Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/161,298

DEPOSITION METHOD AND DEPOSITION APPARATUS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 30, 2023
Priority
Feb 03, 2022 — JP 2022-015860
Examiner
SLUTSKER, JULIA
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allowance Rate
843 granted / 1097 resolved
+8.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
1129
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
50.0%
+10.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1097 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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, and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2017/0345644) in view of Okada (US 2015/0101532), and Shimizu’548 (Shimizu US 2017/0342548). Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a deposition method comprising: forming a seed layer on a substrate (Fig.3B, numeral 4); and forming a carbon film (Fig.3C, numeral 5) on the seed layer (4), wherein the forming the seed layer includes: supplying a boron-containing gas to the substrate to form a B-H bond ([0049]). Shimizu does not disclose (1) supplying an aminosilane-based gas to the substrate to form a Si-H bond on a surface of the substrate and that a B-H bond is formed on the surface on which the Si-H bond is formed, wherein the supplying the aminosilane-based gas to form the Si-H bond and the supplying the boron-containing gas to form the B-H bond are continuously performed in a same processing chamber; (2) wherein the forming the carbon film includes: supplying a carbon-containing gas and a halogen gas to the substrate to form the carbon film on the seed layer; and supplying a gas including at least one of NH₃, H₂, or N₂ to remove a halogen terminal derived from the halogen gas and formed in the carbon film. Regarding elements (1), Okada however discloses supplying an aminosilane-based gas to the substrate to form a Si-H bond on a surface of the substrate and that a B-H bond is formed on the surface on which the Si-H bond is formed (Fig. 1; Fig.2B; [0031]; [0072]-[0073]; [0080]), wherein the supplying the aminosilane-based gas to form the Si-H bond and the supplying the boron-containing gas to form the B-H bond are continuously performed in a same processing chamber ([0014]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizu with Okada to supply an aminosilane-based gas to the substrate to form a Si-H bond on a surface of the substrate and that a B-H bond is formed on the surface on which the Si-H bond wherein the supplying the aminosilane-based gas to form the Si-H bond and the supplying the boron-containing gas to form the B-H bond are continuously performed in a same processing chamber is formed for the purpose of forming a seed layer with improved uniformity (Okada, [0013]). Regarding element (2), Shimizu’548 discloses wherein the forming the carbon film includes: supplying a carbon-containing gas and a halogen gas to the substrate to form the carbon film on the seed layer ([0035]; [0036]); and supplying a gas including at least one of NH₃, H₂, or N₂ ([0058]; [0070]; note: N2 gas) to remove a halogen terminal derived from the halogen gas and formed in the carbon film ([0113]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizu with Shimizu’548 to supplying a carbon-containing gas and a halogen gas to the substrate to form the carbon film on the seed layer; and supplying a gas including at least one of NH₃, H₂, or N₂ to remove a halogen terminal derived from the halogen gas and formed in the carbon film for the purpose of suppressing damage to a an underlying film and forma a carbon film with good adhesivity (Shimizu’548, [0013]). Regarding claim 4, Shimizu’548 discloses wherein the forming the carbon film includes repeating a cycle including forming the carbon film and supplying a gas including at least one of NH₃, H₂, or N₂ ([0058]; [0070]; note: N2 gas) a plurality of times ([0066]; note: plurality of wafers). Regarding claims 5 and 8, Shimizu’548 does not disclose wherein supplying a gas including at least one of NH₃, H₂, or N₂ is performed under a higher-pressure environment compared to the forming the carbon film. Shimizy’548 however discloses that process condition could be optimized for the purpose of forming carbon film with minimal impurities ([0078]- [0085]). Regarding claims 6 and 9, Shimizu discloses wherein the forming the carbon film is performed under a same temperature environment as in the forming the seed layer or under a higher temperature environment compared to the forming the seed layer (claims 5 and 7). Regarding claims 7 and 10, Shimizu discloses wherein the forming the seed layer and the forming the carbon film are performed in a same processing chamber (Fig.2). Regarding claim 11, Shimizu discloses wherein the forming the carbon film is performed under a same temperature environment as in the forming the seed layer or under a higher temperature environment compared to the forming the seed layer (claims 5 and 7). Regarding claim 12, Shimizu discloses wherein the forming the seed layer and the forming the carbon film are performed in the same processing chamber (Fig.2). Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (US 2017/0345644) in view of Okada (US 2015/0101532), and Shimizu’548 (Shimizu US 2017/0342548) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasebe (US 2015/0037970). Regarding claim 14, Shimizu does not disclose wherein the supplying the aminosilane-based gas to form the Si-H bond is performed with the substrate maintained at a temperature of 2000C or more and 3000C or less. Hasebe discloses wherein the supplying the aminosilane-based gas to form the Si-H bond is performed with the substrate maintained at a temperature of 2000C or more and 3000C or less ([0010]; Fig. 7). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shimizu with Hasebe to perform supplying the aminosilane-based gas to form the Si-H bond with the substrate maintained at a temperature of 2000C or more and 3000C or less for the purpose of improving the accuracy of surface roughness (Hasebe, [0266]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that Shimizu’548 does not disclose supplying a gas including at least one of NH3, H2, or N2 to remove a halogen terminal derived from the halogen gas and formed in the carbon film are not persuasive because of the following reasons. First, the limitation “to remove a halogen terminal” is an intended result recitation of the positively recited step of “supplying a gas including at least one of NH3, H2, or N2.” Absent claiming how the intended outcome results are achieved by step limitations, an intended outcome recitation fails to distinguish scope of a method claim over prior art process capable of yielding or achieving the intended outcome language. See, for example, M.P.E.P § 2111.04 and the precedents cited therein. In the present case, Shimizu’548 discloses reducing amount of a halogen in the carbon film ([0113]). Smimizu’548 further discloses supplying a gas including N2 as a purge gas after forming a carbon film ([0070]). Thus, Shmizu’548 discloses the positively recited step of supplying a gas including N2. And because Shimizu’ discloses an intended result of this step “to remove a halogen terminal derived from the halogen gas and formed in the carbon film” ([0113], Shimizu’ 548 discloses the limitations of amended claims 1 such as “supplying a gas including at least one of NH3, H2, or N2 to remove a halogen terminal derived from the halogen gas and formed in the carbon film.” 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 4 earlier events
Feb 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 14, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
Jun 16, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 10, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §103
Sep 24, 2026
Interview Requested
Sep 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Sep 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12751219
SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, METHOD FOR PRODUCING SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE PRODUCTION DEVICE, ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745457
SUPPORT SUBSTRATE FOR PASSIVE ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, PASSIVE ELECTRONIC COMPONENT, SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, MATCHING CIRCUIT, AND FILTER CIRCUIT
2y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12740355
BOTTOM THICK OXIDATION GROWTH IN HIGH ASPECT RATIO FEATURES
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12729435
METHODS FOR DEPOSITING GAP-FILLING FLUIDS AND RELATED SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
3y 8m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12733467
METHODS FOR ETCH BARRIER DEPOSITION AND DEVICES MADE ACCORDING TO THE SAME
3y 6m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 5m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1097 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month