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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee [US 20210066069]
Claim 1: Lee teaches a method for forming a hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [abstract], wherein hBN can be used for semiconductor devices [0026] the method provides a boron containing precursor and nitrogen containing precursor to a processing chamber [0027], wherein the substrate is disposed within the chamber [0050]; forming a plasma of the boron containing precursor and nitrogen containing precursor in the chamber [0048]; wherein the temperature of the substrate is typically 800 degrees C or lower [abstract] such as 350-800 degrees C [0062], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). Alternatively, Lee teaches an example of forming the hBN layer at 390 degrees C [0058]. Lee further teaches forming the layer of hBN is formed on the substrate (one can consider the catalyst as the substrate) [abstract; 0058, 0050]. Lee also teaches the substrate may be aluminum oxide (dielectric material) [0058].
Claim 2: Lee teaches the boron containing precursor can be of diborane [0055].
Claim 6: Lee teaches the pressure of the chamber is maintained at about 0.01 to 1 Torr [0018].
Claim 7: Lee teaches performing the method at a plasma power of less than or about 500 W [0057].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sarkar [US 20200287133].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using diatomic nitrogen. Sarkar is provided.
Claim 3: Sarkar teaches when forming a boron nitride film [title], the nitrogen source can be a nitrogen gas such as N2, which is diatomic [0052]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize to use diatomic nitrogen gas as a suitable gas for forming boron nitride as taught by Sarkar.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugino [JP2007070669].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the flow rate ratio ranges of claims 4-5. Sugino is provided.
Claims 4-5: Sugino teaches that flow ratio of nitrogen to boron can range from 0.1 to 10, and flow ratio of hydrogen to boron can be from 0.05 to 5 [pg 9, para 10]. Sugino further teaches that the flow ratio can be changed to adjust to the desired film composition [pg 9, para 12]. Sugino further teaches hydrogen can be supplied to the process chamber as a carrier gas [pg 9, para 9]. Although Sugino does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize these flow ratio ranges for these gases since Sugino teaches these flow rates can change the composition and properties of the film.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng [CN109196139].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the layer of material is characterized by the claimed boron or carbon concentration % range. Zheng is provided.
Claims 8-9: Zheng teaches the BN film has only trace amount of carbon [pg 7 para 12; pg 12, para 1], wherein the amount of carbon could be less than 5 atomic % wt [pg 12, para 1]. In regards to the boron concentration being greater than 25 % or larger, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the boron and nitrogen content would compose of the remaining content of the concentration percentage of the film. Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of boron in the hBN film through routine experimentation in order to produce a practical product.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Venugopal [CN110337720].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach stopping the delivery of the boron containing precursor and maintain a flow of nitrogen for a second period of time. Venugopal is provided.
Claim 10: Venugopal teaches stopping the boron containing precursor [pg 5 para 3] and maintaining the flow of nitrogen for a second period of time (repeated) [pg 5 para 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform these processes since Venugopal teaches such ALD process is well known in the art and provides a desired thickness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng2 [CN105861987].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach all the limitations of claim 11. Zheng2 is provided.
Claim 11: Zheng2 teaches adjusting the power to 750 W while introducing nitrogen [pg 6 para 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to increase the power as taught by Zheng2 since the prior art teaches such parameter range for increasing power is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng2 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Venugopal [CN110337720].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach all the limitations of claim 12. Venugopal is provided.
Claim 12: Venugopal teaches repeating the method for at least one additional cycle (repeated) [pg 5 para 4]. t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform these processes since Venugopal teaches such ALD process is well known in the art and provides a desired thickness.
Claim 14: Lee teaches a method for forming a hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [abstract], wherein hBN can be used for semiconductor devices [0026] the method provides a boron containing precursor and nitrogen containing precursor to a processing chamber [0027], wherein the substrate is disposed within the chamber [0050]; forming a plasma of the boron containing precursor and nitrogen containing precursor in the chamber [0048]; wherein the temperature of the substrate is typically 800 degrees C or lower [abstract] such as 350-800 degrees C [0062], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). Alternatively, Lee teaches an example of forming the hBN layer at 390 degrees C [0058]. Lee further teaches forming the layer of hBN is formed on the substrate (one can consider the catalyst as the substrate) [abstract; 0058, 0050]. However, Lee does not appear to teach stopping the delivery of the boron containing precursor and maintain a flow of nitrogen for a second period of time. Venugopal is provided. Venugopal teaches stopping the boron containing precursor [pg 5 para 3] and maintaining the flow of nitrogen for a second period of time (repeated) [pg 5 para 4]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform these processes since Venugopal teaches such ALD process is well known in the art and provides a desired thickness. However, the prior art does not appear to teach increasing a plasma power during nitrogen flow. Zheng2 is provided. Zheng2 teaches adjusting the power to 750 W while introducing nitrogen [pg 6 para 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to increase the power as taught by Zheng2 since the prior art teaches such parameter range for increasing power is well known in the art.
Claim 15: Lee teaches the boron containing precursor can be of diborane [0055].
Claim 16: Venugopal teaches repeating the method for at least one additional cycle (repeated) [pg 5 para 4]. t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform these processes since Venugopal teaches such ALD process is well known in the art and provides a desired thickness.
Claim 17: Zheng2 teaches adjusting the power to 750 W while introducing nitrogen [pg 6 para 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to increase the power as taught by Zheng2 since the prior art teaches such parameter range for increasing power is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zheng2 and Venugopal as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sugino [JP2007070669].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the flow rate ratio ranges of claim 18. Sugino is provided.
Claim 18: Sugino teaches that flow ratio of nitrogen to boron can range from 0.1 to 10, and flow ratio of hydrogen to boron can be from 0.05 to 5 [pg 9, para 10]. Sugino further teaches that the flow ratio can be changed to adjust to the desired film composition [pg 9, para 12]. Sugino further teaches hydrogen can be supplied to the process chamber as a carrier gas [pg 9, para 9]. Although Sugino does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize these flow ratio ranges for these gases since Sugino teaches these flow rates can change the composition and properties of the film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Lee does not teach a dielectric substrate, Examiner points out that Lee teaches the substrate may be of aluminum oxide which is a dielectric. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Venugopal is generally directed to ALD, which suggests that the precursors would not be provided simultaneously, it is argued that the claimed invention does not preclude ALD and does not require the use of CVD. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Venugopal cannot be interpreted to suggest halting deliver of the precursor while maintain a flow of nitrogen precursor, it is argued that the claimed invention does not require the two precursor to be supplied simultaneously. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Zheng2 does not teach increasing or ramping power, it is argued that in order to adjust the power to 750W as taught by Zheng2 it would inherently be increased to reach the power of 750W.
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights