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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe the processing gases are thermally activated by a heater nor that plasma-excitation is excluded.
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 20-21 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.
Claim 20 refers to a step (d) that is not earlier described
Claim 21 refers to a step (c) that is not earlier described (has been replaced with c-1 and c-2).
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) 1-6, 8-13 and 16, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer (US 2007/0111546) in view of Kajbafvala (US 2021/0358741) in view of Qian (US 2016/0090650).
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 16-22:
Iyer teaches a method for forming multiple layers of SiN on a semiconductor substrate (abstract). The multiple layers include layers of SiN and SiCN [0023; 0031] deposited in the same chamber [0019]. Iyer does not teach a process sequence that varies based on the condition of the chamber interior surface.
However, Kajbafvala teaches a vapor deposition method (in this case for forming silicon germanium layers) where a precoating is applied to the reaction chamber as an initial step [0055]. The precoating may comprise a compound or substance comprised in one of the precursors, or be the same material that will be deposited on the substrate [0056]. The precoating improves the consistency and uniformity of the film thickness during substrate processing [0058]. By adjusting the precoating thickness and/or composition [0058] the process sequence can remain constant [0060]. That is, Kajbafvala establishes that precoat composition can be selected to keep the number of cycles constant.
Qian teaches a method of plasma assisted ALD [0001] where RF power can be changed over time [0044] to address a drift in film thickness [0039]. Qian explains that as deposited material accumulates inside the chamber, film thickness deposed on the substrate decreases [0041]. While the bulk of Qian is directed to a method of adjusting the RF power in order to compensate for this thickness drift, Qian also states that other conditions may be changed such as cycle number [0056]. That is, Qian establishes that the number of cycles can be changed based on the condition of the material accumulated inside the deposition chamber.
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 Iyer using a process sequence that considered the state of the film adhered to the surface of members in the process chamber. Kajbafvala teaches a motivation to keep the number of cycles constant (i.e., equal to m) and Qian teaches a motivation to modify the number of cycles (i.e., equal to m±). Kajbafvala teaches considering the state of the film adhered to the surface members in the process chamber includes the composition of the film, and the situation where precoating occurs followed by the normal number of cycles (i.e., m). Combining all this into software for controlling a vapor deposition apparatus requires no change in their respective function and provides the same results. Namely, compensation for film thickness decreasing over time.
Claim 8:
Kajbafvala teaches the precoating may be applied prior to the substrate being processed [0055].
Claims 12-13:
Because the accumulation leads to decreasing film thickness, the compensation would be an increase in number of cycles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reasons for allowance substantially reflect Applicant’s arguments filed 2/27/26. In particular, these claims require the recited conditional limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 is a method claim and has been amended in a way the makes c-1 and c-2 contingent limitations. In method claims, only those steps that must be performed are considered in the BRI, so the BRI would not include steps contingent on meeting a certain condition. In contrast, the BRI of a structure claim must include the structure for performing the function should the condition occur even when contingent on meeting a certain condition. This is because structure claims must be able to perform the function and do not require that the function actually be performed. See MPEP 2111.04(II). This is the rationale for rejecting the method claims whereas the apparatus having a controller and CRM claims are allowed.
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 at 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
Prosecution Insights