5Notice 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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/16/25, 08/02/24 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims #1-9,17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/18/25.
Newly submitted claims #21-33 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions Group I (claims 10-16) and Group II (21-27) are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed by the device of Group II can be practice for it's intended purpose without requiring reducing an RF power of the deposition apparatus while the reaction gases continuously generate the plasma in the deposition apparatus for a time period; and after the time period, stopping providing the reaction gases and stopping generating the plasma, which is required by the claimed device of Group I. Also, the invention as claimed in Group I can be practiced for it's intended purpose without requiring stopping introducing the precursors into the deposition apparatus; after stopping introducing the precursors into the deposition apparatus, increasing a flow rate of the reaction gases introduced into the deposition apparatus to remove charges accumulated on the substrate, as required by the invention of the Group II claim language. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions Group I (claims 10-16) and Group III (28-33) are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed by the device of Group III can be practice for it's intended purpose without requiring reducing an RF power of the deposition apparatus while the reaction gases continuously generate the plasma in the deposition apparatus for a time period; and after the time period, stopping providing the reaction gases and stopping generating the plasma, which is required by the claimed device of Group I. Also, the invention as claimed in Group I can be practiced for it's intended purpose without requiring ; removing charges accumulated on the substrate by using the reaction gases; after removing the charges accumulated on the substrate, as required by the invention of the Group III claim language. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims #21-33 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Accordingly, claims #10-16 will be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim #11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The Examiner takes the position that in light of the importance of the positioning within the claimed inventive method, the following parameters are imperative to the understanding and the reproduction of the claimed invention without undue experimentation;
Neither the present specification, drawings or claim language establishes any;
Total distance from starting point to final processing location.
At what position does the claim distanced place the wafer with reference to the electrodes.
Is this distance marked from the loading location, bottom of the processing area or some other location within the processing zone.
The Examiner further takes the position that in light of the ambiguity of the above mention concerns, the term ‘about’ used in the claim language, takes on an even greater convolutedness. Thus, the term "about", which is a relative term, renders the claim indefinite, which is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 800 mils to about 900 mils in order to be considered “about” 800 mils to “about” 900 mils. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 800 mils to about 900 mils) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Furthermore, in light of the necessity of the position of the wafer to the RF supplying electrode, the need for an accurate definition/description of the location of the wafer is paramount.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim #10, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0375589), hereinafter referred to as "Kagaya" and in view of Collins et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084795), hereinafter referred to as "Collins".
Kagaya shows, with respect to claim #10, a method comprising: providing a wafer comprising a substrate (fig. #1, item W) and a bottom electrode (fig. #1, item 39) of a capacitor (fig. #2, item 56a&b) over the substrate (paragraph 0036, 0041); placing the wafer on a susceptor (fig. #1, item 39) of a deposition apparatus (paragraph 0031); generating a plasma in the deposition apparatus by using reaction gases (paragraph 0035-0036, 0040); providing precursors into the deposition apparatus to deposit a dielectric layer over the bottom electrode and the substrate (paragraph 0046, 0048).
Kagaya substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above.
Kagaya fails to show, with respect to claim #10, a method comprising: after depositing the dielectric layer, lifting the wafer; after lifting the wafer, reducing an RF power of the deposition apparatus while the reaction gases continuously generate the plasma in the deposition apparatus for a time period; and after the time period, stopping providing the reaction gases and stopping generating the plasma.
Collins teaches, with respect to claim #10, a method comprising after depositing the dielectric layer (paragraph 0067, 0080), lifting the wafer (fig. #1B, item 116; by lifting structure, item 108) (paragraph 0042, 0086); after lifting the wafer, reducing an RF power of the deposition apparatus while the reaction gases continuously generate the plasma in the deposition apparatus for a time period (paragraph 0086); and after the time period, stopping providing the reaction gases and stopping generating the plasma (paragraph 0084).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #10, to modified the invention of Kagaya as modified by the invention of Collins, which teaches, a method comprising: after depositing the dielectric layer, lifting the wafer; after lifting the wafer, reducing an RF power of the deposition apparatus while the reaction gases continuously generate the plasma in the deposition apparatus for a time period; and after the time period, stopping providing the reaction gases and stopping generating the plasma, to incorporate a structural condition that would control/tune the plasma ion or electron density or reactive species density distribution, as taught by Collins.
Kagaya shows, with respect to claim #11, a method comprising: wherein the wafer is lifted by a distance in a range from about 800 mils to about 900 mils (paragraph 0043).
The Examiner notes that Kagaya shows a method of raising a wafer to any operating distance to the RF supplying electrodes needed for processing a plasma function. However, the Examiner notes that Kagaya does not state explicitly that that wafer was lifted by a distance in a range from about 800 mils to about 900 mils. However, the Examiner takes the following position;
Neither the present specification, drawings or claim language establishes any;
Total distance from starting point to final processing location.
At what position does this place the wafer with reference to the electrodes.
Is this distance marked from the loading location, bottom of the processing area or some other location within the processing zone.
The Examiner further takes the position that in light of the ambiguity of the above mention concerns, the term ‘about’ used in the claim language, takes on an even greater convolutedness. Thus, the term "about", which is a relative term, renders the claim indefinite, which is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 800 mils to about 900 mils in order to be considered “about” 800 mils to “about” 900 mils. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 800 mils to about 900 mils) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Furthermore, in light of the necessity of the position of the wafer to the RF supplying electrode, the need for an accurate definition/description of the location of the wafer is paramount.
Kagaya shows, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein the reaction gases are oxygen-containing gases, inert gases, or combinations thereof (paragraph 0046).
//
Claim #12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0375589), hereinafter referred to as "Kagaya" as modified by Collins et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084795), hereinafter referred to as "Collins" as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above and in further view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0054504)
, hereinafter referred to as "Chen".
Kagaya as modified by Collins, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above.
Kagaya as modified by Collins, fail to show, with respect to claim #12, a method wherein the time period is in a range from about 10 seconds to about 15 seconds.
Chen teaches, with respect to claim #12, a method wherein the time period is in a range from about 10 seconds to about 15 seconds (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #12, to modified the invention of Kagaya as modified by Collins as modified by the invention of Chen, which teaches, a method wherein the time period is in a range from about 10 seconds to about 15 seconds, to incorporate a structural condition that would cause a shift in the chemical component and phase of the deposited layer, as taught by Chen.
///
Claim #14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0375589), hereinafter referred to as "Kagaya" as modified by Collins et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084795), hereinafter referred to as "Collins" as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above and in further view of Chou et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0218116), hereinafter referred to as "Chou".
Kagaya as modified by Collins, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above.
Kagaya as modified by Collins, fail to show, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein the RF power is in a range from about 80 watts to about 120 watts.
Chou teaches, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein the RF power is in a range from about 80 watts to about 120 watts (paragraph 0028, 0031).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #14, to modified the invention of Kagaya as modified by Collins as modified by the invention of Chou, which teaches, a method wherein the RF power is in a range from about 80 watts to about 120 watts, to incorporate a structural condition that would control the ignition and sustain the argon plasma, as taught by Chou.
///
Claim #15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0375589), hereinafter referred to as "Kagaya" as modified by Collins et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084795), hereinafter referred to as "Collins" as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above and in further view of MATSUKI et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0295797), hereinafter referred to as "Matsuki".
Kagaya as modified by Collins, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above.
Kagaya as modified by Collins, fail to show, with respect to claim #15, a method further comprising heating the wafer prior to providing the precursors into the deposition apparatus.
Matsuki teaches, with respect to claim #15, a method further comprising heating the wafer prior to providing the precursors into the deposition apparatus (paragraph 0037, 0041).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #15, to modified the invention of Kagaya as modified by Collins as modified by the invention of Matsuki, which teaches, a method further comprising heating the wafer prior to providing the precursors into the deposition apparatus, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a surface temperature that would assist in the uniformity of deposition over the wafer surface, as taught by Matsuki.
///
Claim #16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAGAYA (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0375589), hereinafter referred to as "Kagaya" as modified by Collins et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0084795), hereinafter referred to as "Collins" as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above and in further view of Swaminathan et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0235835), hereinafter referred to as "Swaminathan".
Kagaya as modified by Collins, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above.
Kagaya as modified by Collins, fail to show, with respect to claim #16, a method further comprising heating the wafer prior to providing the precursors into the deposition apparatus.
Swaminathan teaches, with respect to claim #16, a method further comprising heating the wafer prior to providing the precursors into the deposition apparatus (paragraph 0037, 0048, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #16, to modified the invention of Kagaya as modified by Collins as modified by the invention of Swaminathan, which teaches, a method further comprising heating the wafer prior to providing the precursors into the deposition apparatus, to incorporate a structural condition that would control/tune the plasma ion or electron density or reactive species density distribution, as taught by Swaminathan.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
01/13/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899