of Hashimoto et al as an operable selection of a silicon precursor. In regard to the other precursors, Hashimoto teaches ozone [0141] as does Jung [0029] and the nitriding precursor is not limited. In combining the teachings with Kato, it would have been further obvious to separate the flows as claimed.
In regard to the requirements of performing (a) immediately following (b) – the process is a sequential deposition/ALD process – the steps are repeated “without any intervening process” – however it is noted that the overall process as claimed is comprising and the steps of (a) and (b) are NOT limited to the specifically claimed actions, in other words, Hashimoto forms other films, but this still meets the requirements such as of step (a) forming the film comprising Si, O and N – the film of Hashimoto has additional steps and additional materials, but the claim is not limiting.
Regarding claim 3, the nitriding gas is included – the inclusion of the NH3 would necessarily increase the concentration of nitrogen as opposed to not having it.
Regarding claim 7, as per above, further to Hashimoto, Kato teaches a system that is useful for forming a SiON film – see Fig. 2 particularly and related text. The system includes a rotary table and multiple (first, second and third) processing gas supplies above the rotary table, and also includes at least one plasma supply (221). In regard to forming the film, one combining the teachings would likewise apply the first, second and third gas (not specifically assigned to any of the noted gases of claim 1) to the like positions of the system of Jung as per Fig. 2 or as with appropriate modifications to make the process viable in the combination of the art. As such, the use of the rotating table and deposition stations of Kato would be an obvious combination of the teachings, and further and particularly wherein the first, second and third gases are not specifically assigned.
Regarding claim 8, the rotary table of Kato allows multiple processes to be performed at the same time therefore it would have been further obvious to flow a second gas from a second gas supply while step (b) occurs.
Claim 11 is rejected under the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hashimoto (2016/0203978), Jung (2005/0233598), Kato (2012/0267341), Thridandam (2008/0207007) and in view of Kato (2013/0206067).
The prior art teachings noted above include all elements of the claim except for the requirement of an ICP source and Faraday shield wherein the gas supply nozzle is a separate unit. The combined teachings include plasma as noted but not the ICP source – but Kato ‘067 teaches that an effective manner of supplying plasma to a multi-station apparatus is to applying an ICP antenna separate from a gas nozzle and including a Faraday shield, see particularly Fig.6 and 22-24 as well as [0139-142]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the ICP device and Faraday shield of Kato ‘067 in the device of the combined art as an effective manner of supplying plasma. The claimed elements of the shield, ICP and gas nozzle are all met by the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants have limited the claim steps – but not fully. There is no specific limit to the entirety of steps included, for example, in the forming step (a). The step may include any number of steps so the “immediately following” would only limit to immediately after any number of unclaimed steps in addition to the ones that are actually claimed and required and therefore the arguments are not persuasive. The teachings of Thridandam are included to teach DIPAS but it is noted that Thridandam also teaches many elements of the claimed process without the introduction of the additional metal layers as taught by Hashimoto and would be reasonably applied.
It is also noted that a step of supplying a nitrogen compound as a part of a film deposition process meets the requirements of step (b) in the claim as written wherein the applied compound already includes nitrogen.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. 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 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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715