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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shealy et al. (WO2010/151856).
Regarding claims 1-3, Shealy teaches depositing an ALSiN film onto a substrate through the use of a chemical vapor deposition process employing the use of a silicon containing gas, a metal containing gas and a nitrogen containing gas (see abstract). Shealy fails to teach the explicitly that the gas provision steps take place in an order such that step C is necessarily performed after steps A and B. However, the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected outcome arising from an order of providing processing steps it would be considered obvious to modify the order of the processing steps of a prior art method. See In re Burhans, 154F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Shealy are as shown above. Shealy fails to teach necessarily repeating any of the steps claimed. However, the repetition of step A of Shealy would be considered a mere splitting of the step A of Shealy into two deposition steps wherein the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result is held to be obvious in view of the prior art processing steps . Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding claim 7, similarly to the rejection of claim 4 above, the splitting of all of the steps of Shealy into a plurality of steps wherein the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result is held to be obvious in view of the prior art processing steps. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
Regarding claim 8, the desired metal of Shealy may include aluminum (see abstract).
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derluyn et al. (USPGPub 2015/0008444) in view of Shealy et al. (WO2010/151856).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Derluyn teaches that it is known to form structures comprising a SiN layers in conjunction with an AlSiN layer (see Fig. 6) wherein a stack is formed. It is not necessarily stated that the stacking layer creation is repeated although it is noted that at least in Fig. 6 an additional SiN layer is provided on top of the already provided stack. However, Derluyn also teaches that the stack must be thick enough to effectively passivate [0002] or it will not serve its intended function [0002] wherein Derluyn is generally non-limiting as regards to the number of layers in the stack [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the stack thickness of Derluyn by repeating the creation of stack layers until an optimal depth is acquired in order to optimize the passivation layer of the device of Derluyn. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. The teachings of Derluyn are as shown above. Derluyn fails to teach wherein the metal doped layer is formed using the method claim 1. However, Shealy teaches depositing an ALSiN film onto a substrate through the use of a chemical vapor deposition process employing the use of a silicon containing gas, a metal containing gas and a nitrogen containing gas (see abstract). Shealy fails to teach the explicitly that the gas provision steps take place in an order such that step C is necessarily performed after steps A and B. However, the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected outcome arising from an order of providing processing steps it would be considered obvious to modify the order of the processing steps of a prior art method. See In re Burhans, 154F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the AlSiN layer of Derluyn as guided by Shealy as a simple substitution of the method of formation of an AlSiN layer for another wherein the results of the substitution would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Derluyn as relates to his ability to form those same types of layers.
Regarding claim 6, Shealy generally teaches the formation of SiN layers in the manner claimed (see Section IIA).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shealy et al. (WO2010/151856) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-8 above and further in view of Kadonaga et al. (JP2009260151).
Regarding claims 10-11, the teachings of Shealy are as shown above. Shealy fails to teach purging between the provision of process gases. However, Kadonaga teaches that it is known to purge a vapor deposition chamber between separate gas provision steps for the purpose of removing remaining gas from the chamber, likely to prevent undesired reactions or reactions in non-deposited material (see Best Mode section one paragraph before the description of Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide purging steps between gas provision steps of the process of Shealy as was performed by Kadonaga in order to provide the same removal of remaining gas and likely prevent undesired reactions and reactions from materials that were not already deposited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because new grounds of rejection and new art have been applied to all pending claims.
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 ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights