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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-20) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-10 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.
The term “relatively high curvature” in claim 1 s a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high curvature” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-10 are indefinite due to their dependance on indefinite claim 1.
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) 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam (Elam et al .,” ZnO/Al2O3 nanolaminates fabricated by atomic layer deposition: growth and surface roughness measurements, “ Thin Solid Films 414 (2002) 43–5) in view of Gerritsen (Gerritsen, “Surface smoothing using atomic layer deposition and etching, “ Master Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, September 15, 2020) and Kim (Kim et al., “Atomic layer etching of Al2O3 with NF3 plasma fluorination and trimethylaluminum ligand exchange, “J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 40(3), April, 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Elam discloses a method of depositing a layer, the method comprising: i) loading a substrate on a substrate stage within a chamber; ii) alternately supplying a precursor gas and a reaction gas into the chamber to form at least one atomic layer (page 45, paragraph 4); iii) planarizing a surface (page 51, column 1, paragraph 1) of the at least one atomic layer (page 54, column 1, paragraph 3) and iv) alternately supplying the precursor gas and the reaction gas into the chamber to form at least one atomic layer on the planarized atomic layer (page 54, column 1, paragraph 3; Fig.10).
Elam does not disclose that planarizing is performed by applying pressure on the surface of the at least one atomic layer to diffuse atoms located on the surface having a relatively high curvature.
Elam however discloses improving smoothness of ZnO layer deposited by ALD by depositing Al2O3 on a surface of ZnO layer (page 54, column 1, paragraph 3). And Gerritsen discloses that the smoothing of the ALD deposited ZnO layer can be further improve by isotropic ALE that modifies the surface involving atom diffusion (page 25, section 3.2.2, paragraph 1; page 27, paragraphs 2 and 3; page 65, section 6.4, paragraph 1). And Kim discloses that ALE process is performed using plasma fluorination (Fig.1B) under the pressure (page 40, Section II, paragraph 2; note: pressure at ALE process) to improve smoothness of ALD deposited films (page 40, column 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Gerritsen and Kim to perform planarization by applying pressure on the surface of the at least one atomic layer to diffuse atoms located on the surface having a relatively high curvature for the purpose of improving smoothness of ALD deposited films (Gerritsen, page 65, section 6.4., paragraph 1; Kim page 40, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claims 3, Kim discloses wherein planarizing the surface of the at least one atomic layer includes applying radiation pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer (Abstract; note: plasma).
Regarding claims 4, Kim discloses wherein planarizing the surface of the at least one atomic layer includes generating a mechanical bombardment on the surface of the at least one atomic layer (Abstract; note: plasma).
Regarding claim 6, Elam discloses v) performing the step iii) after the step iv); and repeatedly performing the step iv) and the step v) until the atomic layer has a desired thickness (Fig.10).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen.
Regarding claim 11, Elam discloses a method of depositing a layer, the method comprising: i) alternately supplying a precursor gas and a reaction gas into a chamber to form at least one atomic layer; (page 45, paragraph 4) planarize a surface of the at least one atomic layer curvature surface (page 51, column 1, paragraph 1)); and iii) repeatedly performing the step i) and the step ii) until the atomic layer has a desired thickness (Fig.10).
Elam does not disclose that planarization is performed by diffusing atoms located on a surface of the at least one atomic layer.
Elam however discloses improving smoothness of ZnO layer deposited by ALD by depositing Al2O3 on a surface of ZnO layer (page 54, column 1, paragraph 3). And Gerritsen discloses that the smoothing of the ALD deposited ZnO layer can be further improved by isotropic ALE that modifies the surface that involves atom diffusion (page 25, section 3.2.2, paragraph 1; page 27, paragraphs 2 and 3; page 65, section 6.4, paragraph 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Gerritsen to perform planarization by applying pressure on the surface of the at least one atomic layer to diffuse atoms located on the surface for the purpose of improving smoothness of ALD deposited films (Gerritsen, page 65, section 6.4., paragraph 1).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (Park et al., “Vibration atomic layer deposition for conformal nanoparticle coating, “J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 32, 01A115 (2014)).
Regarding claims 2, Elam does not disclose wherein planarizing the surface of the at least one atomic layer includes applying vibration pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer.
Elam however discloses that planarization of the at least one atomic layer includes atomic layer deposition of Al2O3 (page 51, column 1, paragraph 1). And Park discloses that applying vibration pressure during atomic layer deposition improves deposition of Al2O3 (Abstract).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Park to apply vibration pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer for the purpose of improving atomic layer deposition process.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of Park (Park et al., “Vibration atomic layer deposition for conformal nanoparticle coating, “J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 32, 01A115 (2014)).
Regarding claims 12, Elam does not disclose wherein planarizing the surface of the at least one atomic layer includes applying vibration pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer.
Elam however discloses that planarization of the at least one atomic layer includes atomic layer deposition of Al2O3 (page 51, column 1, paragraph 1). And Park discloses that applying vibration pressure during atomic layer deposition improves deposition of Al2O3 (Abstract).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Park to apply vibration pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer for the purpose of improving atomic layer deposition process.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding claim 13, Elam does not disclose wherein planarizing the surface of the at least one atomic layer includes applying radiation pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer.
Elam however discloses improving smoothness of ZnO layer deposited by ALD by depositing Al2O3 on a surface of ZnO layer (page 54, column 1, paragraph 3). And Gerritsen discloses that the smoothing of the ALD deposited ZnO layer can be further improved by isotropic ALE that modifies the surface by that involves atom diffusion (page 25, section 3.2.2, paragraph 1; page 27, paragraphs 2 and 3; page 65, section 6.4, paragraph 1). And Kim discloses that ALE process is performed using radiation pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer (note: plasma fluorination (Fig.1B) ; page 40, Section II, paragraph 2)).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Gerritsen and Kim to apply radiation pressure to the surface of the at least one atomic layer for the purpose of improving smoothness of ALD deposited films (Gerritsen, page 65, section 6.4., paragraph 1; Kim page 40, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 14, Elan does not disclose planarizing the surface of the at least one atomic layer includes generating a mechanical bombardment on the surface of the at least one atomic layer.
Elam however discloses improving smoothness of ZnO layer deposited by ALD by depositing Al2O3 on a surface of ZnO layer (page 54, column 1, paragraph 3). And Gerritsen discloses that the smoothing of the ALD deposited ZnO layer can be further improved by isotropic ALE that modifies the surface by that involves atom diffusion (page 25, section 3.2.2, paragraph 1; page 27, paragraphs 2 and 3; page 65, section 6.4, paragraph 1). And Kim discloses that ALE process is performed using a mechanical bombardment on the surface of the at least one atomic layer (note: plasma fluorination (Fig.1B) (page 40, Section II, paragraph 2).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Gerritsen and Kim to use a mechanical bombardment on the surface of the at least one atomic layer for the purpose of improving smoothness of ALD deposited films (Gerritsen, page 65, section 6.4., paragraph 1; Kim page 40, column 1, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 8, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claims 1 and Elam in view of Gerritsen as apply to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tsai (US 2011/0076513).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Elam does not disclose wherein the precursor gas includes zirconium or hafnium.
Tsai however discloses the precursor gas includes hafnium ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Tsai to have the precursor gas that includes hafnium for the purpose of deposition hafnium oxide films (Tsai, [0029]).
Regarding claim 20, Elam does not disclose wherein the at least one atomic layer includes zirconium oxide and hafnium oxide.
Tsai however discloses wherein the at least one atomic layer includes hafnium ([0029]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gerritsen with Tsai to have the at least one atomic layer includes hafnium for the purpose of deposition hafnium oxide films (Tsai, [0029]).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claim 1 and Elam in view of Gerritsen as apply to 11 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2006/0157694).
Regarding clams 5 and 15, Gerritsen does not disclose wherein the at least one atomic layer has a thickness of 0.2 A to 0.8A.
Gerritsen however deposition by ALD (page 18117, section 2, paragraph 1). And Lee discloses that the film thickness in one atomic layer deposition cycle is 0.8 ([0048]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Gerritsen with Lee to have film thickness in one atomic layer deposition cycle is 0.8 A for the purpose of atomic layer deposition of a metal oxide layers.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claim 6 and Elam in view of Kim as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pal (Pal et al., “Effect of substrates and thickness on optical properties in atomic layer deposition grown ZnO thin films, “ Applied Surface Science Volume 421, Part B, 1 November 2017, Pages 341-348).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Elam does not disclose wherein the desired thickness of the atomic layer is within a range of 30 A to 80 A.
Pal however discloses that the desired thickness of the atomic layer is within a range of 30 A to 80 A (page 342, section 2, paragraph 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gerritsen with Pal to adjust the desired thickness to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization optical properties of the deposited films (Pal, page 342, section 2, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claim 1 and Elam in vide of Gerritsen as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Li (Li et al., “Effect of Process Pressure on Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3. “ J. Electrochem. Soc. 154 H967, 2007).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Elam does not disclose supplying a boost gas into the chamber to increase pressure inside the chamber, after the step i).
Li however discloses increasing pressure in the chamber by changing the gas flow (page H968, column 1, paragraph 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to supplying a boost gas into the chamber to increase pressure inside the chamber, after the step i) for the purpose of tuning pressure in the chamber and increasing growth rate (Li, page H968, column 1, paragraph; page H972, “Conclusion”).
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claim 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Jur (Jur et al, “Atomic Layer Deposition of Al2O3 and ZnO at Atmospheric Pressure in a Flow Tube Reactor, “ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2011, 3, 299–308).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Elam in view of Gerritsen, Kim and Li does not disclose wherein the pressure of the chamber increased by the boost gas is at least 1 atm.
Jur however discloses ALD at chamber pressure is at least 1 atm (page 300, section II, paragraph 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Jur to increase pressure to at least 1 atm for the purpose of improving thin film deposition (Jur, Abstract).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elam in view of Gerritsen and Kim as applied to claim 1 and Elam in view of Gerritsen as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view Jur.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Elam does not disclose supplying a boost gas into the chamber to increase pressure inside the chamber, after the step i).
Jur however discloses increasing pressure in the chamber by supplying a boost gas (page 300, section II, paragraph 1; note: adjusting N2 gas).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Elam with Jur to increase pressure to increase pressure by supplying a boost gas for the purpose of improving thin film deposition (Jur, Abstract).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Jur discloses wherein the pressure of the chamber increased by the boost gas is at least 1 atm (page 300, section II, paragraph 1).
Conclusion
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