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
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Byul Han Back et al (KR 20180047564, here after Back).
Claim 1 is rejected. Back teaches a method for processing a substrate, which performs a processing process on a substrate in a processing space divided into a first processing region and a second processing region (ALD apparatus) [fig. 2, page 2 Background-Art paragraph 2], the method comprising:
a step of performing a first processing process on the substrate in the first processing region when the substrate supported by a supporting unit (120) is disposed in the first processing region;
a step of rotating the supporting unit within the processing space to move the substrate to the second processing region, when the first processing process is completed [fig. 1, page 4 paragraph 5]; and
a step of performing a second processing process on the substrate in the second
processing region when the substrate supported by the supporting unit is disposed in the second processing region [fig. 1],
wherein the step of performing the first processing process is performed in a state where rotation of the supporting unit is stopped (it has to be stopped in the
chamber until process of deposition is complete), and comprises:
a step of injecting a first source gas into the first processing region; and
a step of injecting a second source gas into the first processing region [page 4 paragraphs 1, 5, page 4 paragraph 6],
wherein the step of injecting the first source gas into the first processing region
and the step of injecting the second source gas into the first processing region are sequentially performed [page 4 paragraphs 5, 6],
wherein the step of performing the second processing process is performed in a state where rotation of the supporting unit is stopped (it has to be stopped in the
chamber until process of deposition is complete), and comprises:
a step of injecting a first reactant gas into the second processing region; and
a step of injecting a second reactant gas into the second processing region, wherein the step of injecting the first reactant gas into the second processing region,
wherein the first processing region and the second processing region are spatially separated from each other [fig. 2, page 5 paragraphs 4].
Claim 2 is rejected as Back teaches the step of performing the first processing
process comprises a step of injecting a purge gas into the first processing region [page 5 paragraph 2].
Claim 3 is rejected as Back teaches the step of performing the first processing
process comprises a step of injecting a third source gas (purge gas) into the first
processing region [page 5 paragraph 2].
Claim 4 is rejected. Back teaches the limitation of claim 1, teaches in step
of injecting the second source gas into the first processing region injects the second source gas which differs from the first source gas [page 6 paragraph1].
Claim 5 is rejected. Considering the process is ALD, the first source precursor can be considered as silicon precursor for the first deposition of ALD cycle and the second source precursor can be considered as the first source precursor for second ALD cycle which are the same.
Claim 7 is rejected. Considering the process is ALD, the first source precursor can be considered as silicon precursor for the first deposition of ALD cycle and the second source precursor can be considered as the first source precursor for second ALD cycle which are the same, therefore the injection time of the first source and second source gas is the same.
Claim 10 is rejected as Back teaches the step of performing the second processing process comprises a step of injecting a purge gas into the second processing region [fig. 3, page 5 paragraph 2].
Claim 11 is rejected as Back teaches the step of injecting the second reactant
gas into the second processing region injects the second reactant gas(hydrogen)
which differs from the first reactant gas(oxygen)[page 6 last paragraph, page 7 paragraph 7], and
the step of performing the second processing process comprises a step of
injecting a third reactant gas (purge gas), which differs from each of the first reactant gas and the second reactant gas, into the second processing region [page 5 paragraph 2].
Claim 12 is rejected as Back teaches the step of performing the second processing process comprises a step of generating plasma in the second processing region [page 6 last paragraph].
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paul Ma et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0403516, here after Ma).
Claim 1 is rejected. Ma teaches a method for processing a substrate, which
performs a processing process on a substrate in a processing space (102) divided into
a first processing region and a second processing region [fig. 1, fig. 2, 0009, 0035],
spatially separated from each other, the method comprising:
a step of performing a first processing process (depositing indium oxide) on the
substrate in the first processing region when the substrate supported by a supporting
unit (susceptor) is disposed in the first processing region;
a step of rotating the supporting unit (with rotating arm) within the processing
space to move the substrate to the second processing region, when the first processing
process is completed (transporting substrate between the chambers); and
a step of performing a second processing process (depositing zinc oxide) on the
substrate in the second processing region when the substrate supported by the
supporting unit is disposed in the second processing region;
wherein the step of performing the first processing process is performed in a
state where rotation of the supporting unit is stopped (it has to be stopped in the
chamber until process of deposition is complete) and comprises:
a step of injecting a first source gas (indium precursor) [0008, 0042, 0052, 0011, 0021] into the first processing region; and
a step of injecting a second source gas (indium precursor for next layer in ALD) into the first processing region [0052]. Ma also teaches the step of injecting the first source gas into the first processing region and the step of injecting the second source gas into the first processing region are sequentially performed (as it is ALD process) [0023], and the first processing region and second processing region are spatially separated from each other [fig. 1]. Ma teaches a step of performing a second processing process (depositing zinc oxide) on the substrate in the second processing region [0008] when the substrate supported by the supporting unit is disposed in the second processing region, wherein the step of performing the second processing process is performed in a stage where rotation of the supporting unit is stopped (the robot must stop in the second chamber until the deposition of zinc oxide layer is completed), and comprises:
a step of injecting a first reactant gas (oxidant) [0041, 0052, 0011, 0021] into the
second processing region; and
a step of injecting a second reactant gas (oxidant for another ZnO layer as it is ALD) into the second processing region [0052]. Ma also teaches the step of injecting the first reactant gas into the second processing region and the step of injecting the second reactant gas into the second processing region are sequentially performed (because it is an ALD process), and the first processing region and the second processing region are spatially separated from each other [fig. 1].
Claim 2 is rejected as Ma teaches the step of performing the first processing
process comprises a step of injecting a purge gas into the first processing region [0023].
Claim 3 is rejected as Ma teaches the step of performing the first processing
process comprises a step of injecting a third source gas (purge gas) into the first
processing region [0023].
Claim 5 is rejected. Considering first indium oxide layer and second indium oxide
layer, Ma teaches the first step as the step of injecting the second source gas (indium
precursor) into the first processing region injects the second source gas (another indium
precursor for next indium oxide layer) which is the same as the first source gas.
Claim 7 is rejected, as repeating cycle for deposition of indium oxide film via ALD requires injection time of the first source gas (e.g. indium precursor for first sublayer) and injection time of the second source gas (e.g. indium precursor for second sublayer) be the same.
Claim 10 is rejected as Ma teaches the step of performing the second processing
process comprises a step of injecting a purge gas into the second processing region
[0023-0024].
Claim 12 is rejected as Ma teaches the step of performing the second processing
process comprises a step of generating plasma in the second processing region [0025, 0052].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Byul Han Back et al (KR 20180047564, here after Back).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected, since the first source gas and second source gas are different therefore the injection time of them also are obviously different.
Claims 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul Ma et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0403516, here after Ma).
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected, since the first source gas and second source gas are different therefore the injection time of them also are obviously different.
Claims 1-7, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwan Ju Park et al (KR 20190094320, here after Park).
Claim 1 is rejected. Park teaches a method for processing a substrate, which performs a processing process on a substrate in a processing space divided into a first processing region and a second processing region (ALD apparatus) [fig. 1, page 2lines 10-12], the method comprising:
a step of performing a first processing process on the substrate in the first processing region when the substrate supported by a supporting unit (121) is disposed in the first processing region;
a step of rotating the supporting unit within the processing space to move the substrate to the second processing region, when the first processing process is completed [fig. 1, abstract]; and
a step of performing a second processing process on the substrate in the second
processing region when the substrate supported by the supporting unit is disposed in the second processing region [fig. 1],
wherein the step of performing the first processing process is performed in a state where rotation of the supporting unit is stopped (it has to be stopped in the
chamber until process of deposition is complete), and comprises:
a step of injecting a first source gas into the first processing region; and
a step of injecting a second source gas into the first processing region [page 3 paragraphs 1, 5, page 4 paragraph 8],
wherein the step of injecting the first source gas into the first processing region
and the step of injecting the second source gas into the first processing region are sequentially performed [page 4 paragraph 8, page 5 paragraphs 7, and 10, page 7 paragraph 6, page 8 paragraph 2],
wherein the step of performing the second processing process is performed in a state where rotation of the supporting unit is stopped (it has to be stopped in the
chamber until process of deposition is complete), and comprises:
a step of injecting a first reactant gas into the second processing region [page 5 paragraph 2]; and
wherein the first processing region and the second processing region are spatially separated from each other [fig. 1]. Although Park does not teach a step of injecting a second reactant gas into the second processing region, wherein the step of injecting the first reactant gas into the second processing region, however teaches the process is ALD, therefore depositing source gas and reactive gas repeated for cycles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Park when the step of injecting the second reactant gas into the second processing region are sequentially performed, because the process is an ALD process.
Claim 2 is rejected as Park teaches the step of performing the first processing
process comprises a step of injecting a purge gas into the first processing region [page 4 last paragraph].
Claim 3 is rejected as Park teaches the step of performing the first processing
process comprises a step of injecting a third source gas (purge gas) into the first
processing region [page 4 last paragraph].
Claim 4 is rejected. Park teaches the limitation of claim 1, teaches in step
of injecting the second source gas (metal precursor) into the first processing
region injects the second source gas which differs from the first source gas (silicon precursor) [page 4 one paragraph before the last paragraph].
Claim 5 is rejected. Considering the process is ALD, the first source precursor can be considered as silicon precursor for the first deposition of ALD cycle and the second source precursor can be considered as the first source precursor (Si precursor) for second ALD cycle which are the same.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected, since the first source gas and second source gas are different therefore the injection time of them also are obviously different.
Claim 7 is rejected. Considering the process is ALD, the first source precursor can be considered as silicon precursor for the first deposition of ALD cycle and the second source precursor can be considered as the first source precursor (Si precursor) for second ALD cycle which are the same, therefore the injection time of the first source and second source gas is the same.
Claim 10 is rejected as Park teaches the step of performing the second processing process comprises a step of injecting a purge gas into the second processing region [page 3 paragraph 6].
Response to Arguments
The examiner makes this office action non-final as the office action mailed on 03/06/26 was not deal with all claims (action was not saved correctly). Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Ma does not teach the transfer arm rotates any susceptor. The examiner does not agree as the transfer arm rotates the substrate between chambers, when the substrate is placed on susceptor. It is not possible that the transfer arm moves the substrate without substrate holder(susceptor), substrates are very brittle (single crystal silicon, germanium, or GaAs wafers) and require the holder(susceptor) hold, protect and control the substrate temperature.
The applicant further argues Ma does not teach spatially separate space or source gases and reactive gases. The examiner disagrees as while in one module source gas injected in another module reactant gas injected and substrate can rotate between the modules. Furthermore, the specific process that the applicant mentioned in Remarks 06/08/26, page 3 is not required by claim such as only two reactant gases are injected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights