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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-3, 11, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0280418, hereafter Zhang ‘418).
Claims 1 and 22: Zhang ‘418 teaches a method of processing a substrate (abstract) comprising:
a) performing (a1) exciting oxygen gas, which corresponds to the claimed first oxidizing agent, and hydrogen gas, which corresponds to the claimed first reducing agent, into a plasma state and supplying the excited oxygen gas and hydrogen gas to a substrate ([0029], [0030]), where the substrate can include a first surface and a second surface (Fig. 1A, [0029]), and (a2) exciting a second hydrogen gas, which corresponds to the claimed second reducing agent, into a plasma and supplying the excited second hydrogen gas to the substrate ([0031]); and
b) heat treating the substrate subjected to (a) ([0032]).
With respect to claim 22, Zhang ‘418 also teaches a computer containing a program to perform this method ([0035]).
Claim 2: Zhang ‘418 teaches that the method can further comprise (c) forming an additional oxide layer, which corresponds to the claimed inhibitor layer, on the second surface by supplying an oxygen plasma, which corresponds to the claimed modifying agent ([0006], [0026]).
Claim 3: Zhang ‘418 teaches that the method can further comprise (d) forming an additional oxide layer, which corresponds to the claimed film, on the first surface by supplying an oxygen plasma, which corresponds to the claimed film-forming agent ([0006], [0026]).
Claim 11: Zhang ‘418 teaches that the substrate can further include a third and fourth surface (Fig. 1A).
Claim 14-15: Zhang ‘418 teaches that the substrate can further include a third and fourth surface (Fig. 1A), where in (c) the additional oxide layer, which corresponds to the claimed inhibitor layer, is formed on the second, third, and fourth surfaces ([0006], [0026]).
Claim 16: Zhang ‘418 teaches that the first surface (100) can comprise a germanium containing film (Fig. 1A, [0021]) and the second surface (105) can comprise a silicon containing film (Fig. 1A, [0023], [0025]).
Claim 17: Zhang ‘418 teaches that the first surface (100) can comprise a germanium containing film (Fig. 1A, [0021]), the second surface (105) can comprise a silicon containing film (Fig. 1A, [0023], [0025]), the third surface (103a) can comprise a nitrogen containing film (Fig. 1A, [0022]), and the fourth surface (108) can be an oxygen containing film (Fig. 1A, [0022]).
Claim 18: Zhang ‘418 teaches that a recess (150) is formed on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1A, [0025]), the first surface (100) is a bottom surface of the recess (Fig. 1A), and the second surface (105) is a side surface of the recess (Fig. 1A).
Claim 19: Zhang ‘418 teaches that a recess (150) is formed on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1A, [0025]), the first surface (100) is a bottom surface of the recess (Fig. 1A), the second surface (105) is a side surface of the recess (Fig. 1A), and the third surface (103a on the right in Fig. 1A) and fourth surface (103a on the left in Fig. 1A) are surface portions of the substrate other than the recess (Fig. 1A).
Claim 20: Zhang 418 teaches that the method is for manufacturing a semiconductor device ([0002]).
Claim 21: Zhang ‘418 teaches a substrate processing system (abstract, Figs. 3-4) comprising:
an oxygen supplying system configured to supply an oxygen gas, which corresponds to the claimed first oxidizing agent ([0030]);
a hydrogen supplying system configured to supply a hydrogen gas, which corresponds to the claimed first and second reducing agents ([0030], [0031]);
a plasma exciter configured to excite the oxygen and hydrogen gases ([0030], [0031]);
a heater configured to heat the substrate ([0032]); and
a controller configured to control the supplying systems and heater ([0035]) to perform:
a) performing (a1) exciting oxygen gas, which corresponds to the claimed first oxidizing agent, and hydrogen gas, which corresponds to the claimed first reducing agent, into a plasma state and supplying the excited oxygen gas and hydrogen gas to a substrate ([0029], [0030]), where the substrate can include a first surface and a second surface (Fig. 1A, [0029]), and (a2) exciting a second hydrogen gas, which corresponds to the claimed second reducing agent, into a plasma and supplying the excited second hydrogen gas to the substrate ([0031]); and
b) heat treating the substrate subjected to (a) ([0032]).
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.
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) 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. ‘418 as applied to claims 1-3 above.
Claim 4: Zhang ‘418 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to claim 4, Zhang ‘418 does not explicitly teach that the method further includes (a3) exciting an oxidizing agent and a reducing agent into a plasma and supplying the oxidizing gent and reducing agent thus excited to the substrate subjected to (a1) and (a2).
However, this limitation is just a repetition of step (a1), which is taught by Zhang ‘418 as discussed above, and, in general, the repetition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes in the absence of new or unexpected results. Ex parte Rubin 128 USPQ 440 (PTO BdPatApp 1959).
Claim 5: Zhang ‘418 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Zhang ‘418 further teaches that a processing temperature in step (a) can be about 500°C ([0031]) and a processing temperature in step (b) can be about 400°C to about 1100°C ([0032]).
With respect to claim 5, Zhang ‘418 does not explicitly teach that a processing temperature in (b) is equal to or greater than a processing temperature in (a).
However, the claimed processing temperature in (b) being equal to or greater than a processing temperature in (a) is obvious over the processing temperatures in (a) and (b) taught by Zhang ‘418 because they overlap.
Claim 6: Zhang ‘418 teaches the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Zhang ‘418 further teaches that a processing temperature in step (a) can be about 500°C ([0031]), a processing temperature in step (b) can be about 400°C to about 1100°C ([0032]), and forming the additional oxide layer in step (c) can be at a temperature of about 70°C to about 650°C ([0006], [0026], [0032]).
With respect to claim 6, Zhang ‘418 does not explicitly teach that a processing temperature in (b) is equal to or greater than a processing temperature in (a).
However, the claimed processing temperature in (b) being equal to or greater than a processing temperature in (a) and (c) is obvious over the processing temperatures in (a), (b), and (c) taught by Zhang ‘418 because they overlap.
Claim 7: Zhang ‘418 teaches the limitations of claim 3, as discussed above. Zhang ‘418 further teaches that a processing temperature in step (a) can be about 500°C ([0031]), a processing temperature in step (b) can be about 400°C to about 1100°C ([0032]), and forming the additional oxide layer in steps (c) and (d) can be at a temperature of about 70°C to about 650°C ([0006], [0026], [0032]).
With respect to claim 5, Zhang ‘418 does not explicitly teach that a processing temperature in (b) is equal to or greater than a processing temperature in (a).
However, the claimed processing temperature in (b) being equal to or greater than a processing temperature in (a), (c), and (d) is obvious over the processing temperatures in (a), (b), (c), and (d) taught by Zhang ‘418 because they overlap.
Claim 8: Zhang ‘418 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Zhang ‘418 further teaches that a processing temperature in (b) can be about 400°C to about 1100°C ([0032]).
With respect to claim 8, Zhang ‘418 does not explicitly teach that a processing temperature in (b) is 100°C or higher and 400°C or lower.
However, the claimed temperature range of 100°C or higher and 400°C or lower is obvious over the temperature range of about 400°C to about 1100°C taught by Zhang ‘418 because they overlap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a method of processing a substrate wherein in (a), an OH termination is formed on the first surface and the second surface, and in (b), the OH termination formed on the first surface is removed while leaving the OH termination formed on the second surface as to the context of claim 9.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a method of processing a substrate wherein in (a), the first surface and the second surface are oxidized, and in (b), an oxide formed on the first surface is sublimated while leaving an oxide formed on the second surface as to the context of claim 10.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a method of processing a substrate wherein in (a), an OH termination is formed on the first surface, the second surface, and the at least one selected from the group of the third surface and the fourth surface, and in (b), the OH termination formed on the first surface is removed while leaving the OH termination formed on the second surface and the at least one selected from the group of the third surface and the fourth surface as to the context of claim 12.
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious a method of processing a substrate wherein in (a), the first surface, the second surface, and the at least one selected from the group of the third surface and the fourth surface are oxidized, and in (b), an oxide formed on the first surface is sublimated while leaving an oxide formed on the second surface and the at least one selected from the group of the third surface and the fourth surface as to the context of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713