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Claim 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as
being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/07/25.
Applicant's election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 10/07/25 is
acknowledged.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sang In Lee et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0032452, here after Lee).
Claim 1 is rejected. Lee teaches a film forming method of forming a metal
oxide film on a substrate in a processing container, the film
forming method comprising:
supplying a raw material gas (source gas) containing an organometallic
precursor into the processing container [0062 lines 1-4];
removing a residual gas remaining in the processing container after the supplying the raw material gas [0062 last line];
subsequently, supplying an oxidizing agent (reactant) that
oxidizes the raw material gas into the processing container [0064 lines 1-6];
removing a residual gas remaining in the processing container after the
supplying the oxidizing agent [0064 last 2 lines]; and
supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing
container [0063] simultaneously with the supplying the raw material gas [fig. 4, the gas supply simultaneously to the processing containing and the substrate move].
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0032452, here after Lee).
Claim 1 is rejected. Lee teaches a film forming method of forming a metal
oxide film on a substrate in a processing container, the film forming method comprising:
supplying a raw material gas (source gas) containing an organometallic
precursor into the processing container (step 204) [0024-0026, 0043, fig. 2];
removing a residual gas remaining in the processing container after the
supplying the raw material gas (step 210) [0044, fig. 2];
subsequently, supplying an oxidizing agent (reactant, step 214) that
oxidizes the raw material gas into the processing container [fig. 2, 0044];
removing a residual gas remaining in the processing container after the
supplying the oxidizing agent (step 216) [fig. 2, 0044]. Although in this embodiment Lee teaches supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing
container (step 208) sequentially after the supplying the raw material gas [fig. 2,
0043, 0068], and not simultaneously. However, Lee also teaches supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing container simultaneously with supplying the raw material gas (source gas) [0039]. 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 Lee where the supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing container simultaneously with supplying the raw material gas (source gas), because it is suitable way for depositing metal oxide film.
Claim 2 is rejected as Lee teaches the supplying the raw material gas, the
removing the residual gas after the supplying the raw material gas, the supplying
the oxidizing agent, and the removing the residual gas after the supplying the
oxidizing agent are repeated a plurality of cycles, and the supplying the
hydrogen-containing reducing gas is performed in each of the plurality of cycles
(to obtain desirable thickness) [fig. 2].
Claim 3 is rejected as the removing the residual gas after the supplying
the raw material gas (step 210) further removes a residual gas remaining after
the supplying the hydrogen-containing reducing gas [see fig. 2].
Claim 4 is rejected as the supplying the hydrogen-containing reducing gas
desorbs an organic ligand of the organometallic precursor [abstract, 0026].
Claim 5 is rejected as Lee teaches the organic ligand of the
organometallic precursor is an alkyl group, and the supplying the hydrogen-
containing reducing gas separates the alkyl group from the organometallic
precursor adsorbed onto the substrate to terminate hydrogen from the
organometallic precursor [0026] which inherently suppresses H2O from being
generated in the supplying the oxidizing agent.
Claims 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John
H Hong et al (WO 2014/116500, here after Hong), further in view of Sang In Lee et al
(U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0032452, here after Lee).
Claim 6 is rejected. Hong teaches a film forming method of forming, on a
substrate in a processing container, a multi-element metal oxide film including a
plurality of metal oxide films respectively containing different metals (IGZO)
[0008], the film forming method comprising:
a plurality of operations (depositing via ALD) of forming the plurality of
metal oxide films, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of operations
includes:
supplying a raw material gas containing an organometallic precursor into
the processing container;
removing a residual gas remaining in the processing container after the
supplying the raw material gas;
subsequently, supplying an oxidizing agent that oxidizes the raw material
gas into the processing container; and
removing a residual gas remaining in the processing container after the
supplying the oxidizing agent [0068, 0071, 0072, 0073, fig. 8]. Hong does not
teach at least one of the plurality of operations includes introducing a hydrogen-
containing reducing gas into the processing container after the
supplying the raw material gas. Lee teaches a method of depositing zinc oxide
with ALD and also teaches supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into
the processing container (step 208) after the supplying the raw
material gas [fig. 2, 0043, 0068, 0046], to increase deposition rate and improves
film properties [0026]. 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 making
Indium gallium zinc oxide with ALD, and supplying a hydrogen-containing
reducing gas into the processing container during depositing zinc oxide, because
it helps increasing deposition rate and improves film properties. Although in this embodiment Lee teaches supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing container (step 208) sequentially after the supplying the raw material gas [fig. 2, 0043, 0068], and not simultaneously. However, Lee also teaches supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing container simultaneously with supplying the raw material gas (source gas) [0039]. 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 Hong and Lee where the supplying a hydrogen-containing reducing gas into the processing container simultaneously with supplying the raw material gas (source gas), because it is suitable way for depositing metal oxide film.
Claim 7 is rejected as Lee teaches deposition of zinc oxide by ALD,
therefore, among the plurality of operations, in the operation including the
supplying the hydrogen-containing reducing gas, the supplying the raw material
gas, the removing the residual gas after the supplying the raw material gas, the
supplying the oxidizing agent, and the removing the residual gas after the
supplying the oxidizing agent are repeated a plurality of cycles, and the supplying
the hydrogen-containing reducing gas is performed in each of the plurality of
cycles [fig. 2].
Claim 8 is rejected as Lee teaches plurality of operations are repeated a
plurality of cycles (to obtain desirable thickness) [fig. 2].
Claim 9 is rejected. Lee also teaches (in another embodiment) the
supplying the hydrogen-containing reducing gas is performed simultaneously
with the supplying the raw material gas [0039], therefore inherently in the
operation including the supplying the hydrogen-containing reducing gas, a film
formation temperature of the plurality of metal oxide films is lowered so that an
optimum film formation temperature of the multi-element metal oxide film is made
uniform.
Claim 10 is rejected as Hong teaches the plurality of metal oxide films are
an Indium oxide film, a gallium oxide film, and a zinc oxide film, and the multi-element metal oxidecfilm is an InGaZnO film [0081].
Claim 11 is rejected. Lee teaches supplying hydrogen- containing gas
simultaneously with source material during atomic layer deposition of a film with
alkyl ligand in metal precursor helps increasing growth rate and enhancing film
properties [abstract, 0039], and teaches it for zinc oxide (with diethyl zinc
precursor) [0046], but not for gallium oxide. However, Hong teaches gallium
precursor also comprising alkyl ligand (trimethyl gallium) [0080] for depositing
gallium oxide. 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 making Indium
gallium zinc oxide with ALD, and have supplying hydrogen- containing gas
simultaneously with source material during atomic layer deposition, because it
helps increasing growth rate and enhancing film properties with expectation of
success.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason claim 11 is rejected. Hong
teaches gallium precursor comprising alkyl ligand (trimethyl gallium) for
depositing gallium oxide, and indium precursor comprising alky ligand (trimethyl
indium) [0080]. 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 making Indium
gallium zinc oxide with ALD, and have supplying hydrogen- containing gas
simultaneously with source material during atomic layer deposition of gallium
oxide and indium oxide films, because it helps increasing growth rate and
enhancing film properties with expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected because the energy for dissociation of trimethylgallium (58.5 Kcal/mol) is higher than energy for dissociation of trimethylindium (49-52 Kcal), therefore concentration of hydrogen should be more for breaking gallium precursor ligands than indium precursors ligand and requires more hydrogen.
Claim 13 is rejected as Hong teaches concentration of gallium oxide in top
layers is higher (95%) [0008], therefore more gallium precursor and more
hydrogen require than lower and forming indium oxide layer.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason claim 3 is rejected above. Lee
teaches the removing the residual gas after the supplying the raw material gas
(step 210) further removes a residual gas remaining after the supplying the
hydrogen-containing reducing gas [fig. 2].
Claim 15 is rejected. Although Lee does not clearly teach a continuous
purge gas is supplied into the processing container in a continuous manner while
performing the supplying the raw material gas, the removing the residual gas
after the supplying the raw material gas, the supplying the oxidizing agent, and
the removing the residual gas after the supplying the oxidizing agent. However,
teaches adding nitrogen gas (carrier gas) in supplying source gas [0038]. The
examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to have source gas
and reactant gas diluted with inert gas such as Ar or N2 as carrier gas for ALD
process, and purge gas is also inert gas such as Ar and nitrogen which in fact
can flow during the process. 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
making Indium gallium zinc oxide with ALD as Hon and Lee teach and the
removing the residual gas after the supplying the raw material gas and the
removing the residual gas after the supplying the oxidizing agent are performed
by the continuous purge gas, and wherein an additional purge gas is supplied in
addition to the continuous purge gas during the removing the residual gas after
the supplying the raw material gas, because it is well known in the art to have
inert purge gas flow during source and reactant gas exposure to substrate.
Claim 16 is rejected as Lee teaches the processing container is under
vacuum [0058], therefore by removing the residual gas after the supplying the
raw material gas a pressure in the processing container is reduced.
Claim 17 is rejected as Lee teaches the supplying the hydrogen-
containing reducing gas desorbs an organic ligand of the organometallic
precursor [abstract, 0026].
Claim 18 is rejected as Lee teaches the organic ligand of the
organometallic precursor is an alkyl group, and the supplying the hydrogen-
containing reducing gas separates the alkyl group from the organometallic
precursor adsorbed onto the substrate to terminate hydrogen from the
organometallic precursor [0026] which inherently suppresses HO from being
generated in the supplying the oxidizing agent.
Claim 19 is rejected as Lee teaches the hydrogen-containing (reducing)
gas is a hydrogen gas[abstract].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/28/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The to 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claims 10-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Lee does not teach supplying hydrogen containing gas into the processing container simultaneously with supplying the raw material. The examiner does not agree, figure 4 shows the substrate moves while the gases are provided to the chamber simultaneously. Furthermore, in another embodiment paragraph 0039 teaches simultaneously supplying hydrogen containing gas with supplying the raw material to processing chamber.
In paragraph 0039, Lee teaches of a specific embodiments of generating radicals and simultaneously exposing source precursor injected on the surface of the substrate to radical species generated from each of the gases.
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 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