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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elections without traverse of invention I (Claims 15-30) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 are acknowledged.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based upon an application filed in JAPAN on 01/20/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over JP2017179498A; Watanabe et al.; (hereinafter “Watanabe”).
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe teaches a substrate processing method ([0005], see attached patent machine translation) comprising:
forming a metal film (#101, Figure 1, metal layer), which changes in volume when oxidized ([0020], volume of #101 can expand when exposed to oxidation treatment), on a rear surface of a substrate (#100, substrate);
forming an oxide film (#201, protective/oxide layer), through which oxygen permeates, on a front surface of the metal film (#201 disposes on #101); and
applying stress to the substrate by oxidizing the metal film ([0019-0020], oxidation of #101 reduces the warping of substrate #100).
Regarding Claim 22, Watanabe teaches a substrate processing method ([0005], see attached patent machine translation) comprising:
forming a first metal film (#101, Figure 1, metal layer), which changes in volume when oxidized ([0020], volume of #101 can expand when exposed to oxidation treatment), on a rear surface of a substrate (#100, substrate);
forming a first oxide film (#201, protective/oxide layer), through which oxygen permeates, on a front surface of the first metal film (#201 disposes on #101); and
forming a second metal film (#102, metal film), which changes in volume ([0021], volume of #102 can expand when exposed to oxidation treatment), on a front surface of the first oxide film (#102 disposes on #201);
forming a second oxide film (#202, protective/oxide layer), through which oxygen permeates, on a front surface of the second metal film (#202 disposes on #102); and
applying stress to the substrate by oxidizing the first metal film and the second metal film ([0019-0022], oxidation of #101 and #102 reduce the warping of substrate #100).
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.
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.
Claims 16-17, 21 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of US20210183993A1; Kim et al.; (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 15, wherein Watanabe further teaches the metal film (#101, Figure 1) expands in volume when oxidized and applies stress to the substrate (#100) by being oxidized ([0019-0020], #101 expands when being oxidized and reduces the warping of #100).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach the metal film applies compressive stress.
However, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a film structure on a substrate ([0027]) comprising a metal film (#130, Figure 1, [0068], metal stressor layer) applies compressive stress ([0071], #130 expands and applies compressive stress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Kim, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (metal stressor layer of Kim) in comparable structures to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe in view of Kim teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 16.
Watanabe does not teach the metal film, which expands in volume when oxidized, is tungsten or vanadium.
However, Kim teaches the metal film (Figure 1, #130), which expands in volume when oxidized, is tungsten or vanadium ([0068], #130 includes metal material such as tungsten).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Kim for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding Claim 21, Watanabe teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 15.
Watanabe does not teach the oxide film is zirconia, hafnia, or a composite compound of zirconia and hafnia.
However, Kim teaches the oxide film is zirconia, hafnia, or a composite compound of zirconia and hafnia (#110, Figure 1, hafnium oxide layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Kim, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (oxide film material of Watanabe) for another (oxide film material of Kim) in comparable structures to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 30, Watanabe teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 22.
Watanabe does not teach the oxide film is zirconia, hafnia, or a composite compound of zirconia and hafnia.
However, Kim teaches the oxide film is zirconia, hafnia, or a composite compound of zirconia and hafnia (#110, Figure 1, hafnium oxide layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Kim, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (oxide film material of Watanabe) for another (oxide film material of Kim) in comparable structures to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Kim, and further in view of US10134689B1; Sridharan et al.; (hereinafter “Sridharan”).
Regarding claim 18, Watanabe in view of Kim teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 16.
Watanabe in view of Kim does not teach the substrate includes a metal wiring line on a front surface of the substrate.
However, Sridharan teaches a processed semiconductor wafer (col. 1, ln. 30-49), wherein the substrate (#102, Figure 1, wafer) includes a metal wiring line (#106, metal feature) on a front surface of the substrate (#106 disposes on #102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe in view of Kim with the teaching of Sridharan by known methods to yield predictable results (implementation of metal structures on a substrate with warpage compensation feature, see also Sridharan, col. 3, ln. 31-48). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 19-20, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of US5834374A; Cabral et al.; (hereinafter “Cabral”).
Regarding Claim 19, Watanabe teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 15.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach the metal film contracts in volume when oxidized and applies tensile stress to the substrate by being oxidized.
However, Cabral teaches a method of forming a film structure (col. 1, ln. 10-14) wherein the metal film contracts in volume when oxidized and applies tensile stress to the substrate by being oxidized (col. 7, ln. 6-14, magnesium-contained thin film shrinks in volume when being oxidized and results in an increase in tensile stresses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Cabral, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (thin film conductor of Cabral) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 20, Watanabe in view of Cabral teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 19.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach the metal film, which contracts in volume when oxidized, is magnesium or strontium.
