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 with traverse of Group II, Species A in the reply filed on 11/17/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species A and B share common features that cannot be comprehensively examined without searching the areas where the other species are classified. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the Species part of the restriction has been withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected manufacturing apparatus, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/17/25. The traversal does not include the restriction between groups and therefore the withdrawal of claims 17-20 is FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Won et al. (US PGPub 2013/0122220).
Claim 1: Won teaches [0042-0057] (Fig. 1, 4) a method of supplying a process gas in a semiconductor manufacturing process by a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, comprising: heating, using one or more heating devices of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, a gas tank (21) and a gas line (40) of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus; filling, through the gas line, the gas tank with a reaction gas; changing, using the one or more heating devices, a temperature of the reaction gas in the gas tank [0055]; and supplying the reaction gas from the gas tank to a process chamber of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, wherein the changing of the temperature of the reaction gas comprises decomposing a portion of a material included in the reaction gas [0051, 0055].
Claim 8: Won teaches [0045] supplying a carrier gas to the process chamber, wherein the supplying of the carrier gas comprises mixing the carrier gas with the reaction gas outside of the process chamber.
Claim 9: Won teaches [0096] the heating of the gas tank and the gas line comprises: heating, using the one or more heating devices and a temperature control device, the gas tank and the gas line.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamasaki et al. (US PGPub 2005/0069632).
Claim 1: Yamasaki teaches [0013-0024] (Fig. 1) a method of supplying a process gas in a semiconductor manufacturing process by a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, comprising: heating, using one or more heating devices of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, a gas tank (13) and a gas line (12) of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus; filling, through the gas line, the gas tank with a reaction gas; changing, using the one or more heating devices, a temperature of the reaction gas in the gas tank; and supplying the reaction gas from the gas tank to a process chamber of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, wherein the changing of the temperature of the reaction gas comprises decomposing a portion of a material included in the reaction gas.
Claim 2: Yamasaki teaches [0013-0024] filling of the gas tank with the reaction gas comprises increasing a pressure of the reaction gas in the gas tank. Increasing and decreasing pressure to aid movement of gas is known in the art.
Claim 3: Yamasaki teaches [0013-0024] the supplying of the reaction gas to the process chamber comprises lowering a pressure of the reaction gas in the gas tank. Increasing and decreasing pressure to aid movement of gas is known in the art.
Claim 4: Yamasaki teaches [0025-0026, 0035-0036] measuring, using a measurement device of the gas tank, a pressure of the reaction gas and the temperature of the reaction gas in the gas tank; and operating, using a valve control device, a gas valve on the gas line, based on the pressure of the reaction gas and the temperature of the reaction gas.
Claim 6: Yamasaki teaches [0031-0034] the reaction gas comprises diborane (B2H6).
Claim 8: Yamasaki teaches [0013-0024] supplying a carrier gas to the process chamber, wherein the supplying of the carrier gas comprises mixing the carrier gas with the reaction gas outside of the process chamber.
Claim 9: Yamasaki teaches [0013-0026, 0035-0036] the heating of the gas tank and the gas line comprises: heating, using the one or more heating devices and a temperature control device, the gas tank and the gas line.
Claim 10: Yamasaki teaches [0031-0034] the reaction gas comprises first atoms and second atoms, the first atoms comprise boron, and the second atoms comprise hydrogen.
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.
Claims 5, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (US PGPub 2005/0069632).
Regarding claim 5, Yamasaki teaches [0013-0026, 0035-0036] the filling of the gas tank comprises filling, through the gas line, the gas tank with the reaction gas for a first time length, the supplying of the reaction gas comprises supplying the reaction gas from the gas tank to the process chamber for a second time length, the second time length is shorter than the first time length. Since it has been held when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claim. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 716.02-716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to discover through experimentation the proper time lengths needed to achieve the end result. Due to the heated nature of the gas, and the dependence of film growth on time and gas exposure, one of ordinary skill in the art would want the gas to travel quickly through the gas supply line whereas the filling of the gas tank is less critical.
Claim 11: Yamasaki teaches [0013-0026, 0035-0037] a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device by a semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, comprising: heating, using one or more heating devices of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus, a gas tank and a gas line of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus; preparing a substrate to a process chamber of the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus; supplying a reaction gas to the process chamber; and performing a semiconductor manufacturing process in the process chamber, wherein the supplying of the reaction gas comprises: filling, through the gas line, the gas tank with the reaction gas; changing, using the one or more heating devices, a temperature of the reaction gas in the gas tank; and supplying the reaction gas from the gas tank to the process chamber, wherein a first time length for the filling of the gas tank with the reaction gas is larger than a second time length for the supplying of the reaction gas to the process chamber. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223, 235 (CCPA 1955). Applicant can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on ranges by showing unexpected results or the criticality of the claimed range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claim. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 716.02-716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to discover through experimentation the proper time lengths needed to achieve the end result. Due to the heated nature of the gas, and the dependence of film growth on time and gas exposure, one of ordinary skill in the art would want the gas to travel quickly through the gas supply line whereas the filling of the gas tank is less critical.
Claim 12: Yamasaki teaches [0029, 0037] performing of the semiconductor manufacturing process comprises: performing at least one of a chemical vapor deposition process and an atomic layer deposition process on the substrate.
Claim 13: Yamasaki teaches [0031] the supplying of the reaction gas comprises repeatedly performing the supplying of the reaction gas to the process chamber.
Claim 14: Yamasaki teaches [0031-0034] the supplying of the reaction gas comprises: supplying, at a first timestamp, a first reaction gas to the process chamber; and supplying, at a second timestamp, a second reaction gas to the process chamber, wherein the first timestamp is different from the second timestamp.
Claim 15: Yamasaki teaches [0031-0034] the reaction gas comprises at least one of B2H6, BCl3, SiH4, SiH2Cl2, and H2.
Claim 16: Yamasaki teaches [0018] the changing of the temperature of the reaction gas in the gas tank comprises changing, using the one or more heating devices, the temperature of the reaction gas in the gas tank to be greater than or equal to 80°C and less than or equal to 120°C.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki et al. (US PGPub 2005/0069632), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Reznicek et al. (US PGPub 2024/0122076)
Regarding claim 7, as described above, Yamasaki substantially reads on the invention as claimed and teaches the use of diborane, B3H9, and other boron containing gasses [0033]. Yamasaki does not teach decomposing of the portion of the reaction gas comprises decomposing the diborane to at least one of B3H9, B4H10, and B5H11. Reznicek teaches the process of decomposing diborane to at least one of B3H9,B4H10, and B5H11 when depositing a semiconductor or metal onto a substrate to help reduce reaction by-products. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the use of diborane to include decomposing it during manufacturing to remove unwanted by-products from the metal layer as taught by Reznicek [0033].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814