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 Group I: Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kataoka et al. (WO 2021053756 A1).
Claim 1. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method comprising
(A) forming a film containing a predetermined element on a substrate by performing a first cycle a first predetermined number of times (Kataoka – Abstract), wherein the first cycle comprises:
(a) forming a first layer containing the predetermined element by performing a second cycle a second predetermined number of times, wherein a surface of the first layer is halogen-terminated (see below regarding step a1.) and wherein the second cycle comprises:
(a1) supplying a first gas containing the predetermined element and a halogen element to the substrate (Kataoka describes supplying a first raw material gas such as SiCL4 containing Si, to a substate in a processing chamber. Cl is a halogen element. Kataoka – Translated document p. 9. Furhter, The SiCl4 layer is understood to be halogen-terminated because the silicon atom bonds to the surface while retaining its remaining chlorine ligands as the new outermost boundary.)); and
(a2) removing the first gas from a space in which the substrate is accommodated (In Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), purging is a fundamental requirement that defines the process, as the self-limiting chemical reaction must be strictly confined to the adsorbed surface layer. Omitting the purge step would allow unreacted precursor molecules to mix with the secondary reactant in the gas phase, leading to parasitic CVD reactions within the chamber volume. Consequently, even where literature like Kataoka’s may focus on reactant pulses, the purge step is an inherent operational necessity required to maintain atomic-level control and film uniformity.); and
(b) forming a second layer containing the predetermined element by supplying a second gas containing the predetermined element to the substrate on which the first layer is formed (Kataoka – Abstract).
CLAIM 2. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein, in (b), a halogen termination terminating the surface of the first layer inhibits an atom of the predetermined element contained in the second gas from being adsorbed to the surface of the first layer (Kataoka – p. 20 – “The SiCl4 layer is understood to be halogen-terminated because the silicon atom bonds to the surface while retaining its remaining chlorine ligands as the new outermost boundary.”).
CLAIM 3. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein the first predetermined number of times is set to be twice or more ( Kataoka – p. 24 – “Taking steps a to c described above as one cycle, a SiN film having a predetermined composition
ratio and a predetermined film thickness is formed on the wafer 200 by performing this cycle a predetermined number of times (n times, n is
an integer of 1 or more). Can be done. The above cycle is preferably repeated a plurality of times.” Note, repeating specific sub-sets to achieve uniform thickness is a core principle described in the thin film formation sequence.).
CLAIM 19. Kataoka et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a substrate processing apparatus, by a computer (Kataoka p. 5), to perform: (A) forming a film containing a predetermined element on a substrate by performing a first cycle a first predetermined number of times (Kataoka Abstract),, wherein the first cycle comprises:(a) forming a first layer [e.g. SiCl4] containing the predetermined element by performing a second cycle a second predetermined number of times, wherein a surface of the first layer is halogen-terminated (Kataoka Abstract – Note: SiCl4 is halogen terminated. See regarding claim 2)and wherein the second cycle comprises: (a1) supplying a first gas containing the predetermined element and a halogen element to the substrate (Kataoka Abstract); and (a2) removing the first gas from a space in which the substrate is accommodated (Kataoka, e.g. implicitly required purging steps. See regarding claim 6.); and (b) forming a second layer containing the predetermined element by supplying a second gas containing the predetermined element to the substrate on which the first layer is formed (Kataoka Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 4-15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kataoka et al. (WO 2021053756 A1).
CLAIM 4. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 3, wherein a concave structure is provided on a surface of the substrate, and wherein the first predetermined number of times is equal to the number of times that the concave structure [e.g. trench] is filled with the film in (A) ( Kataoka – pp. 32-33 - While Kataoka may be silent on the specific iteration count, in the context of Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), it would be obvious to a POSITA that the number of cycles is inherently dictated by the trench dimensions, as ALD’s precise growth-per-cycle (GPC) allows one to simply calculate the exact number of repetitions required to achieve a complete fill of the concave structure.)
CLAIM 5. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 3, wherein, in (b), at least part of halogen atoms at halogen terminations terminating the surface of the first layer is desorbed from the surface of the first layer (Kataoka p. 3 –“(B) A step of supplying a second raw material gas containing the first element and having a lower thermal decomposition temperature than the first raw material gas to the substrate.“ - The use of a second raw material gas with a lower thermal decomposition temperature implies that it is more reactive or less thermally stable than the first. When this gas is introduced to the halogen-terminated surface, the lower energy barrier facilitates a chemical reaction that displaces the existing halogen atoms. Therefore, the desorption of these halogens is an inherent and necessary result of the subsequent reaction required to continue the film growth.).
CLAIM 6. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein, after (a) and at least until (b) is started, a gas reactive with a halogen termination terminating the surface of the first layer and different from each of the first gas and the second gas is not supplied to the substrate (Non-supply of reactive gas between steps): This corresponds to the sequence described in the film formation process. The translated document specifies that after step (a) and before step (b), the processing chamber is evacuated and purged with an inert gas (N2) to remove residual gases. It does not mention supplying any gas that is reactive with the halogen terminations (other than the first and second raw material gases) during this interim period, matching with the negative limitation of the claim.).
CLAIM 7. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein the first gas comprises a gas free of hydrogen (SiCl4 is a halogen-based gas free of hydrogen.).
CLAIM 8. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein the first gas comprises a gas free of a bond between atoms of the predetermined element in one molecule of the gas (SiCl4 is specifically identified in the translated document. Kataoka p. 9 –“As the first raw material gas, a chlorosilane-based gas in which the number of Si
atoms contained in one molecule is one” meaning it lacks Si-Si bonds.)
CLAIM 9. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein a concave structure [e.g. trench] is provided on a surface of the substrate, and however may be silent upon wherein, in (a), a density of the first layer is set to be higher at a portion of an inner surface of the concave structure than at other portion of the inner surface of the concave structure.
While the claim recites a specific resultant structure, it is drawn to the implied method wherein density is modulated across a concave surface; this process is obvious because Kataoka teaches that film properties are a direct result of optimizing supply parameters like flow and time. Since a POSITA understands density to be a variable controlled by these same process parameters, adjusting the method to achieve a higher density at a specific portion of a trench is merely a routine optimization of a known process variable. Therefore, the method required to produce the recited structure is an obvious design choice based on the optimization principles already established in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the density through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the density is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 10. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 9, however may be silent upon wherein, in (a), the density of the first layer is set to be higher in vicinity of an opening of the inner surface of the concave structure than in vicinity of a bottom of the inner surface of the concave structure.
While the claim recites a specific resultant structure, it is drawn to the implied method wherein density is modulated across a concave surface; this process is obvious because Kataoka teaches that film properties are a direct result of optimizing supply parameters like flow and time. Since a POSITA understands density to be a variable controlled by these same process parameters, adjusting the method to achieve a higher density at a specific portion of a trench is merely a routine optimization of a known process variable. Therefore, the method required to produce the recited structure is an obvious design choice based on the optimization principles already established in the prior art.
CLAIM 11. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein the second predetermined number of times is set to be twice or more. ( Kataoka – pp. 32-33 - While Kataoka may be silent on the specific iteration count, in the context of Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), it would be obvious to a POSITA that the number of cycles is inherently dictated by desired dimensions, as ALD’s precise growth-per-cycle (GPC) allows one to simply calculate the exact number of repetitions required to achieve a desired layer structure.)
CLAIM 12. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 10, wherein, in (A), the second predetermined number of times in the second cycle of (a) in the first cycle of (A) when forming the film in vicinity of the opening of the inner surface of the concave structure is set to be smaller than the second predetermined number of times in the second cycle of (a) in the first cycle of (A) when forming the film in vicinity of the bottom of the inner surface of the concave structure. ( Kataoka – pp. 32-33 - While Kataoka may be silent on the specific iteration count, in the context of Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), it would be obvious to a POSITA that the number of cycles is inherently dictated by the trench dimensions, as ALD’s precise growth-per-cycle (GPC) allows one to simply calculate the exact number of repetitions required to achieve a complete fill of the concave structure.)
CLAIM 13. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 9, wherein an execution time of (a1) is set such that a ratio of the density of the first layer formed in vicinity of a bottom of the inner surface of the concave structure to the density of the first layer formed in vicinity of an opening of the inner surface of the concave structure is set to be a desired ratio. While the claim recites a specific resultant structure, it is drawn to the implied method wherein density is modulated across a concave surface; this process is obvious because Kataoka teaches that film properties are a direct result of optimizing supply parameters like flow and time. The document discusses controlling the “composition ratio” and the “thickness” of the layers by adjusting gas supply amounts (A and B) and supply times (TA and TB). This is used to control the Top/Bottom ratio in the trench structures (p. 33).
Since a POSITA understands density to be a variable controlled by these same process parameters, adjusting the method to achieve a higher density at a specific portion of a trench is merely a routine optimization of a known process variable. Therefore, the method required to produce the recited structure is an obvious design choice based on the optimization principles already established in the prior art.
CLAIM 14. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 9, wherein a supply flow rate of the first gas in (a1) is set such that a ratio of the density of the first layer formed in vicinity of a bottom of the inner surface of the concave structure to the density of the first layer formed in vicinity of an opening of the inner surface of the concave structure is set to be a desired ratio. While the claim recites a specific resultant structure, it is drawn to the implied method wherein density is modulated across a concave surface; this process is obvious because Kataoka teaches that film properties are a direct result of optimizing supply parameters like flow and time. The document discusses controlling the “composition ratio” and the “thickness” of the layers by adjusting gas supply amounts (A and B) and supply times (TA and TB). This is used to control the Top/Bottom ratio in the trench structures (p. 33).
Since a POSITA understands density to be a variable controlled by these same process parameters, adjusting the method to achieve a higher density at a specific portion of a trench is merely a routine optimization of a known process variable. Therefore, the method required to produce the recited structure is an obvious design choice based on the optimization principles already established in the prior art.
CLAIM 15. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, wherein (b) is performed under conditions in which the second gas undergoes a vapor phase decomposition (Kataoka pp. 5&9-10 – Step (B) Supplying second raw gas. The substrate temperature is set higher than the temperature at which the second raw material gas thermally decomposes (the “second temperature”)..
CLAIM 18. Kataoka et al. discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the substrate processing method of claim 1 (See regarding claim 1. Process of claim 1 is performed on a substrate.).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kataoka et al. (WO 2021053756 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20210332479 A1).
CLAIM 16. Kataoka et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 1, however may be silent upon the process further comprising: (B) removing a part of the film by supplying an etching gas to the substrate on which the film is formed. At the time of the invention, incorporating a etching cycle into ALD deposition was a known technique for improving filling. For support see Kim et al. Figs. 1-3 and corresponding text.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
492
802
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
534
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to modify the ALD trench filling process of Kataoka to include the periodic etching cycles taught by Kim.
Kim teaches that during the deposition of thin films in high-aspect-ratio 3D structures, 'an overhang or protruded portion may be formed' at the upper portion of a trench, leading to 'voids and/or seams' (Kim [0003]). To address this, Kim specifically teaches a method of 'filling a gap' by alternating between 'depositing a thin film' and 'etching the deposited thin film' ([0005], [0011]). This etching step is specifically designed such that the 'upper surface of the trench... is more etched than a second portion' to prevent pinch-off and ensure the film is 'substantially free of voids' ([0012], [0019]).
Therefore, modifying Kataoka’s process to incorporate Kim’s etching cycles represents the application of a known technique (cyclic deposition-etching) to a known device ready for improvement (high-aspect-ratio trenches) to yield the predictable result of void-free gap filling (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
CLAIM 17. Kataoka et al. in view of Kim et al. discloses a substrate processing method of claim 16, wherein (A) is further performed after (B), and wherein a third cycle comprising (A) and (B) is performed a plurality number of times (This limitation is a expectation of the ALD process.).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to perform (A) after (B) and to repeat the cycle comprising (A) and (B) a plurality of times because it was well-established in the art of Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) that film growth is achieved through the iterative repetition of such cycles. Since ALD is characterized by a specific growth-per-cycle (GPC), a POSITA would naturally perform the sequence of (A) and (B) multiple times as a routine design choice to reach a target film thickness. Therefore, the repetition of these steps represents nothing more than the application of a known cyclic deposition technique to yield the predictable result of an incrementally thickened film to reach a desired thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
12/22/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898