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 § 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 8, 9, 10 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.
Claims 8, 9, 10 are indefinite because they depend on claim 3.
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.
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, 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-1596329 B1) in view of Um et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2020/0109472 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teach an atomic layer deposition apparatus comprising (Fig. 1): a chamber providing a space in which a process is performed (Fig. 1 — 110; Paragraph 0031); a substrate support unit for supporting a substrate in the chamber (Fig. 1 — 120; Paragraph 0031); a gas supply unit for supplying gas to the chamber (Fig. 1 — 130; Paragraph 0031); an exhaust unit for discharging gas in the chamber (Fig. 1 — 140; Paragraph 0031); a plasma generation unit installed in the chamber to generate plasma in the chamber (Fig. 1 — 150; Paragraph 0031); and a VHF (very high frequency) power source for applying a VHF band signal to the plasma generation unit (Fig. 1 — 160; Paragraph 0031)
The difference between Kim et al. and claim 1 is that:
wherein the gas supply unit is configured to, after the substrate is placed in the chamber, repeat a cycle which, a silicon precursor gas is supplied at a predetermined first flow rate for a predetermined first time period, a purge gas is supplied at a predetermined second flow rate for a pre-determined second time period, a nitrogen-containing reactant is supplied as a plasma source gas at a predetermined third flow rate for a predetermined third time period, and the purge gas is supplied again at the second flow rate for the second time period is not discussed.
Regarding wherein the gas supply unit is configured to, after the substrate is placed in the chamber, repeat a cycle which: a silicon precursor gas is supplied at a predetermined first flow rate for a predetermined first time period, a purge gas is supplied at a predetermined second flow rate for a pre-determined second time period, a nitrogen-containing reactant is supplied as a plasma source gas at a predetermined third flow rate for a predetermined third time period, and the purge gas is supplied again at the second flow rate for the second time period:
Kim et al. teach after the substrate is placed in the chamber, the gas supply unit repeats a cycle in which a precursor gas is supplied at a predetermined first flow rate for a predetermined first time period, the purge gas is supplied at a predetermined second flow rate for a predetermined second time period, the plasma source gas is supplied at a predetermined third flow rate for a predetermined third time period, and the purge gas is supplied at the second flow rate for the second time period. (See Figs. 2, 3; Paragraphs 0066-0068)
Regarding the precursor gas:
Kim et al. teach utilizing trimethylaluminum gas as the deposition gas or a precursor gas for forming aluminum oxide.
Kim et al. teach that the deposition gas or precursor gas can be provided at 1 sccm for 3 seconds or longer. (Paragraph 0020)
Um et al. teach utilizing a silicon precursor gas as a deposition gas or precursor gas for forming a silicon containing film. (Paragraph 0105)
Um et al. teach utilizing a chloride-based silicon precursor gas. (Paragraph 0105)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim et al.’s deposition gas or precursor gas by replacing it with the deposition gas of Um et al. because it is desired to deposit a silicon containing film.
Regarding the purge gas:
Um et al. teach utilizing argon as the purge gas. (Table 1)
Kim et al. teach the purge gas being used at 50 sccm for 6 seconds or longer. (Paragraph 0023)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim et al.’s purge gas with the purge gas of Um et al. because it allows for depositing a silicon containing film.
Regarding the plasma source gas:
Um et al. teach nitrogen or oxygen can be used as a plasma source gas. (Paragraph 0105)
Kim et al. teach the plasma source gas can be used at 200 sccm for 2 seconds or longer. (Paragraph 0021)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Kim et al.’s plasma source gas with the plasma source gas of Um et al. because it allows for depositing silicon containing films.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
Kim et al. teach wherein the gas supply unit supplies a silicon precursor gas, a plasma source gas, or a purge gas to the chamber. (Paragraph 0007)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. teach wherein the plasma generation unit includes at least one of: an upper electrode and a lower electrode installed to face each other with the substrate interposed therebetween to form an electric field in the chamber (Paragraph 0009); and a coil installed on the top or side of the chamber to form an electromagnetic field in the chamber (Paragraph 0009).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. teach wherein the VHF power source applies a signal having a frequency of 30 to 300 MHz to the plasma generation unit. (Paragraph 0010)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. teach further including an impedance matching unit connected between the VHF power source and the plasma generation unit to match an output impedance of the VHF power source and an input impedance of the plasma generation unit. (Paragraph 0011)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. teach further including a heating unit installed in the substrate support unit to heat the substrate. (Paragraph 0012)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply unit supplies a silicon precursor selected from the group consisting of a chloride-based silicon precursor, an amide- based silicon precursor and combinations thereof as the silicon precursor gas at 1 sccm for 3 seconds or longer.
Regarding claim 8, Um et al. teach utilizing a chloride-based silicon precursor. (Paragraph 0105)
Kim et al. teach that the deposition gas can be provided at 1 sccm for 3 seconds or longer. (Paragraph 0020)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply unit supplies a nitrogen- containing reactant as the plasma source gas at 200 sccm for 2 seconds or longer.
Regarding claim 9, Um et al. teach nitrogen or oxygen can be used as a plasma source gas. (Paragraph 0105)
Kim et al. teach the plasma source gas can be used at 200 sccm for 2 seconds or longer. (Paragraph 0021)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the gas supply unit supplies argon as the purge gas at 50 sccm for 6 seconds or longer.
Regarding claim 10, Um et al. teach utilizing argon as the purge gas. (Table 1)
Kim et al. teach the purge gas being used at 50 sccm for 6 seconds or longer. (Paragraph 0023)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
Regarding claim 11, Kim et al. teach wherein the VHF power source applies a signal having a frequency of 60 MHz to the plasma generation unit. (Paragraph 0016)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. teach wherein the heating unit heats the substrate to 150 to 200°C. (Paragraph 0017)
The motivation for utilizing the features Um et al. is that it allows for depositing silicon containing films including nitrides or oxides. (Paragraphs 0104, 0105)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Kim et al. by utilizing the features of Um et al. because it allows for depositing silicon containing films including nitrides or oxides.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that Kim and Um are not combinable because they solve different problems, it is argued that Kim and Um are combinable because they teach deposition of material utilizing various gases.
In response to the argument that Kim and Um are not combinable because they are structurally incompatible, it is argued that Kim and Um are combinable because both
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 RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
October 27, 2025