However, Cabral teaches the metal film, which contracts in volume when oxidized, is magnesium or strontium (col. 7, ln. 6-14, the thin film conductor comprises magnesium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Cabral for the reason set forth in the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding Claim 27, Watanabe teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 22, wherein Watanabe further teaches the first metal film (#101, Figure 1) expands in volume when oxidized ([0019-0020], #101 expands when being oxidized), and the second metal film (#102) changes in volume when oxidized and applies stress to the substrate by being oxidized ([0021-0022], #102 changes in volume when being oxidized and reduces warping of the substrate #100).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach the second metal film contracts in volume when oxidized and applies tensile stress.
However, Cabral teaches the second metal film contracts in volume when oxidized and applies tensile stress (col. 7, ln. 6-14, magnesium-contained thin film shrinks in volume when being oxidized and results in an increase in tensile stresses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Cabral, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (thin film conductor of Cabral) to obtain predictable results (stresses compensation layer). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 29, Watanabe in view of Cabral teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 27.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach the metal film, which contracts in volume when oxidized, is magnesium or strontium.
However, Cabral teaches the metal film, which contracts in volume when oxidized, is magnesium or strontium (col. 7, ln. 6-14, the thin film conductor comprises magnesium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Cabral for the reason set forth in the ejection of claim 27.
Claims 23-25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Cabral and Kim.
Regarding claim 23, Watanabe teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 22, wherein Watanabe further teaches the first metal film (#101, Figure 1) changes in volume when oxidized ([0019-0020], #101 changes in volume when being oxidized), and
the second metal film (#102) expands in volume when oxidized and applies stress to the substrate by being oxidized ([0021-0022], #102 expands when being oxidized and reduces warping of the substrate #100).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach the first metal film contracts in volume when oxidized.
However, Cabral teaches the first metal film contracts in volume when oxidized (col. 7, ln. 6-14, magnesium-contained thin film shrinks in volume when being oxidized).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe with the teaching of Cabral, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (thin film conductor of Cabral) to obtain predictable results (stresses compensation layer). See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Watanabe in view of Cabral does not explicitly teach the second metal film applies compressive stress.
However, Kim teaches the second metal film (#130, Figure 1, [0068], metal stressor layer) applies compressive stress ([0071], #130 expands and applies compressive stress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe in view of Cabral with the teaching of Kim, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (metal stressor layer of Kim) in comparable structures to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 24, Watanabe in view of Cabral and Kim teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 23.
Watanabe in view of Cabral does not teach the metal film, which expands in volume when oxidized, is tungsten or vanadium.
However, Kim teaches the metal film (Figure 1, #130), which expands in volume when oxidized, is tungsten or vanadium ([0068], #130 includes metal material such as tungsten).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe in view of Cabral with the teaching of Kim as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (metal stressor layer of Kim) in comparable structures to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 25, Watanabe in view of Cabral and Kim teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 23.
Watanabe in view of Kim does not explicitly teach the metal film, which contracts in volume when oxidized, is magnesium or strontium.
However, Cabral teaches the metal film, which contracts in volume when oxidized, is magnesium or strontium (col. 7, ln. 6-14, the thin film conductor comprises magnesium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe in view of Kim with the teaching of Cabral, as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (thin film conductor of Cabral) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding Claim 28, Watanabe in view of Cabral teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 27.
Watanabe in view of Cabral does not teach the metal film, which expands in volume when oxidized, is tungsten or vanadium.
However, Kim teaches the metal film (Figure 1, #130), which expands in volume when oxidized, is tungsten or vanadium ([0068], #130 includes metal material such as tungsten).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe in view of Cabral with the teaching of Kim as it would be a simple substitution of one known element (metal film of Watanabe) for another (metal stressor layer of Kim) in comparable structures to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe in view of Cabral, and further in view of Sridharan.
Regarding claim 26, Watanabe in view of Cabral teaches the substrate processing method as described in claim 19.
Watanabe in view of Cabral does not teach the substrate includes a metal wiring line on a front surface of the substrate.
However, Sridharan teaches the substrate (#102, Figure 1, wafer) includes a metal wiring line (#106, metal feature) on a front surface of the substrate (#106 disposes on #102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Watanabe in view of Cabral with the teaching of Sridharan by known methods to yield predictable results (implementation of metal structures on a substrate with warpage compensation feature, see also Sridharan, col. 3, ln. 31-48). See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20170162522A1 – Figures 3 and 6
US20200370172A1 – Figures 5A-B
US6808952B1 – Figures 4A-H
US20230243040A1 – Paragraphs [0015], [0031-0035]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIEN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6967. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm ET.
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, CHRISTINE S KIM can be reached on (571)272-8458. 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.
/TIEN TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812