DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1, 9 and 21, was entered on 10/29/25.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 1, 9 and 21 and not taught by the cited art. This is persuasive and a new rejection is presented in response to these amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppanen et al. (“Aluminum Nitride Transition Layer for Power Electronics Applications Grown by Plasma-Enhanced Atomic Layer Deposition,” Materials 2019, 12, p. 406) in light of Shiba (US 2017/0062209), Lei et al. (US 2018/0274097) and Deeru (JPH09-115917, machine translation).
Claims 1-7, 9-13 and 15-16: Seppanen teaches a process of forming a thin film layer comprising at least one cycle of ALD (i.e. claimed pulsed CVD) to form AlN (Abst.), the process comprising the steps of: exposing a silicon substrate to a pulse of TMA (i.e. claimed precursor); purging the unspent precursor; exposing the precursor to a pulse of ammonia (i.e. claimed nitrogen-containing co-reactant) to form an AlN thin film having a thickness of 28 nm; purging the unspent ammonia for 5 seconds (§ 4); and depositing a second layer of AlN on the first to provide a crystalline AlN layer (Abst.; § 4), wherein the ALD process is conducted at a temperature of 300˚C (Abst.; § 4).
Seppanen teaches a TMA pulse time of 0.3s (i.e. 300 ms) and fails to teach a lower pulse time. Shiba teaches an ALD process of forming AlN (Abst.) and teaches that the pulse time for TMA is 0.1-0.5s (i.e. 100-500 ms) (Table 1). Additionally, Shiba teaches that the pulse times used for each step in an ALD process can be adjusted depending on the desired amount of coverage and thickness of the monolayer deposited (¶ 0040). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a pulse time of, e.g., 150-170 ms with the predictable expectation of successfully forming an AlN film in Seppanen.
Seppanen fails to teach that the ammonia co-reactant is pulsed for 80-100ms. Lei teaches an ALD process of forming AlN and explains that the ammonia co-reactant can be pulsed for as little as 0.01s (i.e. 10 ms) and as long as 100 seconds (¶ 0044). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Additionally, Shiba teaches that the pulse times used for each step in an ALD process can be adjusted depending on the desired amount of coverage and thickness of the monolayer deposited (¶ 0040). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a pulse duration for the ammonia in Seppanen of 80-100 ms with the predictable expectation of success.
Seppanen further teaches an atomic layer annealing step of treating the metal nitride layer with an Ar plasma (i.e. claimed inert plasma) after each cycle (§ 4; p. 2, top paragraph), but fails to discuss the bias used during this treatment. Deeru teaches a process of forming a metal nitride film via CVD, wherein the nitride film is annealed using an inert plasma (¶ 0016). Deeru further explains that this plasma annealing step is performed with a negative bias (¶ 0016) and that the voltage used affects the degree of oxygen absorption in the formed film (¶¶ 0052-0054). Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a negative bias of -25V to -40V in Seppanen depending on the desired degree of oxygen absorption in the final film.
Claims 8 and 14: Seppanen fails to discuss crystallite size. However, Seppanen teaches the same process steps using the same materials as those which applicant discloses to yield the claimed size. Therefore, this size is considered inherent in the process of Seppanen.
Claims 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppanen, Shiba, Lei and Deeru in light of Tonisch et al. (“Piezoelectric properties of polycrystalline AlN thin films for MEMS application,” Sensors and Actuators A 132, pp. 658-663).
Claim 17: Seppanen teaches that the second AlN layer is formed via MOCVD and fails to teach sputtering. Tonisch teaches that crystalline AlN can be formed via either MOCVD or sputtering (Abst.). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected sputtering as the means for depositing the second AlN film in Seppanen with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 20: Seppanen teaches that the second AlN film is “thick” relative to the 28 nm first film, but does not limit the thickness of the film. Tonisch teaches that 130-250 nm is suitable for a polycrystalline AlN film formed in a semiconductor device (§ 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a thickness of 150-170 nm with the predictable expectation of success depending on the desired layer properties.
Claim 21: Seppanen, in light of Shiba, Lei, Deeru and Tonisch, teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 17, but fails to teach the use of TDMAA and hydrazine as the reactants. Lei teaches an ALD process of forming AlN and explains that suitable reactants includes TDMAA and hydrazine (¶ 0041). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected TDMAA and hydrazine as the reactants in Seppanen with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seppanen, Shiba, Lei, Deeru and Tonisch in light of Forbes et al. (US 2005/0167723).
Claims 18 and 19: Tonisch fails to teach that sputtering is performed at the claimed temperature. Forbes explains that sputtering of AlN is performed at room temperature (i.e. without active substrate heating) (¶ 0014). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have performed the sputtering at room temperature with the predictable expectation of success.
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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712