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 Invention I, claims 1-21, in the reply filed on February 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 19, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0303185) in view of Kataoka et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0082685).
In the case of claims 1 and 21, Nakagawa teaches a method for processing a substrate/manufacturing a semiconductor device (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraphs 0002-0005). The method of Nakagawa comprised providing a substrate/wafer 200 having a first surface/base 200a and a second surface/base 200b and forming an inhibitor layer on the first base 200a in the form of fluorine (F)-termination by supplying a modifying agent in the form of a fluorine-containing gas which reacted with the first surface 200a (Page 4 Paragraph 0038, Page 5 Paragraphs 0057-0058 and Figures 5A and 5B). Following forming the inhibition layer/F-termination on the first surface 200a a film in the form of a silicon nitride (SiN) film was formed on the second surface 200b of the substrate/wafer 200 by supping a film-forming agent/silicon-containing gas (Page 4 Paragraph 0038, Page 6 Paragraph 0071-0072 and Figure 5C).
Though Nakagawa teaches having formed a film on the second surface of the substrate Nakagawa does not teach having formed a first film on the second substrate by supplying a first film-forming agent and having formed a second film on the first film on the second surface by supplying a second film-forming agent wherein the second film-forming agent had an energy higher than the energy of the first film-forming agent. However, as was discussed previously, Nakagawa taught forming a silicon nitride layer on the second surface. Furthermore, Nakagawa teaches that the film-forming agent used to form the SiN layer was chlorosilane and in addition to the chlorosilane additional gases were used including hexachlorodisilane (Page 6 Paragraph 0074).
Kataoka teaches a method for forming a SiN film on a wafer substrate by suppling a first film-forming agent in the form of a chlorosilane precursor gas followed by supplying a second-film-forming agent in the form of a hexachlorodisilane precursor gas (Abstract and Pages 3-4 Paragraphs 0039-0044). The first film-forming agent formed a first film/layer on the wafer (Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0058-0059) and the second film-forming agent formed a second film on the first film/layer (Page 5 Paragraph 0071). Kataoka teaches that the taught method for form a SiN film resulted in a film with a uniform thickness and an increased deposition rate (Page 7 Paragraphs 0093 and 0097).
Based on the teachings of Kataoka, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the method of Kataoka to form the SiN film of Nakagawa because Kataoka taught a known process in the art for forming a SiN film which had uniform thickness at an increased deposition rate.
As for the second film-forming agent having a second energy which was higher than the first energy of the first film-forming agent, Kataoka teaches that each film forming step was conducted at a processing temperature which gave the film-forming agents an energy (Page 4 Paragraph 0054 and Page 5 Paragraph 0069). Kataoka further teaches that the processing temperature/first energy for the first film forming step was set to suppress pyrolysis of the first film-forming agent (Page 5 Paragraphs 0060-0061 and Page 8 Paragraph 0107-0108) and that the processing temperature/second energy for the second film-forming step was set to cause pyrolysis of the second film-forming agent (Page 6 Paragraphs 0074-0075 and Page 8 Paragraph 0109). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal first energy and an optimal second energy for the first and second film-forming agents in the process of Nakagawa in view of Kataoka in order to suppress pyrolysis of the first film-forming agent and causing pyrolysis of the second film-forming agent.
As for claim 2, Kataoka teaches that the first film-forming agent comprised a first reactant in the form of ammonia (NH3) pre-flow reaction gas and a first precursor in the form of chlorosilane (Page 4 Paragraphs 0057-0058) and teaches that the second film-forming agent comprised a second reacting in the form of ammonia and a second precursor in the form of a hexachlorodisilane (Page 5 Paragraph 0065 and Page 6 Paragraph 0079).
As for claims 3 and 4, Kataoka teaches that the second precursor had a lower thermal decomposition/pyrolysis temperature than the first precursor and therefore had a higher reactivity/pyrolysis than the first precursor at the same processing temperature (Page 2 Paragraph 0025 and Page 8 Paragraphs 0107-0109).
As for claims 5 and 6, Kataoka teaches that the first and second precursors comprised an atom X in the form of silicon and that the first precursor/chlorosilane contained one Si and the second precursor/hexachlorodisilane contained two silicon atoms (Page 4 Paragraphs 0041-0042). Furthermore, Kataoka taught that the first film did not comprise any chemical bond between atoms X/Si in that it just comprised Si-Cl bonds (Page 4 Paragraph 0058) while the second film comprised Si-Si bonds (Page 5 Paragraph 0071).
As for claims 8 and 9, as was discussed previously, the first and second precursors of Kataoka comprised a silicon bonded to a chlorine molecular structure and that both the first and second reactant were ammonia.
As fore claim 11, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined an optimal first and second processing temperature for the first and second film forming agents, respectively, because the processing temperature affected the pyrolysis of the precursors.
As for claim 13, Kataoka teaches that a portion of the second layer/film is nitride (Page 6 Paragraph 0085) and therefore the second film of Nakagawa in view of Kataoka would have had an oxidation resistance higher than the first film.
Aa for claim 14, as was discussed previously, the first reactant and the first precursor were alternately supplied in that the ammonia was supplied first followed by chlorosilane and that the second reactant and the second precursor were alternately supplied in that the hexachlorodisilane was supplied followed by the ammonia.
As for claim 15, as was discussed previously, the first and second films of Nakagawa in view of Kataoka formed a nitride film.
As for claims 16 and 17, neither Nakagawa nor Kataoka teach that the thickness of the second film was equal or less than the first film or that the thickness of the second film was 0.3 nm to 5 nm. However, Kataoka teaches that the thickness of the second layer affected the silicon content of the formed film (Page 7 Paragraphs 0101-0102) and as was discussed previously it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for relevant processes parameters.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal thickness for the second film of Nakagawa in view of Kataoka through routine experimentation because the thickness of the second film affected the silicon concentration of the formed silicon nitride film.
As for claims 19 and 20, Nakagawa teaches that the inhibition layer and film formation steps were conducted in the same process chamber/apparatus (Page 4 Paragraphs 0037-0039 and 0042-0043) and that after forming the silicon nitride layer the substrate was exposed to the atmosphere (Page 7 Paragraphs 0088-0089).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al in view of Kataoka et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimamoto et al (U.S. Patent # 9,478,413).
The teachings of Nakagawa in view of Kataoka as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 12, neither Nakagawa nor Kataoka teaching that the second film-forming agent was supplied to the substrate with at least a portion of the agent being excited into a plasma state. However, as was discussed previously, Nakagawa in view of Kataoka was directed to forming a silicon nitride film and that the second film-forming agent of Kataoka comprised a second reactant in the form of ammonia. Furthermore, Kataoka teaches that in addition to hexachlorodisilane other precursors such as trisdimethylaminosilane (3DMAS) were used (Page 6 Paragraph 0078).
Shimamoto teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 9-13) wherein the method comprised forming a silicon nitride layer using hexachlorodisilane (HCBS) and 3DMAS (Column 31 Lines 4-31). Shimamoto teaches that an ammonia gas was activated with plasma and supplied to the substrate (Column 32 Lines 15-40) and that by activating the ammonia impurities in the silicon nitride film were reduced and the amount of Si-N bonds was increased (Column 33 Line 57 through Column 34 Line 13).
Based on the teachings of Shimamoto, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have activated the ammonia gas/second reactant of the second film-forming agent of Nakagawa in view of Kataoka in order to reduce the impurities and increase the Si-N bonds in the formed silicon nitride film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the case of claims 7 and 8, neither Nakagawa nor Kataoka fairly teach or suggest that the second precursor/film-forming agent had a higher reactivity with the inhibitor layer than the inhibitor layer had with the first precursor/film-forming agent.
In the case of claim 18, neither Nakagawa nor Kataoka fairly teach or suggest that at least a portion of the inhibitor layer formed on the first surface was either invalidated or removed while the second film was formed on the first film formed on the second surface.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chui (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0315840) teaches a method for forming a semiconductor device wherein an inhibitor layer was formed on a first surface of a substrate and a film was formed on a second surface of the substrate.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 9, 11 through 17 and 19 through 21 have been rejected and claims 7, 10 and 18 have ben objected. Claims 22 and 23 have been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights