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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 23 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1: the substrate has a same predetermines temperature in (a) and (b) (original claim 2; Spec. [0081]).
Species 2: a temperature of the substrate in (b) is lower than that of the substrate in (a) (new claim 23; Spec. [0081]).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitaiton “at which and oxidation rate…” This limitaiton renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to what part of the claim, the term “at which” makes references.
Claim 3 recites the limitaiton “a temperature at which….” This limitaiton renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to what part of the claim, the term “at which” makes references.
Claim 21 recites the limitaiton “a supply time of supplying the reactive species in (b) is adjusted according to an allowable value of a concentration of hydrogen remaining in the second oxide layer.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim makes reference to an unknown parameter “an allowable value of a concentration of hydrogen remaining in the second oxide layer.” And according to MPEP 2173.05(b), a claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined.
Claims 2-4, 6-16 and 19-22 are indefinite due to their dependance on indefinite claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO’787 (WO 2008038787, Machine Translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, WO’787 discloses a method of processing a substrate, comprising: (a) modifying a surface of the substrate into a first oxide layer by supplying, to the substrate, a reactive species generated by plasma-exciting a first processing gas that contains oxygen and hydrogen and a ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the first processing gas is a first ratio ([0007]; [0012] note: a first oxidation step); and (b) modifying the first oxide layer into a second oxide layer by supplying, to the substrate, a reactive species generated by plasma-exciting a second processing gas in that contains oxygen and optionally contains hydrogen and a ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the second processing gas is a second ratio smaller than the first ratio ([0007]; [0015]; note: a second oxidation step; note: no hydrogen in a second oxidation step); wherein the first ratio in (a) is selected to be a ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the first processing gas, at which an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate increases as a temperature of the substrate decreases ([0039]; note the recitation “at which an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate increases as a temperature of the substrate decreases” is considered to be intended outcome recitation of a required step already disclosed by the prior art rather than a required step further limiting scope of the claims. The applied prior art can be so modified or used and therefore renders unpatentable such claims. See, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2111.04, and precedents cited therein. In the present case, because a ratio is the same as in Applicant’s invention, the intended result “an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate increases as a temperature of the substrate decreases” is considered to be the same).
Regarding claim 2, WO’787 discloses wherein the substrate has a same predetermined temperature in (a) and (b) ([0013]).
Regarding claim 3, WO’787 discloses wherein the predetermined temperature in (a) is selected to be a temperature at which an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate is to increase as a ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the first processing gas increases ([0013]).
Regarding claim 4, WO’787 discloses wherein the predetermined temperature is 300 degrees C or lower ([0013]; note: 200 C).
Regarding claim 6, WO’787 discloses wherein the first ratio is 60% or more and 95% or less ([0039]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, WO’787 discloses wherein the second ratio is 5 % or more and 20% or less ([0045]).
Regarding claim 9, WO’787 discloses wherein the second processing gas is a hydrogen-free gas [(0044]; note: hydrogen is optional).
Regarding claim 10, WO’787 discloses wherein the surface of the substrate to be modified into the first oxide layer in (a) is composed of a base containing silicon ([0015]).
Regarding claim 11, WO’787 discloses wherein the base containing silicon is composed of silicon alone ([0015]).
Regarding claim 12, WO’787 discloses wherein a thickness of the first oxide layer is 4 nm or more ([0042]; [0047]; [0054]).
Regarding claim 13, WO’787 discloses wherein a concentration of hydrogen contained in the second oxide layer is lower than a concentration of hydrogen contained in the first oxide layer ([0039]; [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, WO’787 discloses wherein in (a), the first processing gas supplied into a process chamber that accommodates the substrate is plasma-excited ([0015]), and wherein in (b), the second processing gas supplied into the process chamber is plasma-excited ([0015]).
Regarding claim 15, WO’787 discloses wherein the first processing gas is a mixed gas of an oxygen gas and a hydrogen gas ([0037]- [0039]).
Regarding claim 16, WO’787 discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1 ([0001]).
Regarding claim 19, WO’787 discloses wherein the predetermined temperature is 200 degrees C ([0013]).
Regarding claim 22, WO’787 discloses (c) purging an inside of a process chamber, in which the substrate is processed, between (a) and (b) ([0024]; [0041]; note: the pressure in the chamber is adjusted between (a) and (b)).
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’787 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2019/0244803).
Regarding claim 20, WO’787 does not disclose wherein, in (b), hydrogen atoms in the first oxide layer are desorbed from the first oxide layer such that a concentration of hydrogen in the second oxide layer is lower than that in the first oxide layer.
WO’787 however disclose that the second oxidation step (b) is performed to improve film quality ([0047]). And Suzuki discloses that improving film quality in the oxidation step by desorbing hydrogen atoms in the oxide layer such that a concentration of hydrogen in the oxide layer is decreased ([0058]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify WO’787 with Suzuki to have hydrogen atoms in the first oxide layer are desorbed from the first oxide layer such that a concentration of hydrogen in the second oxide layer is lower than that in the first oxide layer for the purpose of improving a film quality (Suzuki, [0058]).
Regarding claim 21, WO’787 does not disclose wherein a supply time of supplying the reactive species in (b) is adjusted according to an allowable value of a concentration of hydrogen remaining in the second oxide layer.
WO’787 however disclose that the second oxidation step (b) is performed to improve film quality ([0047]). And Suzuki discloses that low concentration of hydrogen results in improved film quality ([0058]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust a supply time of supplying the reactive species in (b) for the purpose of improving film quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that WO’787 does not disclose that limitation of amended claim 1 such as "wherein the first ratio in (a) is selected to be a ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the first processing gas at which an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate is to increase as a temperature of the substrate decreases" as not persuasive because of the following reasons.
First, the recitation “at which an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate is to increase as a temperature of the substrate decreases” is considered to be intended outcome recitation of a required step having already disclosed by the prior art rather than a required step further limiting scope of the claims. The applied prior art can be so modified or used and therefore renders unpatentable such claims. See, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2111.04, and precedents cited therein. In the present case, because a ratio is the same as in Applicant’s invention (WO’787, [0039]), the intended result “an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate increases as a temperature of the substrate decreases” is considered to be the same.
Second, Applicant’s arguments that WO’787 does not disclose the connection between the ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the first processing gas and the substrate temperature are not relevant to rejection of claim 1, because claim 1 does not recite what the temperature of the substrate is. Moreover, claim 1 does not positively recite the step of “decreasing the substrate temperature.” And the recitation “as a temperature of the substrate decreases” neither define a substrate temperature nor define a range in which the substrate temperature should decrease. Thus, because WO’787 discloses improving plasma oxidation range by suppling hydrogen ([0039]), the limitation “wherein the first ratio in (a) is selected to be a ratio of hydrogen in the oxygen and hydrogen of the first processing gas at which an oxidation rate of the surface of the substrate is to increase as a temperature of the substrate decreases” is considered to be met.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891