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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hashimoto (US 2016/0203978).
Regarding claim 19, Hashimoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a process vessel (203) in which a substrate (200) is processed;
a source gas supplier (241a) through which a source gas is supplied into the process vessel [0035];
a gas supplier (241b) of a gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen through which the gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen is supplied into the process vessel [0038];
an inert gas supplier (241c, 241d) through which an inert gas comprising at least one of a nitrogen gas or a rate gas is supplied into the process vessel [0050];
a plasma exciter (339b, [0156]) configured to excite a gas into a plasma state [0156];
a pressure regulator (244) configured to adjust an inner pressure of the process vessel [0053];
The Examiner take the position that Hashimoto’s controller (121) is configured to control the source gas supplier 241a, the gas supplier (241b) of the gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen, the inert gas supplier [241c, 241d), the plasma exciter (339b) and the pressure regulator (244) so as to perform:
forming a film on the substrate by performing a cycle a predetermined number of times, wherein the cycle comprises:
(a) supplying a source gas to the substrate (HCDS, [0073-0074]);
(b) after performing (a), supplying a plasma-excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen (NH3) to the substrate by exciting a gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen into a plasma state ([0105]); and
(c) supplying a plasma-excited inert gas to the substrate in the process vessel by exciting the inert gas into the plasma state ([0112], [0162] fig. 5) and
(d) after performing (a) and before performing (b) purging a space where the substrate is present in a non-plasma atmosphere by supplying a purge gas comprising the inert gas [0086][0089].
The Examiner takes the position that the controller of Hashimoto is inherently capable of performing the following function: “ the inner pressure of the process vessel is set to be lower in (c) than in (b)” because it teaches all the necessary pieces of the apparatus required for doing so as set out in paragraph 50 of Hashimoto. See MPEP 2114 and 2115 for claiming an apparatus.
Hashimoto teaches a controller configured to control a supply flow rate of the inert gas (214c, 241d) supplied in (c) is set to be lower than a supply flow rate of the purge gas supplied in (d) because it teaches a controller 112 that controls the MFC 241c, 241d for controlling the flow of inert and purge gases. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 2016/0203978) in view of Tsukasa (JP 2019-140146 see translation for citations).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a substrate processing method comprising:
(A) forming a film on a substrate by performing a cycle a predetermined number of times [0072], wherein the cycle comprises:
(a) supplying a source gas to the substrate (HCDS, [0073-0074]);
(b) after performing (a), supplying a plasma-excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen (NH3) to the substrate by exciting a gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen into a plasma state ([0105]); and
(c) supplying a plasma-excited inert gas to the substrate by exciting an inert gas comprising at least one of a nitrogen gas or a rare gas into a plasma state ([0112],[0162]).
(d) after performing (a) and before performing (b), purging a space where the substrate is present in a non-plasma atmosphere by supplying a purge gas comprising at least one of a nitrogen gas or a rare gas [0086][0089].
Hashimoto does not teach a pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower in (c) than in (b).
Tsukasa directed to forming a SiN film using a source gas in a first step and NH3 plasma in a second step. It teaches a lower pressure level wherein an inert gas plasma is used prior to the introduction of NH3 plasma and subsequent to the NH3 plasma (Fig. 6, [0095-0099]) because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106]. In light of this description of the method of Tsukasa the Examiner finds Tsukasa teaches the pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower than in a previous step [0095-0099]. One of ordinary skill in the would substitute the pressure levels of Hashimoto with the lower pressure level of Tsukasa because it would provide a greater plasma lifetime allowing for better film forming on the wafer. The rationale to support the conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. B.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pressure of Hashimoto by providing the pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower in (c) than in (b), as taught by Tsukasa, because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106] and because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. B.
Hashimoto discusses the flow rate of its purge gas [0087] reduces purge time increasing through put as well as restricting consumption of the gas to a minimal amount. Therefore the prior art recognizes that the flow rate of a gas is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a result effective variable such as the difference in a supply flow rate of the inert gas supplied in c set to be lower than a supply flow rate of the purge gas supplied in d through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed flow rate. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2-4, Hashimoto provides guidance regarding the operating pressure, it teaches a range of 1 - 2,666 Pa which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range [0053] and therefore provides a prima facie case for obviousness. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Hashimoto teaches time ranges for the application of the source gas [0053], NH3 [0072] and plasma inert gas [0067].
It also discusses how time is a result effective variable in [0061] by describing how time effects deposition rates and substrate processing. Increasing the deposition rate for step (a) allows for decreasing the amount of time required to deposit the desired one atomic layer which allows for increased modification in steps 2-4 (b and c). Therefore the Examiner takes the position that time as taught by Hashimoto is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “time duration of supplying the plasma-excited inert gas in (c) is set to be longer than a time duration of supplying the plasma-excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen in (b)” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Hashimoto is also directed to decreasing the overall time needed for processing [0061]. Increasing the deposition rate for step (a) allows for decreasing the amount of time required to deposit the desired one atomic layer which allows for increased modification in steps 2-4 (b and c). Therefore the Examiner takes the position that time as taught by Hashimoto is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “a time duration of supplying the plasma-excited inert gas in (c) is set to be longer than a time duration of supplying the source gas in (a)” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Hashimoto teaches the inert gas comprises N2 gas, or the inert gas comprises Ar gas [0089].
Regarding claim 10, Hashimoto teaches the gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen comprises at least one among NH3 gas, N2H2 gas, N2H4 gas or N3H8 gas [0105].
Regarding claim 11, Hashimoto teaches the source gas comprises a halosilane-based gas [0037].
Regarding claim 17, Hashimoto teaches in (c), the plasma-excited inert gas is supplied to the substrate (200, FIG. 2) through an edge of the substrate (250a-250c, Fig. 2, [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Hashimoto teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device comprising the substrate processing method of claim 1 [0062].
Regarding claim 19, Hashimoto teaches a substrate processing apparatus comprising:
a process vessel (203) in which a substrate (200) is processed;
a source gas supplier (241a) through which a source gas is supplied into the process vessel [0035];
a gas supplier (241b) of a gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen through which the gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen is supplied into the process vessel [0038];
an inert gas supplier (241c, 241d) through which an inert gas comprising at least one of a nitrogen gas or a rate gas is supplied into the process vessel [0050];
a plasma exciter (339b, [0156]) configured to excite a gas into a plasma state [0156];
a pressure regulator (244) configured to adjust an inner pressure of the process vessel [0053];
The Examiner take the position that Hashimoto’s controller (121) is configured to control the source gas supplier 241a, the gas supplier (241b) of the gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen, the inert gas supplier [241c, 241d), the plasma exciter (339b) and the pressure regulator (244) so as to perform:
forming a film on the substrate by performing a cycle a predetermined number of times, wherein the cycle comprises:
(a) supplying a source gas to the substrate (HCDS, [0073-0074]);
(b) after performing (a), supplying a plasma-excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen (NH3) to the substrate by exciting a gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen into a plasma state ([0105]); and
(c) supplying a plasma-excited inert gas to the substrate in the process vessel by exciting the inert gas into the plasma state ([0112], [0162] fig. 5) and
(d) after performing (a) and before performing (b) purging a space where the substrate is present in a non-plasma atmosphere by supplying a purge gas comprising the inert gas [0086][0089].
Hashimoto teaches a controller configured to control a supply flow rate of the inert gas (214c, 241d) supplied in (c) is set to be lower than a supply flow rate of the purge gas supplied in (d) because it teaches a controller 112 that controls the MFC 241c, 241d for controlling the flow of inert and purge gases. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
Hashimoto does not explicitly teach a pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower in (c) than in (b).
Tsukasa directed to forming a SiN film using a source gas in a first step and NH3 plasma in a second step. It teaches a lower pressure level wherein an inert gas plasma is used prior to the introduction of NH3 plasma and subsequent to the NH3 plasma (Fig. 6, [0095-0099]) because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106]. In light of this description of the method of Tsukasa the Examiner finds Tsukasa teaches the pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower than in a previous step [0095-0099]. One of ordinary skill in the would substitute the pressure levels of Hashimoto with the lower pressure level of Tsukasa because it would provide a greater plasma lifetime allowing for better film forming on the wafer. The rationale to support the conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. B.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pressure of Hashimoto by providing the pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower in (c) than in (b), as taught by Tsukasa, because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106] and because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. B.
Regarding claim 20, Hashimoto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer [0037], a substrate processing apparatus (Fig. 1) to perform:
forming a film on a substrate by performing a cycle a predetermined number of times [0072], wherein the cycle comprises:
(a) supplying a source gas to the substrate (HCDS, [0073-0074]);
(b) after performing (a), supplying a plasma-excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen (NH3) to the substrate by exciting a gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen into a plasma state ([0105]); and
(c) supplying a plasma-excited inert gas to the substrate by exciting an inert gas comprising at least one of a nitrogen gas or a rare gas into a plasma state ([0112],[0162]).
(d) after performing (a) and before performing (b), purging a space where the substrate is present in a non-plasma atmosphere by supplying a purge gas comprising at least one of a nitrogen gas or a rare gas [0086][0089].
Hashimoto does not teach a pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower in (c) than in (b).
Tsukasa directed to forming a SiN film using a source gas in a first step and NH3 plasma in a second step. It teaches a lower pressure level wherein an inert gas plasma is used prior to the introduction of NH3 plasma and subsequent to the NH3 plasma (Fig. 6, [0095-0099]) because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106]. In light of this description of the method of Tsukasa the Examiner finds Tsukasa teaches the pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower than in a previous step [0095-0099]. One of ordinary skill in the would substitute the pressure levels of Hashimoto with the lower pressure level of Tsukasa because it would provide a greater plasma lifetime allowing for better film forming on the wafer. The rationale to support the conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. B.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the pressure of Hashimoto by providing the pressure of a space where the substrate is present is set to be lower in (c) than in (b), as taught by Tsukasa, because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106] and because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143. B.
Hashimoto discusses the flow rate of its purge gas [0087] reduces purge time increasing through put as well as restricting consumption of the gas to a minimal amount. Therefore the prior art recognizes that the flow rate of a gas is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a result effective variable such as the difference in a supply flow rate of the inert gas supplied in c set to be lower than a supply flow rate of the purge gas supplied in d through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed flow rate. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach a pressure of the space in (c) is set to be lower than a pressure of the space in (D). However prior art recognizes that the pressure of the space is a result effective variable.
Tsukasa teaches supplying an argon gas at a pressure lower than a previous step (Fig. 6, [0095-0099]) because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106]. Therefore Tsukamoto recognizes the pressure of the space is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a result effective variable such as the pressure of the space in (c) is set to be lower than a pressure of the space in (D) through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed flow rate. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach a pressure of the space in (b) is set to be lower than a pressure of the space in (a).
Tsukasa teaches supplying an argon gas at a pressure lower than a previous step because (Fig. 6, [0095-0099]) because it would reduce the probability of collision between radical and suppress deactivation of plasma components allowing for a better thin film forming on the wafer [0106]. Therefore Tsukamoto recognizes the pressure of the space is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a result effective variable such as a pressure of the space in (b) is set to be lower than a pressure of the space in (a) through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed flow rate. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, Hashimoto does not teach the plasma excited inert gas is supplied to the substrate without supplying the plasma excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen to the substrate.
Tsukasa teach the plasma excited inert gas (argon) is supplied to the substrate without supplying the plasma excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen to the substrate because it would extend the lifetime of the plasma components of the NH3 gas which allows for a film of sufficient thickness of be formed [0098].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the plasma excited inert gas of Hashimoto by providing the plasma excited inert gas is supplied to the substrate without supplying the plasma excited gas containing nitrogen and hydrogen to the substrate, as taught by Tsukasa, because it would extend the lifetime of the plasma components of the NH3 gas which allows for a film of sufficient thickness of be formed [0098].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Tsukasa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tonegawa (US 2018/0342385).
Regarding claim 12, Hashimoto does not teach the inert gas is excited into the plasma state in a process vessel in which the substrate is processed by applying an electric power to an electrode provided outside the process vessel.
Tonegawa teaches the inert gas (27 [0068]) is excited into the plasma state in a process vessel in which the substrate is processed by applying an electric power to an electrode (33) provided outside (32) the process vessel ([0044}, fig. 2)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inert gas is excited into the plasma state in a process vessel in the substrate is processed of Hashimoto by applying an electric power to an electrode provided outside the process vessel, as taught by Tonegawa, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results.
Claim 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Tsukasa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (US 2014/0038394).
Regarding claim 13, Hashimoto teaches wherein (a) is performed while a plurality of substrates (200) comprising the substrate are supported by a substrate support (217) in a process vessel (203, fig. 1) but does not teach a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to be greater than a reference interval that enables the substrate support to accommodate a maximum number of substrates supportable by the substrate support.
Watanabe directed to forming a nitride film using a substrate boat like Hashimoto teaches a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to be greater (2d, 3d) than a reference interval (d; Fig. 2a, 4a, 23, [0171]) that enables the substrate support to accommodate a maximum number of substrates supportable by the substrate support (fig. 4b).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify (A) is performed while a plurality of substrates (200) comprising the substrate are supported by a substrate support (217) in a process vessel of Hashimoto by providing a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to be greater than a reference interval that enables the substrate support to accommodate a maximum number of substrates supportable by the substrate support, as taught by Watanabe, because it would provide a compound semiconductor film forming method capable of improving a production yield, reducing film forming coasts, enhancing in plane uniformity film thickness and achieving improved surface morphology [0014].
Regarding claim 14, Watanabe teaches the interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to be twice (2d, 3d, [0171], fig. 23) or more the reference interval (d).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Tsukasa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ushikawa (US 5,225,378).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto does not teach (A) is performed while a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate are arranged in a process vessel in a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to 12 mm or more and 60 mm or less.
Ushikawa teaches a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate are arranged in a process vessel in a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to 12 mm or more and 60 mm or less (col. 3, ln. 15-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate are arranged in a process vessel of Hashimoto by providing an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to 12 mm or more and 60 mm or less, as taught by Ushikawa, because one of ordinary skill in the art would have only expected predictable results.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto and Tsukasa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shima (JP 2007-221000).
Regarding claim 16, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach (A) is performed while a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate are arranged in a process vessel but does not teach in a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to 15 mm or more and 60 mm or less.
Shima is directed to forming a SiN film while a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate are arranged in a process vessel in a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to 15 mm or more and 60 mm or less (pg. 13).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the a plurality of substrates comprising the substrate are arranged in a process vessel of Hashimoto by providing a state where an interval between adjacent substrates among the plurality of substrates is set to 15 mm or more and 60 mm or less, as taught by Shima, because it would improve uniformity on the substrate by eliminating the shortage in the supply of gas (abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection set out above.
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 JOHN J BRAYTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3084. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571 272 8902. 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.
JOHN J. BRAYTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1794
/JOHN J BRAYTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights