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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, which is a CON of PCT/JP2020/035478.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 11/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 9-10 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.
In claim 2 line 2, the term “in parallel” is deemed vague and confusing as to whether it is referring to geometric configuration or time dimension. Clarification and appropriate amendments are requested.
In claim 5, the phrase “wherein (b) is started after (c) is started” is deemed confusing. If the first reducing gas is started after the second reducing gas is started, wouldn’t the first reducing gas ACTUALLY be the second reducing gas? Generally speaking, a first reducing gas is generally first if it is introduced first. To that end, what is the difference between a first reducing gas and a second reducing gas if the sequence is irrelevant? The same issue applies to claim 10.
In claim 9, the phrase “wherein (c) is performed while performing (c)” is deemed confusing.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Degai et al. (2019/0371609).
Degai teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (title) by forming a metal film onto a substrate surface by alternately supplying a metal containing gas and a reactive gas (abstract). In one embodiment, the reactive gas can be a first reducing gas and a second reducing gas which is different from the first (0034). The metal containing gas and the two reducing gases are performed at least once (0034-0035).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakatani et al. (10,290,542).
Nakatani teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (title) by forming a metal film onto a substrate surface by supplying a first reducing gas and a first metal containing gas (abstract(.and a reactive gas (abstract). In one embodiment, a second reducing gas, different from the first, is utilized (col.4 lines 19-30). The metal containing gas and the two reducing gases are performed at least once (col.4 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 2, the supplying of the first and the second reducing gas is in parallel (2nd process in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, the supplying of the first and the second reducing gas are started simultaneously (2nd process in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Nakatani teaches of starting the first reducing gas first. However, if the first reducing gas was the second and the second reducing gas was the first, this would anticipate the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Nakatani teaches of starting and terminating the first reducing gas first (Figure 4). However, if the first reducing gas was the second and the second reducing gas was the first, this would anticipate the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Nakatani teaches a process time of the first reducing gas longer than the process time of the second reducing gas (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Nakatani teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (title).
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.
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 4-8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani et al. (10,290,542).
Nakatani teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (title) by forming a metal film onto a substrate surface by supplying a first reducing gas and a first metal containing gas (abstract(.and a reactive gas (abstract). In one embodiment, a second reducing gas, different from the first, is utilized (col.4 lines 19-30). The metal containing gas and the two reducing gases are performed at least once (col.4 lines 1-30). However, the reference fails to teach terminating the first reducing gas after the second reducing gas.
It is noted that Nakatani teaches terminating both at the same time (2nd process in Figure 4). To terminate the first reducing gas after the second would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant requires starting the first reducing gas after the second reducing gas is started. Since the reference teaches of starting one reducing gas first, it would have been obvious to start the second reducing gas first in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant requires terminating the first reducing gas after the second reducing gas. To terminate the first reducing gas after the second would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 7, Nakatani teaches of starting the second reducing gas after starting the first reducing gas (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, the applicant requires terminating the first reducing gas after the second reducing gas. To terminate the first reducing gas after the second would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 10, the applicant requires supplying the first reducing gas after the second reducing gas. To supply the first reducing gas after the second would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17 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 prior art references fail to teach or suggest the material limitations of claim 12, from which claims 13-17 depend.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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 (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715 12/13/2025