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 Specie I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Zope (Pub. No.: US 2019/0067094).
Re claim 1, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches a substrate processing method comprising:
(a) adjusting a temperature of the substrate to a first temperature (310);
(b) forming a first molybdenum-containing film on the substrate by performing: (b1) supplying a molybdenum-containing gas (320) to the substrate; and
(b2) supplying a reducing gas (330) to the substrate for a first time duration, wherein (b1) and (b2) are performed one or more times after performing (a);
(c) adjusting the temperature of the substrate to a second temperature (temperature of the substrate after processing steps 320 and 330) after performing (b); and
(d) forming a second molybdenum-containing film (repeating step 305) on the first molybdenum-containing film by performing:
(d1) supplying the molybdenum-containing gas to the substrate (utilizing step 320 the second time); and
(d2) supplying the reducing gas to the substrate for a second time duration (utilizing step 330 the second time), wherein (d1) and (d2) are performed one or more times after performing (c).
Re claim 2, 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 4, 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, 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, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein (c) 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, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the inert gas comprises a rare gas [0067].
Re claim 9, Zope, FIG. 1 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the rare gas comprises argon gas [0067].
Re claim 14, 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, Zope, FIG. 3 teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of claim 1 (FIG. 4C).
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) 3 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zope in view of Collins (Pub. No.: US 2020/0402846).
Re claim 3/10, Zope teaches all the limitation of claim 1.
Zope fails to teach the limitation of claim 3/10.
Collins teaches wherein the second temperature is equal to or higher than 550 ºC 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]) (claim 3).
wherein (c) is performed in a state where the reducing gas is supplied to the substrate (step 206, [0021]) (claim 10).
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 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].
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 (c) is performed at a pressure higher than a pressure in (b) and a pressure in (d) (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).
Conclusion
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