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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, and 13 are pending and rejected. Claims 3 and 14-19 are withdrawn. Claim 7 and 11 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 8-10 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 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, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, US 2017/0207082 A1 (provided on the IDS of 10/25/2023) in view of Terasaki, US 2014/0099797 A1 and Ferro, US 2003/0073293 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Wang teaches a method for depositing silicon oxide on a substrate using thermal atomic layer deposition or thermal chemical vapor deposition (a method for depositing a silicon oxide film in an ALD process, abstract, where the reactants include non-plasma reactants so as to provide a thermal process, 0019, and where energy is applied in the form of thermal energy, 0058), the method comprising:
a. receiving the substrate in a reaction chamber (0014);
b. introducing a first flow of a first reactant into the reaction chamber and exposing the substrate to the first reactant, wherein the first reactant comprises a silicon-containing reactant (0015);
c. introducing a second flow of a second reactant into the reaction chamber to cause a reaction between the first reactant and the second reactant (0018, where the supplied oxygen source reacts with the adsorbed surface or first reactant, 0063-0064),
i. wherein the second reactant comprises hydrogen (H2) and an oxygen- containing reactant (where the reactant comprises hydrogen and oxygen or hydrogen and ozone, 0019),
ii. wherein the reaction deposits silicon oxide on the substrate (abstract), and
iii. wherein the reaction is initiated when a pressure in the reaction chamber is greater than 10 Torr and equal to or less than about 40 Torr (where the pressure is in the range from about 50 mTorr to about 760 Torr, 0019, so as to overlap the claimed range, such that the reaction will occur or be initiated when the pressure is in an overlapping range).
According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
They do not teach that a high-pressure limit switch is in fluidic communication with the reaction chamber.
Terasaki teaches forming a silicon oxide film on a substrate by alternately repeating: forming a silicon-containing layer on the substrate by supplying a source gas containing silicon to the substrate housed in a processing chamber; and oxidizing the silicon-containing layer to a silicon oxide layer by supplying reactive species containing oxygen to the substrate under a pressure atmosphere of less than atmospheric pressure, the reactive species being generated by causing a reaction between an oxygen-containing gas and a hydrogen-containing gas (abstract). They teach reacting the oxygen and hydrogen in a pre-reaction chamber that is separate from the reaction chamber or housed in an upper portion of the chamber (abstract, 0164, Fig. 1, and Fig. 8). They teach using a pressure sensor 245a as a pressure detector for detecting the pressure inside of the pre-reaction chamber 301 (0050, 0164, Fig. 1 and Fig. 8). They teach that the reaction between the oxygen-containing gas and the hydrogen-containing gas occurs inside of the pre-reaction chamber (0051). They teach using pressure sensors to monitor whether the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is maintained to a specific pressure of less than atmospheric pressure (0052). They teach that the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is maintained to a specific pressure of less than atmospheric pressure, namely, maintained to 3999 Pa (about 30 Torr) or less (0058). They teach setting the pressure so that the oxygen and hydrogen gas properly react with each other at a specific temperature to thereby generated the reactive species such as a proper amount of the atomic oxygen, etc., without generating water (0056). They teach that when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber exceeds 3999 Pa, the reaction between oxygen gas and hydrogen gas is excessively advanced when a heat of 450°C or more is added, thus generating relatively a large amount of water and reducing a generation amount of the reactive species, where a risk of explosion is generated depending on the hydrogen/oxygen ratio under the above-mentioned temperature and pressure (0057). They teach that when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is maintained to a specific pressure of 30 torr or less, the hydrogen gas is allowed to be supplied to the pre-reaction chamber, and when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is not maintained to the pressure of 30 torr or less, the hydrogen gas is not allowed to be supplied into the pre-reaction chamber (0058). They teach that when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber exceeds 30 Torr, the valve 243b is set in a state unable to be opened, preventing hydrogen gas from being supplied to the pre-reaction chamber (0059). They teach that the process can also be used to stop the supply of oxygen gas to the chamber (0059). They teach that pressure sensors 245a and 245b are used as triggers of an interlock, in such a way that the supply of the hydrogen gas and further the supply of the oxygen gas into the pre-reaction chamber are enabled only when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is a specific pressure of less than the atmospheric pressure, by monitoring the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber using the sensors (0061). They teach that the interlock control is performed by a controller (0061). Therefore, Terasaki teaches a high-pressure limit switch (pressure sensor) that is in fluidic communication with the reaction chamber (when the pre-reaction chamber is part of the chamber and the sensor measures the pressure in the chamber), wherein the high-pressure limit switch is configured to trip at a maximum pressure (i.e., when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is higher than the desired pressure, the control system monitoring the pressure sensor triggers the hydrogen gas and oxygen gas to stop flowing).
From the teachings of Terasaki, 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 Wang to have used a chamber such as that of Fig. 8 of Terasaki, having pressure sensor 245a for monitoring the pressure in the chamber or pre-reaction portion of the chamber and the associated controller for stopping the hydrogen flow if the pressure is higher than the desired limit because Terasaki teaches that such a system is desirable for reacting hydrogen and an oxygen-containing gas for producing reactive oxygen species for forming a silicon oxide film while preventing an explosion. Therefore, in the process of Wang in view of Terasaki, a high-pressure limit switch (pressure sensor) is in fluidic communication with the reaction chamber (when the pre-reaction chamber is part of the chamber), wherein the high-pressure limit switch is configured to trip at a maximum pressure so as to stop the flow of the second reactant (i.e., when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is higher than the desired pressure, the control system monitoring the pressure sensor triggers the hydrogen and oxygen gas to stop flowing). Further, since Terasaki teaches that such a system is desirable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that after the reaction is initiated or at any point in the mixing of hydrogen and the oxygen-containing reactant including after the reaction is initiated, the pressure can increase to a pressure greater than the desired maximum pressure, so as to make the control necessary such that the pressure in the chamber is expected to at some point, including a range after which the reaction is initiated, increase to at least a maximum pressure and cause the high-pressure limit switch to trip. Additionally, by providing the system suggested by Terasaki, it will also result in simultaneously flowing the hydrogen and oxygen-containing reactant into the chamber for the pre-reaction as required by claim 6.
They do not teach continuing to flow the second reactant after the high-pressure limit switch is tripped.
Terasaki teaches using mass flow controllers to control the flow of oxygen and hydrogen (0048 and 0049).
Ferro teaches a CVD reactor provided with hydrogen and silicon source gas suitable for epitaxial silicon deposition, as well as a safe mixture of oxygen in a non-reactive gas (abstract). They teach forming oxide and silicon layers within the same chamber (abstract). A first gas line communicates hydrogen gas between a hydrogen container and the gas inlet and a second gas line communicates a mixture of oxygen and a non-reactive gas between an oxidant source container and the gas inlet (0012). They teach that the level of oxygen in oxidant source container is non-explosive in the presence of any amount of hydrogen under operating conditions of the process chamber (0012). They teach that the use of oxygen and hydrogen in the same reactor creates a serious risk of explosion (0044). They teach that the oxidant source can comprise any number of known oxidants, where oxygen is preferred (0045). They teach that the oxidant is mixed with a non-reactive gas such as nitrogen or an inert gas such as Ar, He, or Ne (0045). They teach that the preferred oxidant source is such that it is non-explosive even if the non-reactive gas were replaced with pure hydrogen (0045). They teach that the percentage of oxidant in the mixture is less than the explosive limit for mixtures of the oxidant with hydrogen (0046). They teach that below the explosive limit, the mixture of oxygen and inert gas will not explode (0047). They teach that each of the gas sources may be connected to mass flow controllers (0053), such that their flow rates are regulated.
From the teachings of Ferro, 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 reduced the flow of the oxygen/oxidant gas and the hydrogen gas using the MFCs in response to the pressure sensor indicating a higher pressure than desired to a concentration below the explosive limit as opposed to stopping the flow because Ferro teaches that having a mixture of an oxidant gas and hydrogen at a concentration below the explosive limit provides a gas mixture that is non-explosive and both Terasaki and Ferro teach supplying the gases using MFCs such that it will be expected to sense the increased pressure and control the flow of the gases using the MFCs to prevent any explosion or further increases in pressure due to an excessive reaction while still supplying oxygen and hydrogen for the reaction. Therefore, in the process of Wang in view of Terasaki and Ferro, the second reactant will continue to flow at a reduced flow rate (so as to reduce the oxygen concentration below the explosive limit) after the high-pressure limit switch is tripped.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Terasaki and Ferro suggest the process of claim 1. Wang further teaches that the process is an atomic layer deposition process (abstract), where the step of introducing the silicon-containing reactant and the hydrogen/oxygen reactant is separated by a purge process (0013-0019), such that steps (b) and (c) occur at different times.
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Terasaki and Ferro suggest the process of claim 1. Terasaki teaches that the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is 30 Torr or less, where, if it exceeds 30 Torr, hydrogen gas is not allowed to be supplied (0058). 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 set the maximum pressure to be greater than 30 Torr because Terasaki teaches that exceeding such a pressure is undesirable. Therefore, the maximum pressure will overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Wang in view of Terasaki and Ferro suggest the process of claim 1. Terasaki further teaches that the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is desirably 2666 Pa (about 20 Torr) or less to generate the reactive species at a specific temperature of 450°C or more (0056). While they teach stopping hydrogen flow when the pressure exceeds 30 Torr to prevent a large amount of water from being formed and lower the risk of explosion (0058). 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 set the maximum pressure to be 2666 Pa or less because they indicate that the desirable pressure for the pre-reaction chamber is in such a range such that it will maintain the pre-reaction chamber in the desired pressure range while still preventing large amount of water from being generated and lowering the risk of explosion. Specifically, by providing the maximum pressure to be about 20 Torr or less, it will keep the pressure in the desired range to provide the reactants while preventing water generation. Therefore, the pressure will overlap the claimed ranges. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Alternatively, 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 maximum pressure to be within the claimed range because Terasaki indicates that the pressure is dependent on the temperature of the process (0056), such that by determining a desirable working pressure range for the system by routine experimentation dependent on the temperature it will be expected to provide a desirable range for generating reactive oxygen species. 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.”
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Wang in view of Terasaki and Ferro suggest the process of claim 1. Wang further teaches that the oxygen-containing reactant provided with hydrogen is oxygen or ozone (0019).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered. In light of the amendment to claim 1, Applicant’s argument are considered persuasive. Therefore, the new reference of Ferro has been added to indicate that the flow rate of an oxidant and hydrogen can be provided below an explosive limit.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over pressure control, Terasaki teaches that the pressure sensors 345a and 245b are used as triggers of an interlock, so that the supply of hydrogen gas and oxygen gas to the pre-reaction chamber are enabled only when the pressure in the pre-reaction chamber is a specific pressure less than the atmospheric pressure (0061). They teach that the interlock control is performed by a controller (0061). Therefore, Terasaki discloses using a controller and pressure sensors to stop the flow of gases when the pressure is higher than a set limit, such that it is expected to also send a message to the controller to stop the flow of reactants when the pressure is a specific limit. As noted above, the reference has been modified to suggest controlling the system to reduce the flow rate to below the explosion limit concentration.
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