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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 30, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukazawa; Atsuki et al. (US 20180119283 A1). Fukazawa teaches a film forming apparatus (Figure 1-7), comprising: a processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]) in which a substrate is accommodated; a gas supply (21,22; Figure 1; [0051]) configured to supply a raw material gas (Precursor; [0032]; Figure 5; [0018]-grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) and a reactive gas (“Reactant”; m times; Figure 5; grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) into the processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]); a radio frequency power (1kHz < f < 100MHz; [0030]) supply (25; Figure 1; [0051]) configured to output radio frequency power (1kHz < f < 100MHz; [0030]) for generating plasma inside the processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]); an exhauster (“vacuum pump”; [0028]) configured to exhaust an interior of the processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]); and a controller (40; Figure 2-7; [0044]), wherein the controller (40; Figure 2-7; [0044]) controls the gas supply (21,22; Figure 1; [0051]), the radio frequency power (1kHz < f < 100MHz; [0030]) supply (25; Figure 1; [0051]), and the exhauster (“vacuum pump”; [0028]) to form a titanium (“metal-based precursor...Ti”; [0032]) film on the substrate is performed by an atomic layer deposition method ((i)-(iv); [0022]) that alternately (Figure 3,5; [0064]) performs, while continuously supplying ((ii); [0022]) the reactive gas (“Reactant”; m times; Figure 5; grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) into the processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]), an adsorption operation (PEALD; [0022]) of adsorbing the raw material gas (Precursor; [0032]; Figure 5; [0018]-grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) onto a surface of the substrate by supplying the raw material gas (Precursor; [0032]; Figure 5; [0018]-grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) into the processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]) in which the substrate is accommodated, and a reaction operation ((v); [0022]) of plasmarizing reactive gas (“Reactant”; m times; Figure 5; grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) to react with the raw material gas (Precursor; [0032]; Figure 5; [0018]-grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) adsorbed onto the surface of the substrate, and wherein in the reaction operation ((v); [0022]), the reactive gas (“Reactant”; m times; Figure 5; grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) is plasmarized with the radio frequency power (1kHz < f < 100MHz; [0030]) having a frequency of 38 MHz or more and 60 MHz or less, and wherein an internal pressure (0.5kPa < P < 30kPa = 3.75Torr < P < 225Torr [0070]) of the processing container (3; Figure 1; [0051]) in the process of forming the titanium fim is 500mTorr or more and 5Torr or less, as claimed by claim 1. Fukazawa teaches the process pressure range of 112Torr (15kPa) < p < 600Torr (80kPa) – [0028] and 0.5kPa < P < 30kPa = 3.75Torr < P < 225Torr [0070]
Fukazawa further teaches:
The film forming apparatus (Figure 1-7) of Claim 11, wherein the gas supply (21,22; Figure 1; [0051]) supplies TiCl4 as the raw material gas (Precursor; [0032]; Figure 5; [0018]-grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]) and supplies H2 ([0033]) as the reactive gas (“Reactant”; m times; Figure 5; grey=ON, white=OFF; [0010]), as claimed by claim 12. Fukazawa states in [0032] that Si can be replaced by Ti in the precursor equation:
H
a
S
i
b
R
c
where R is a “halogen”, a,b,c are “integers” which supports the use of titanium chloride by Fukazawa
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
“
Fukazawa fails to disclose or suggest at least the feature of "wherein an internal pressure of the processing container in the process of forming the titanium film is 500 mTorr or more and 5 Torr or less" as recited in amended Claim 11.
In the Office Action, the Examiner relied on paragraphs [0028] and [0070] of Fukazswa as evidence of disclosing the feature of "wherein the controller controls the gas supply mechanism and the exhaust mechanism so that an internal pressure of the processing container in the process of forming the metallic titanium film becomes 500 mTorr or more and 5 Torr or less" previously recited in Claims 13 and 14. Specifically, the Examiner asserted that paragraph [0070] of Fukazawa discloses the process pressure range of 3.75 Torr (0.5 kPa) < p < 225 Torr (30 kPa).
“
And…
“
However, throughout the specification and claims, Fukazawa merely discloses that the pressure of the reaction chamber is continuously controlled in a range of 15 kPa to 80 kPa, i.e., 112 Torr to 600 Torr, during the PEALD process (see abstract, paragraphs [00221, [00281, [00351, and [00361, and claims 1, 16, and 18 of Fukazawa), which does not overlap with the pressure range of "500 mTorr or more and 5 Torr or less" recited in amended Claim 11.
“
And..
“
Thus, the pressures 0.5 kPa and 30 kPa disclosed in parag;raph [0070] of Fukazawa are merely pressures used in the experiments for investigating plasma ignition, and Fukazawa fails to disclose or suggest the pressure range of 0.5 kPa to 30 kPa, i.e.,
“
In response, the Examiner agrees up until Fukazawa’s paragraph [0070] where Fukazawa is experimenting with additive inert gases and oxygen in assiting plasma “stable ignition” for the previously discussed “reference examples”. Fukazawa’s paragraph [0070] notes that in the processing pressure range of 0.5kPa < P < 30kPa = 3.75Torr < P < 225Torr He is favored for stable plasma ignition at a lower RF power and >1% oxygen. Fukazawa’s paragraph [0070] thus clearly demonstrates experimentation in subatmospheric PEALD for the previously discussed “reference examples”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PEALD is supported by references such as US 20150203967 A1; US 20250046599 A1; US 20190385815 A1.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Examiner Rudy Zervigon whose telephone number is (571) 272- 1442. The examiner can normally be reached on a Monday through Thursday schedule from 8am through 6pm EST. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Any Inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Chemical and Materials Engineering art unit receptionist at (571) 272-1700. If the examiner cannot be reached please contact the examiner's supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh, at (571) 272- 1435.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Rudy Zervigon/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights