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
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) 1-4, 6-12 and 14-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zope (Pub. No.: US 2019/0067094) in view of Collins (Pub. No.: US 2020/0402846).
Re claim 1, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches a substrate processing method comprising:
(a1) adjusting a temperature of a substrate to a first temperature (310);
(a2) supplying a molybdenum-containing gas (320) to the substrate;
(a3) supplying a reducing gas (330 for the first time) to the substrate for a first time duration;
(a4) forming a first molybdenum-containing film on the substrate by performing (a2) and (a3) one or more times after performing (a1) (step 340 for the first time);
(b1) applying the temperature of the substrate in a state where the reducing gas is supplied to the substrate after performing (a4) (temperature of the substrate after processing steps 320 and 330 for the second time); and
(b2) supplying the molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate (utilizing step 320 the second time);
(b3) supplying the reducing gas to the substrate for a second time duration (utilizing step 330 the second time); and
(b4) forming a second molybdenum-containing film (utilizing step 320 the third time) on the first molybdenum-containing film by performing (b2) and (b3) one or more times after performing (b1).
Zope fails to teach adjusting the temperature of the substrate to a second temperature in a state where the reducing gas is supplied to the substrate.
Collins teaches adjusting the temperature of the substrate to a second temperature in a state where the reducing gas is supplied to the substrate (“forming the reducing agent layer at a first substrate temperature, raising the substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature, and then exposing the reducing agent layer to the metal precursor at the second temperature”, ¶ [0021]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of converting the reducing agent layer to molybdenum as taught by Collins, [0008].
Re claim 2, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second temperature (temperature of substrate + temperature of processing the precursor gas) is higher than the first temperature (temperature of substrate), and the second time duration (duration of step 305) is shorter than the first time duration (duration of heating the substrate from 0ºC to the desired temperature of step 310).
Re claim 3, in the combination, Collins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second temperature is equal to or higher than 550 °C and equal to or lower than 590 ºC (“raising the temperature of the substrate to a second substrate temperature of at least 500 °C”, [0005])
Re claim 4, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first temperature is equal to or higher than 445 ºC and equal to or lower than 505 ºC (“less than approximately 500 °C”, [0098]).
Re claim 6, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first temperature, the second temperature, the first time duration and the second time duration are respectively set such that a product of the second temperature “contacting the substrate with the second vapor phase reactant … for a time period of between about 0.1 seconds and about 10 seconds”, [0087], said 10 seconds) and the second time duration is smaller than a product of the first temperature and the first time duration (“the first vapor phase reactant to the substrate for a time period of between about 0.1 seconds and about 60 seconds”, [0073], said 60 seconds).
Re claim 7, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (b1) is performed under an inert gas atmosphere (“excess second vapor phase reactant and reaction byproducts (if any) may be removed from the surface of the substrate, e.g., by pumping whilst flowing an inert gas”, [0088]).
Re claim 8, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the inert gas comprises a rare gas [0067].
Re claim 9, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the rare gas comprises argon gas [0067].
Re claim 10, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (b1) is performed in a state where the reducing gas is supplied to the substrate (step 330, [0109]).
Re claim 11, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the reducing gas comprises a hydrogen-containing gas [0106].
Re claim 12, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the hydrogen-containing gas comprises hydrogen gas [0106].
Re claim 14, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (d1) and (d2) are performed one or more times (305) while adjusting the temperature of the substrate to the second temperature (temperature of the substrate after processing steps 320 and 330) in (c).
Re claim 15, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of claim 1 (FIG. 4C).
Re claim 18, in the combination, Collins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (bl) comprises supplying the reducing gas while elevating the temperature of the substrate from the first temperature to the second temperature (“forming the reducing agent layer at a first substrate temperature, raising the substrate temperature to a second substrate temperature, and then exposing the reducing agent layer to the metal precursor at the second temperature”, ¶ [0021]).
Re claim 19, in the combination, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (b1) is performed in a state where the molybdenum-containing gas is not supplied to the substrate (just reducing agent precursor only of step 330).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zope.
Re claims 5 and 13, Zope differs from the claim invention by not disclosing wherein the first time duration is equal to or longer than 10 minutes and equal to or shorter than 30 minutes, and the second time duration is equal to or longer than 10 seconds and equal to or shorter than 5 minutes (claim 5).
wherein (b1) is performed at a pressure higher than a pressure in (a4) and a pressure in (b4) (claim 13).
However, Applicant has not disclosed that the ranges are for particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above said teaching, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-15 on the remarks filed on 05/15/2026 have been considered but are moot due to a new ground of rejection.
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 TONY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, EST.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/TONY TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights