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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/10/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 has been amended to require hydrogen plasma. This has caused a discrepancy in claim 6 that lists options without hydrogen plasma. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0025885 to McSwiney in view of US 2014/0273531 to Niskanen.
McSwiney teaches a process for silicon nitride film formation using a silicon source precursor [0019]. The precursor is represented by the general formula in [0037-0041] and representative compounds are shown in Fig. 5. The following figure is the closest to claimed Formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
181
217
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R1 is a propyl (C3) group. McSwiney does not anticipate the claimed silazane precursor because the above figure lacks halide groups and R1 must be a methyl or ethyl group. However, from the general formula it is shown that any of the R groups (methyl in the figure) can be replaced with halogen [0037, 0039]. A replacement of at least 4 methyl groups with a halogen results in the claimed formula I. McSwiney goes on to explain the motivation for substituting in halogen [0036; 0052]. Specifically, the halogen causes Si-N bond strain, which leads to the desired lower silicon nitride formation temperature. Additionally, the difference between an R1 propyl group vs. methyl or ethyl group represents a homolog that differs by only one or two CH2 groups. Such very close structural similarity renders obvious the claimed composition due to the expectation that the compositions would have similar properties. McSwiney does not explicitly teach PEALD, although CVD, PECVD, and ALD are generally taught [0016]. However, Niskanen teaches a method of PEALD as an alternative to thermal ALD for depositing silicon nitride thin films [0024]. The PEALD process includes supplying the precursors sequentially separated by purging [0026] into a heated reactor [0059]. The precursors include a silicon precursor [0033], followed by a second reactant such as a plasma of hydrogen, He, or Ar [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of McSwiney and substitute the ALD process with PEALD as described by Niskanen. This substitution amounts to the use of a known process for its intended purpose in a known environment to accomplish an expected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-4 have been amended to require heating the substrate to a temperature from 600-850°C. McSwiney is considered to be the closest prior art and only teaches reaction temperatures up to 550°C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759