DETAILED ACTION
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’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muscat (US 2006/0199399 A1)
As to claim 1, Muscat teaches a film forming method of forming a metal-containing film on a substrate (abstract), the film forming method comprising: a) supplying a metal-containing gas to the substrate (para 0105-0106); b) supplying a reactive gas to the substrate, the reactive gas being reactive with the metal-containing gas (ALD, para 0106); and c) supplying a first gas to the substrate during the surface treatment step (chlorinated/activated surfaces para 0105-0106), the first gas containing a halogen gas, a hydrogen halide gas, or both, wherein the first gas is absorbed onto the substrate or reacts with the metal-containing gas, and wherein in the supplying of the first gas, the first gas is different from the metal-containing gas and the reactive gas, and the first gas reduces an amount of the metal- containing gas absorbed onto the substrate (halogen gases, different from the metal gases such as chlorine gas para 0017, 0054, 0107, etc.) where the halogen gas blocks promotes sufficient/preferred deposition). Muscat teaches that the inhibition halogen gas may be performed before, as in para 0017, 0054, 0107, claim 1, and not after supplying metal containing gas
However, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) and In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Therefore, it would have been obvious to switch the order of the steps as needed in Muscat absent unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims to craft the appropriate semiconductor device. It is noted that as these steps are shown in Fig. 1, the silane becomes H terminated again after titanium chloride deposition, allowing for a repetition of the halide to repeat the entire process, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success that the step order could be modified.
As to claim 2, including the limitations of claim 1 as taught above, Muscat includes depositing a silicon containing film on the substrate before metal deposition (paras 0016-0017, 0054, 0107).
As to claims 6 and 11, the processes in para 0106 are ALD. See claims of Muscat.
Claim(s) 7, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muscat (US 2006/0199399 A1) in view of Kadonaga et al. (US 2009/0263975)
As to claims 13-15 Muscat includes a silicon film with a metal film as claimed but not as a repeating stack. Kadonaga et al. teaches ALD of a metal layer alternating with ALD of a silicon layer (Fig. 3) in order to create a layer stack for use in semiconductors (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Muscat to include alternating silicon layers with its metal layers as taught by Kadonaga in order to create a layer stack for use in semiconductors.
As to claims 7 and 12, Kadonaga teaches aluminum nitride deposition as useful in the semiconductor application in para 0043, for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Muscat to include an aluminum nitride as its metal layers as taught by Kadonaga in order to create a layer stack for use in semiconductors.
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights