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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-9, 11-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditizio [US 20120021138] in view of Swaminathan [US 20160336178].
Claim 1: Ditizio teaches a substrate processing (deposition) method comprising: a substrate in a reactor [0005], a step of forming a first layer on the substrate, a step for forming a second layer on the first layer, wherein a combination of the first layer and the second layer forms a laminated layer; and a step for post treatment to the laminated layer [Fig. 7]. Although Ditizio does not explicitly teach loading a substrate into the reactor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order for the substrate to be in the chamber, the substrate would be loaded into the chamber. However, Ditizio does not appear to teach the first layer is TiO2 and the second layer is one or more SiO2, SiN, TaN or mixtures there of. Swaminathan is provided.
Swaminathan teaches a multi-layer film [abstract], where a nanolaminate film may include alternating films of different materials such as silicon oxide and titanium oxide [0047]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nanolaminate taught by Swaminathan since the prior art teaches such combination is well known in the prior art and can be used as a spacer [abstract] for circuit devices [0003].
Claim 2: Ditizio teaches the first layer and second layer are cyclically repeated a plurality of times [Fig. 7].
Claim 3: Ditizio appears to suggest forming the first layer and the second layer as a super cycle and the super cycle is repeated a plurality of times [Fig. 7; 0205].
Claim 4: Ditizio teaches the first layer comprises a step for supplying a first precursor, a first reactant and a step of applying plasma treatment[Fig. 12]. Ditizio teaches repeating the deposition cycles can be repeated [Fig. 12, 17]. Although Ditizio does not explicitly teach applying RF source, Ditizio teaches that plasma energy is typically introduced by RF power [0009]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the plasma treatment would involve applying RF power. Swaminathan teaches a step for supplying a first source comprising titanium [0052] and a first reactant comprising oxygen [0054], and the RF power is between 50 to 2500 W [0058], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 5: Ditizio teaches the second layer comprises a step for supplying a second precursor, a second reactant and a step of applying plasma treatment [Fig. 12]. Ditizio teaches repeating the deposition cycles can be repeated [Fig. 12, 17]. Although Ditizio does not explicitly teach applying RF source, Ditizio teaches that plasma energy is typically introduced by RF power [0009]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the plasma treatment would involve applying RF power. Swaminathan teaches a RF power is between 50 to 2500 W [0058], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claims 6-7: although Ditizio does not explicitly teach the claimed cycle ratios, Ditizio does teaches that changing the ratio of the cycles affects the stoichiometry of the final film [0205]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the cycle ratio through routine experimentation since the prior art teaches such parameter affects film stoichimetry.
Claims 8-9: although Ditizio does not explicitly teach the total thickness claimed range, the prior art does teaches the thickness affects subsequent processing and film results [0079]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the total thickness through routine experimentation so as to produce desired properties and film results.
Claims 11-12: Ditizio teaches the first and second source gas can be TMEAT (tetrakis (ethylmethylamino) titanium or (CH3C2H5)N]4Ti) and other titanium precursors [0079, 0123].
Claims 13-14: Ditizio teaches the first and second reactants can be of oxygen gas, ammonia and etc. [0075] and Swaminathan teaches alternatives includes ozone, nitrous oxide and nitrogen dioxide [0071].
Claim 15: Swaminathan teaches the reactants may be delivered continuously [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reactants continuously since Swaminathan teaches this known technique and operable parameter to manipulate for forming multilayer films. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any reactant continuously since Swaminathan suggests that any of the reactants can be delivered continuously.
Claim 16: Ditizio teaches the post treatment is a plasma treatment [0025].
Claim 19: Swaminathan teaches the laminate can be used as a spacer layer [abstract].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditizio in view of Swaminathan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okura2 [KR 20170024552].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the laminate is non-crystalline. Okura2 is provided.
Claim 10: Okura teaches titanium nanolaminates which can be amorphous (non crystalline) [0232]. IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nanolaminate that is noncrystalline since Okura teaches these nanolaminates can have smooth surfaces and desirable for mask features or spacers [0232-0234].
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditizio in view of Swaminathan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lei [KR20190120431].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned where thermal energy can be used [Ditizio 0005], but does not appear to teach using thermal annealing. Lei is provided
Claims 17-18: Lei teaches thermal annealing and plasma treatment are interchangeable for post treatment [pg 16, para 6-7] and thermal annealing can range from 500-1000 degrees C, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to use thermal annealing or plasma treatment since Lei teaches either one are operable variants for treating laminates.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ditizio [US 20120021138] in view of Okura [US 9540729] and further in view of Swaminathan [US 20160336178].
Claim 20: Ditizio teaches a substrate processing (deposition) method comprising: a substrate in a reactor [0005], a step of forming a first layer on the substrate, a step for forming a second layer on the first layer, wherein a combination of the first layer and the second layer forms a laminated layer; and a step for post treatment to the laminated layer [Fig. 7]. Although Ditizio does not explicitly teach loading a substrate into the reactor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order for the substrate to be in the chamber, the substrate would be loaded into the chamber.
However Ditizio does not appear to teach the first layer comprises TiO2 and second layer comprises TiN. Okura is provided.
Okura teaches nanolaminates which comprises alternating layers of TiO2 and TiN [Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a nanolaminate taught by Okura since the prior art teaches such combination is well known in the prior art and can be used as space material for circuits [col 2, ln 25-50].
However, the prior art does not appear to teach providing the first reactant continuously. Swaminathan is provided.
Swaminathan teaches the reactants may be delivered continuously [0055]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the reactants continuously since Swaminathan teaches this known technique and operable parameter to manipulate for forming multilayer films. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide any reactant continuously since Swaminathan suggests that any of the reactants can be delivered continuously.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights