DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 3
A. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 3
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 4
A. Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,381,219 (“Ueda”) in view of US 2009/0087587 (“Takahashi”). 4
B. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Takahashi, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 2016/0240367 (“Kimura”). 12
C. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0259598 (“Chen”) in view of US 2021/0098236 (“AuBuchon”). 13
IV. Response to Arguments 19
Conclusion 19
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. 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.
A. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 15 was amended to include the following limitation:
the source array including a dielectric plate, a plurality of cavities extending into the dielectric plate, and a plurality of dielectric resonators in each of the plurality of cavities,
The limitation is indefinite because it may be read in more than one way, i.e. a first interpretation may be—consistent with Fig. 4 of the Instant Application—that there is one dielectric resonator 466 per cavity 467 in the dielectric plate 460 or it may be interpreted as literally written that each cavity 467 have a plurality of resonators 466.
Applicant may overcome the rejection using, as an example, the following phrasing,
… a plurality of dielectric resonators in respective ones of the plurality of cavities,
or
… a
For the purposes of examination, the claim feature will be interpreted consistent with Fig. 4.
Claims 26-30 are rejected for including the same indefinite feature by depending from claim 25.
III. 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 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 of this title, 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.
A. Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,381,219 (“Ueda”) in view of US 2009/0087587 (“Takahashi”).
Claim 1 reads,
1. (Currently Amended) A method of depositing a silicon nitride (SixNy) film, the method comprising:
[1] exposing a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber to a silicon-containing precursor;
[2a] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a first plasma produced from a first gas mixture comprising helium (He) and nitrogen (N2),
[2b] the first gas mixture comprising a ratio of helium:nitrogen in a range of from 20:1 to 1000:1; and
[3] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a second plasma produced from a second gas mixture comprising helium (He), nitrogen (N2), and ammonia (NH3),
[4] wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source or a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source.
With regard to claim 1, Ueda discloses, generally in Fig. 1 and 5,
1. (Currently amended) A method 500 of depositing a silicon nitride (SixNy) film [paragraph bridging cols. 4-5; col. 13, lines 32-45], the method comprising:
[1] exposing a semiconductor substrate [col. 5, lines 8-16] in a semiconductor processing chamber [step 510 in Fig. 5, which equal step 110 in Fig. 1 (col. 13, lines 36-39)] to a silicon-containing precursor [step 520 in Fig. 5 which equals steps 120, 130, 140 in Fig. 1 (col. 13, lines 40-45), wherein step 120 is exposure to Si precursor, (col. 6, line 55 to col. 7, line 58)];
[2a] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a first plasma produced from a first gas mixture comprising helium (He) and nitrogen (N2) [step 520 in Fig. 5 which equals steps 120, 130, 140 in Fig. 1 (col. 13, lines 40-45), wherein step 130 is exposure to He/N2 plasma (paragraph bridging cols 7-8)],
[2b] the first gas mixture comprising a ratio of helium:nitrogen in a range of from 20:1 to 1000:1 [see explanation below]; and
[3] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a second plasma produced from a second gas mixture comprising helium (He), nitrogen (N2), and ammonia (NH3) [step 530 in Fig. 5 (col. 13, line 54 to col. 14, line 34)],
[4] … [not taught] …
With regard to features [2a]-[2b] of claim 1, Ueda states that the “gas mixture” used for the “second phase” (paragraph bridging cols 7-8) that is step 130 and therefore step 520 in Fig. 5,
In the second phase, a second reactant comprising a reactive species generated from a plasma is provided to the substrate. In some embodiments, a nitrogen based plasma is produced from a gas mixture comprising a nitrogen precursor and an additional gas. In some embodiments, the nitrogen precursor may comprise at least one of nitrogen (N2), ammonia (NH3), hydrazine (N2H4), or an alkyl-hydrazine (e.g., tertiary butyl hydrazine (C4H12N2). In some embodiments, the additional gas may comprise at least one of helium or neon and the gas mixture may be introduced into the reaction chamber at a flow rate ratio of additional gas to nitrogen gas greater than 4:1, or greater than 10:1, or greater than 15:1, or even equal to or greater than 20:1. …
… In some embodiments, the gas mixture consisting essentially of the nitrogen precursor and helium may be introduced into the reaction chamber at a flow rate ratio of helium to nitrogen precursor greater than 4:1, or greater than 10:1, or greater than 15:1, or even equal to or greater than 20:1.
(col. 8, lines 3-34; emphasis added)
Moreover, Ueda explains that the benefit of the additional gas, e.g. He, in the nitrogen plasma, e.g. He/N2 plasma (Fig. 2B), increases the density of reactive nitrogen species (Ueda: col. 8, line 46 to col. 9, line 32; Figs. 2A-2B). This is the same observation made in the Instant Application (Instant Specification: ¶ 85).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use He/N2 plasma having a He:N2 ratio of equal to or greater than 20:1 for the process step 130 (and therefore 520) because Ueda suggests this option.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2144.05(I)). In such a situation, Applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); emphasis added.)
It is further noted that there is no evidence of unexpected results relative to the closest prior art. In this regard, there are comparative examples and inventive examples disclosed in the Instant Application (Instant Specification: ¶¶ 111-118). The inventive examples do not even use the claimed “second plasma produced from a second gas mixture comprising helium (He), nitrogen (N2), and ammonia (NH3)”; therefore, the actual examples in the Instant Application cannot be relied on for showing unexpected results for that which is claimed as they are not commensurate in scope with that which is claimed. (See at least MPEP 716.02(d).)
With regard to feature [3] of claim 1, Ueda explains that step 530 in Fig. 5 is a “post- deposition plasma treatment” performed after the silicon nitride film is deposited using step 520 which is steps 120, 130, and 140 in Fig. 1:
Once the silicon nitride film has been deposited to a desired thickness, the exemplary process 500 may continue by means of a process block 530 comprising: contacting the silicon nitride film with a reactive species generated from a plasma produced from a gas mixture comprising a nitrogen precursor and an additional gas, wherein the additional gas comprises at least one of helium or neon and the gas mixture is introduced into the reaction chamber at a flow rate ratio of additional gas to the nitrogen precursor greater than 4:1.
In more detail, the post deposition plasma treatment of process block 530 …
(col. 13, lines 54-64; emphasis added)
In some embodiments, the post deposition plasma treatment may employ a nitrogen based plasma produced from a gas mixture comprising a nitrogen precursor and an additional precursor. In some embodiments, the nitrogen precursor may comprise at least one of nitrogen (N2), ammonia (NH3), hydrazine (N2H4), or an alkyl-hydrazine (e.g., tertiary butyl hydrazine (C4H12N2).
(col. 14, lines 15-21; emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a gas mixture of N2, NH3, and He because Ueda suggests that “at least one of nitrogen (N2), ammonia (NH3), …” (id.) may be used as the nitrogen precursor along with the additional gas of, e.g. He, for the post plasma treatment gas mixture.
With regard to feature [4] of claim 1,
[4] wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source or a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source.
Ueda does not indicate how the plasma is made and does not therefore teach the ICP or CCP as required by feature [4].
Ueda does, however, state that the plasma is an RF plasma:
In some embodiments, a nitrogen based plasma may be produced from the gas mixture comprising a nitrogen precursor and an additional gas. For example, a nitrogen based plasma may be generated by applying RF power from about 10 W to about 2000 W, or from about 50 W to about 1000 W, or from about 100 W to about 500 W. In some embodiments, the plasma may be generated in-situ, while in other embodiments, the plasma may be generated remotely. In some embodiments, a showerhead reactor may be utilized and plasma may be generated between a susceptor (on top of which the substrate is located) and a showerhead plate.
(Ueda: col. 9, lines 53-63; emphasis added)
Takahashi teaches a method of depositing silicon nitride using PECVD (title, ¶ 4). Takahashi further teaches that it is known in the art to produce an RF plasma by applying RF power to capacitively coupled electrodes (¶¶ 5, 6) or to inductively coupled coils (¶¶ 10-12), thereby forming an CCP or a ICP, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the RF plasma of Ueda using an ICP or CCP source by applying RF power to capacitively coupled electrodes or inductively coupled coils because Ueda is merely silent as to the technique used, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would use known techniques, such as those taught the be known in Takahashi to be suitable for forming an RF plasma used to deposit silicon nitride.
Moreover, inasmuch as the Instant Application states,
[0092] The skilled artisan will appreciate that any remote plasma source, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source, capacitively coupled plasma source (CCP) source, or microwave plasma source that is suitable for generating the first plasma produced from the first gas mixture and the second plasma produced from the second gas mixture may be implemented for the disclosed methods.
(Instant Specification: ¶ 92; emphasis added)
As such, there appears to be nothing critical as to the plasma source used to form either of the first and second plasma.
This is all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 reads,
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the ratio of helium:nitrogen in the first gas mixture is in a range of from 33:1 to 100:1.
Again, Ueda teaches a range of equal to or greater than 20:1 for the He:N2 ratio. While no upper limit is given, this nonetheless means that the claimed range falls within the range disclosed in Ueda. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2144.05(I)). In such a situation, Applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); emphasis added.)
Even if, arguendo, the claimed range and the range in Ueda were taken to not overlap, then the claimed range of from 33:1 to 100:1 would still be prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688(Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art).
Here, there is no evidence of unexpected results relative to the closest prior art. It is particularly noted that there are comparative examples and inventive examples disclosed in the Instant Application (Instant Specification: ¶¶ 111-118). The inventive examples indicate that the entire range of 20:1 to 1000:1 gave the desired results, albeit with no actual data provided. The comparative examples are not anywhere near closer to the process in claims 1 or 2 than is the prior art of Ueda. Moreover, the Instant Application indicates that the range of 20:1 of He:N2 in the plasma produce the desired results (Instant Specification ¶ 88).
Claim 3 reads,
3. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising repeating exposing the semiconductor substrate to the first plasma exposure and/or exposing the semiconductor substrate to the second plasma.
Again, step 520 in Fig. 5 is the silicon nitride deposition process in Fig. 1 that includes repeating steps 120 and 130 until the desired thickness is achieved. Therefore, the first plasma exposure to the He/N2 plasma is repeated one or more times.
With regard to claims 4-6, and 8, Ueda further discloses,
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source.
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source.
6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a temperature of less than or equal to 500 ℃ [col. 11, lines 22-36].
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor substrate has at least one feature formed therein, the at least one feature defining a trench having a top surface, a bottom surface, and two opposed sidewalls [col. 5, lines 17-45].
Claim 9 reads,
9. (Currently Amended) A method of depositing a silicon nitride (SixNy) film, the method comprising:
[1] exposing a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber to a silicon-containing precursor;
[2a] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a first plasma produced from a first gas mixture comprising helium (He) and nitrogen (N2),
[2b] the first gas mixture comprising a ratio of helium:nitrogen in a range of from 20:1 to 1000:1;
[3] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a second plasma produced from a second gas mixture comprising helium (He), nitrogen (N2), and ammonia (NH3); and
[4] exposing the semiconductor substrate to the first plasma,
[5] wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source or a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source.
Each of features [1]-[3] and [5] of claim 9 is identical to features [1]-[3] and [5] of claim 1, which have been addressed above. Feature [4] of claim 9 has been addressed above under claim 3. This is all of the limitations of claim 9.
With regard to claims 10-12, and 14
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source.
11. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, wherein one or more of the first plasma or the second plasma is generated by a capacitively coupled plasma (CCP) source.
12. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a temperature of less than or equal to 500 ℃.
14. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the semiconductor substrate has at least one feature formed therein, the at least one feature defining a trench having a top surface, a bottom surface, and two opposed sidewalls.
See discussion regarding claims 4-6, and 8, respectively, above.
B. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Takahashi, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 2016/0240367 (“Kimura”).
Claims 7 and 13 read,
7. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a pressure in a range of from 0.5 Torr to 5 Torr.
13. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a pressure in a range of from 0.5 Torr to 5 Torr.
The prior art of Ueda in view of Takahashi, as explained above, teaches each of the features of claims 1 and 9.
Ueda discloses a chamber pressure of generally 2000 Pascal to 6000 Pascal, i.e. 15 to 45 Torr for the deposition of silicon nitride (Ueda: col. 6, lines 16-30) and 1000 Pascal to 6000 Pascal, i.e. 7.5 Torr to 45 Torr for the treatment with N2/H2 (Ueda: col. 9, lines 14-32; Fig. 2B).
Kimura, like Ueda, teaches cyclic CVD or PEALD deposition of SiN (Kimura: ¶ 46) using an RF plasma and uses a deposition pressure of 50 to 1000 Pascal, preferably 200 to 400 Pascal, i.e. 1.5 Torr to 3.0 Torr (Kimura: Table 3 in ¶ 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a pressure of from 1.5 and 3 Torr because it would be the substitution of one known silicon nitride deposition pressure for another known silicon nitride deposition pressure, suitable for the same purpose of depositing silicon nitride.
Moreover, with regard to the pressure, the Instant Application states only,
[0098] In some embodiments, the pressure of the semiconductor processing chamber may be controlled. In some embodiments, the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a pressure in a range of about 0.5 Torr to about 5 Torr.
(Instant Specification: ¶ 98)
Therefore, there is no evidence of record indicating that the pressure range is critical to the results of the silicon nitride film deposited.
These claimed range of 0.5 Torr to 5 Torr is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688(Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art).
This is all of the limitations of claims 7 and 13.
C. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0259598 (“Chen”) in view of US 2021/0098236 (“AuBuchon”).
Claim 15 reads,
15. (Currently Amended) A method of depositing a silicon nitride (SixNy) film, the method comprising:
[1] exposing a semiconductor substrate in a semiconductor processing chamber to a silicon-containing precursor;
[2] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a second plasma produced from a second gas mixture comprising helium (He), nitrogen (N2), and ammonia (NH3); and
[3a] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a first plasma produced from a first gas mixture comprising helium (He) and nitrogen (N2),
[3b] the first gas mixture comprising a ratio of helium:nitrogen in a range of from 20:1 to 1000:1,
[4a] wherein each of the first plasma and the second plasma comprise a microwave plasma generated by a microwave plasma source including a source array and a housing,
[4b] the source array including a dielectric plate, a plurality of cavities extending into the dielectric plate, and a plurality of dielectric resonators in each of the plurality of cavities, and
[4c] the housing including a conductive body and a plurality of openings, the plurality of openings sized to receive the plurality of dielectric resonators.
With regard to claim 15, Chen discloses, generally in Fig. 3A,
15. (Currently Amended) A method 380 of depositing a silicon nitride (SixNy) film [title; ¶ 36], the method comprising:
[1] exposing a semiconductor substrate 160 [Fig. 1A; ¶ 45] in a semiconductor processing chamber [¶ 36] to a silicon-containing precursor [step 381; ¶ 37];
[2] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a second plasma produced from a second gas mixture comprising helium (He), nitrogen (N2), and ammonia (NH3) [step 383; ¶¶ 41-43 (infra)]; and
[3a] exposing the semiconductor substrate to a first plasma produced from a first gas mixture comprising helium (He) and nitrogen (N2) [step 385; ¶ 45 (infra)],
[3b] the first gas mixture comprising a ratio of helium:nitrogen in a range of from 20:1 to 1000:1 [¶ 45: “N2 may account for 2% or greater of the total flow of the second reacting gas” (infra)];
[4a] wherein each of the first plasma and the second plasma comprise a microwave plasma [title] generated by a microwave plasma source 150 including a source array [at “ports 102” (¶ 25, infra)] and a housing 152 [¶¶ 22-25; Figs. 1A-1B],
[4b]-[4c] … [not taught] …
With regard to feature [2] of claim 15, the claimed “second plasma” formed using the “first reacting gas” in step 383 of the process 380 in Fig. 3A of Chen, Chen states,
[0041] After operation 382, ALD process 380 continues on to operation 383 that includes exposing the substrate 160 to a first reacting gas. The substrate may be exposed to the first reacting gas while positioned below a “B” injector 335B. The first reacting gas reacts with the surface of the substrate 160 that has been previously exposed to the silicon halide precursor to produce a SiN film. In an embodiment, the first reacting gas comprises a hydrogen-containing gas and one or more of Ar, He, and N2. The hydrogen-containing gas includes at least one of the following gas, H2 (molecular hydrogen), NH3 (ammonia), N2H2 (diazene), N2H4 (hydrazine), and HN3 (hydrogen azide).
(Chen: ¶ 41; emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a gas mixture of He, N2, and NH3 because Chen suggests that the first reactive gas can include these three components.
With regard to features [3a]-[3b] of claim 15 and claim 16,
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the ratio of helium:nitrogen in the first gas mixture is in a range of from 33:1 to 100:1.
With regard to the claimed “first plasma” formed using the “second reacting gas” in step 385 of the process 380 in Fig. 3A of Chen, Chen states,
[0045] After operation 384, ALD process 380 continues to operation 385 that includes exposing the substrate to a second reacting gas. The substrate may be exposed to the second reacting gas while positioned below a “C” injector 335C. The second reacting gas reacts with the surface of the substrate 160 that has been previously exposed to the first reacting gas. In an embodiment, the second reacting gas comprises N2 and one or both of Ar and He. According to an embodiment, N2 may account for 2% or greater of the total flow of the second reacting gas.
(Chen: ¶ 45; emphasis added)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the second reactive gas from He and N2 because Chen suggests that the second reactive gas can include only these two components.
Because the N2 can be as little as 2% of the total flow of N2 and He, the He makes up 98% of the total flow and the He: N2 ratio is 98:2 or smaller, i.e. 49:1 or smaller, which overlaps the claimed ranges in each of feature [3b] of claim 15 and claim 16.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2144.05(I)). In such a situation, Applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); emphasis added.)
As discussed above, there is no evidence of unexpected results at least because (1) claimed process is not commensurate in scope with the inventive examples disclosed in the Instant Application (Instant Specification ¶¶ 111-118) for failing to include any example exposing the substrate to both of the claimed first and second plasmas, and (2) the inventive examples state that the inventive results were obtained over the entire claimed ranges of 20:1 to 1000:1.
With regard to feature [4a] of claim 15, specifically the claimed “source array”, which is not shown in Fig. 1B, Chen states,
[0025] In accordance with embodiments described herein, plasma ports 102 refer plasma ports that introduce a microwave plasma into the chamber. For example, microwave plasmas may have a frequency of approximately 2.45 GHz. Embodiments also include microwave plasmas that are formed by delivering a power for each injector that is equal to or greater than 500 W for a 300 mm wafer. In an embodiment, the a [sic] single microwave plasma injector (not shown) or a plurality of modular microwave plasma injectors (not shown) may be used to introduce the microwave plasma through each plasma port 102.
(Chen: ¶ 25; emphasis added)
The “plurality of modular microwave plasma injectors” (id.) for each port 102 may be taken as the claimed “source array”.
With regard to features [4a]-[4c] of claim 15 and claim 18, Chen does not provide the details of the “plurality of modular microwave plasma injectors” and does not therefore disclose the limitations of features [4b]-[4c] of claim 15 and claim 18.
At the outset, AuBuchon shares common inventors and assignee with each of Chen and the Instant Application. Like Chen, AuBuchon also teaches a modular microwave plasma (title) processing tool can be used for PECVD and PEALD deposition (AuBuchon: title; ¶ 32). In fact, Figs. 1-4A and 7 of AuBuchon showing the modular microwave plasma processing tool are identical to Figs. 1-5 of the Instant Application, respectively, showing the same. Thus, like the Instant Application, AuBuchon teaches,
[4a] … a microwave plasma generated by a microwave plasma source including a source array 350, 450 and a housing 372 [¶¶ 42-48; Figs. 3 and 4A],
[4b] the source array 350, 450 including a dielectric plate 360, 460, a plurality of cavities 467 extending into the dielectric plate 460, and a plurality of dielectric resonators 366, 466 in each of the plurality of cavities 467 [¶¶ 42-48; Figs. 3 and 4A], and
[4c] the housing 372 including a conductive body 373 and a plurality of openings 374, the plurality of openings 374 sized to receive the plurality of dielectric resonators 366, 466 [¶¶ 42-48; especially ¶ 45].
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, wherein a width W1 of each of the plurality of dielectric resonators 466 is smaller than a width W2 of each of the plurality of cavities 467 so that a gap separates a sidewall of each of the plurality of dielectric resonators 466 from a sidewall of each of the plurality of cavities 467 [as shown in Fig. 4A; ¶ 48].
Moreover, AuBuchon states,
While not shown, it is to be appreciated that gas may also be injected into the chamber 178 through a source array 150 (e.g., as a showerhead) for evenly distributing the processing gases over a substrate 174.
(AuBuchon: ¶ 33; emphasis added)
Therefore, like Chen, AuBuchon combines the modular microwave plasma sources, i.e. the source array 150, with the gas injection ports to form a showerhead.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the “plurality of modular microwave plasma injectors [of Chen] … used to introduce the microwave plasma through each plasma port 102” (Chen: ¶ 25, supra) to have the components taught in AuBuchon because Chen is silent as to the configuration of the said “plurality of modular microwave plasma injectors” such that one having ordinary skill in the art would configure them in a known manner, such as that taught in AuBuchon—which shares common inventors with Chen—thereby including all of the elements recited in features [4a]-[4c] of claim 15 and claim 18, above, albeit in the eight segments of a circular showerhead of Chen. In other words, each port 102 would be composed of a source array made of dielectric resonators in slightly wider cavities formed in a dielectric plate each of said dielectric resonators inserted into correspondingly-sized opening in a conductive housing, as taught in AuBuchon.
This is all of the limitations of claims 15, 16, and 18.
With regard to claims 17, Chen further discloses,
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 15, further comprising repeating exposing the semiconductor substrate to the first plasma exposure 383 and/or exposing the semiconductor substrate to the second plasma 385 [step 387 in Fig. 3A; ¶ 48].
19. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a temperature of less than or equal to 500 ℃ [less than 450 ℃ (¶ 21), less than 350 ℃ (¶ 45, last sentence)].
20. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at a pressure in a range of from 0.5 Torr to 5 Torr [e.g. less than 5 Torr or less than 3 Torr (¶ 49, last sentence)].
With regard to claims 19 and 20, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2144.05(I)). In such a situation, Applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); emphasis added.)
IV. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights