DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to communication received on 3/10/26.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The text of those sections of AIA 35 U.S.C. code not present in this action can be found in previous office actions dated 2/2/26.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/10/26.
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.
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, 3-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al US PGPub 2021/0340670 hereinafter SINGHAL in view of Malik et al. US PGPub 2019/0368035 hereinafter MALIK, Sasaki et al. US PGPub 2005/0103275 hereinafter SASAKI and Tanaka et al. US PGPub 2017/0170009 hereinafter TANAKA.
As for claim 1, SINGHAL teaches “An in situ protective coating is deposited on surfaces of chamber components of a reaction chamber at high temperatures” (abstract, lines 1-3), i.e. method of forming a thin film using a substrate processing apparatus comprising a process chamber having a processing space for processing a substrate.
SINGHAL teaches “The reaction chamber 102 further includes a chuck or pedestal 108 for supporting a wafer 112” (paragraph 36, lines 9-12), “The reaction chamber 102 further includes the showerhead 106 for distributing process gases” (paragraph 36, lines 4-5) and “a showerhead 106 and a pedestal 108 may electrically communicate with RF power supply 114 and matching network 116 for powering a plasma” (paragraph 38, lines 1-4), i.e. an… chuck disposed inside the processing space and on which the substrate is placed, a gas injection unit for injecting gas onto the substrate… and a plasma power supply for applying 10 RF power to form a plasma in the process chamber.
SINGHAL further teaches “The in situ protective coating may be deposited throughout the reaction chamber to deposit on surfaces of the chamber components, including on chamber walls” (abstract, lines 10-13), “some implementations, the protective coating is deposited by PECVD or PEALD, and the controller is further configured with instructions for performing the following operation: controlling a radio-frequency (RF) signal supplied to the reaction chamber to cause a substantial portion of a plasma glow discharge to form in one or more areas outside an area between an upper electrode and a lower electrode” (paragraph 11, lines 15-22), i.e. depositing the thin film… by… supplying a process gas and applying a first RF power source to form a first plasma.
SINGHAL is silent on depositing on a substrate.
MALIK teaches “Embodiments of the systems and methods herein are directed towards forming, via ALD or CVD, a protective film in-situ on a plurality of interior components of a process chamber” (abstract, lines 1-4).
MALIK further teaches “In some embodiments, a protective cover is placed on some or all of a top surface of the substrate support pedestal in the process chamber. The protective cover can be positioned on the substrate support pedestal such that an area on the pedestal that is equal to or greater than a diameter of a substrate is not coated by the protective film during deposition. The protective cover can be used to protect the backside of the substrate from contamination from the protective film, which can negatively impact downstream operations” (paragraph 11, lines 16-25), wherein there is a substrate/cover on the support during deposition that has a film coated on it during the plasma processing in order to protect the underlying support. Therefore MALIK teaches placing the substrate on the support and transferring the substrate on which the thin film has been deposited outside the process chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the cover of MALIK in the process of SINGHAL such that it includes depositing the thin film on the substrate and placing the substrate on the support and transferring the substrate on which the thin film has been deposited outside the process chamber because MALIK teaches that such a process protects the underlying support from developing a coating that can negatively impact lack processes.
SINGHAL is silent on the electrostatic chuck and a constant power supply for applying DC power to cause the electrostatic chuck to chuck the substrate… and applying a first DC power source to chuck the substrate.
SASAKI teaches “It is, therefore, an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus and method for plasma processing to promote the sharing of an apparatus in executing a plurality of different processes” (paragraph 12, lines 2-5).
SASAKI further teaches “Further, an electrostatic chuck 44 for attracting and holding the rear surface of a wafer W by means of electrostatic force is installed on the upper surface of the lower electrode 4” (paragraph 47, lines 8-11), and “a DC power supply 47 for applying a chuck voltage to the chuck electrode 45” (paragraph 47, lines 14-16), i.e. an electrostatic chuck, a constant power supply for applying DC power to cause the electrostatic chuck to chuck the substrate… and applying a first DC power source to chuck the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include electrostatic chuck and a constant power supply for applying DC power to cause the electrostatic chuck to chuck the substrate… and applying a first DC power source to chuck the substrate in the process of SINGHAL because SASAKI teaches using such a chuck with a dc power source can attract a wafer onto a support and hold it during processing.
SINGHAL is silent on performing a hardening process by applying a second DC power source, supplying a purge gas, and applying a second RF power source to form the plasma to harden a sedimentary film formed in an interior of the process chamber.
SINGHAL teaches “For example, the protective coating may include silicon oxide (SiO2 ), aluminum oxide (Al2O3 ) , zirconium oxide (ZrO2) , hafuium oxide (HfO2) , tin oxide (SnO2 ) , or silicon nitride (Si3N4)” (paragraph 61, lines 3-6).
TANAKA teaches “Methods for filling the gap of a semiconductor feature comprising exposure of a substrate surface” (abstract, lines 1-2) and teaches “Some embodiments of the disclosure are used to form a film comprising one or more of SiO2 , TiN, AlOx, SiN and/or TiOX” (paragraph 23, lines 6-9).
TANAKA further teaches “An annealing environment is any conditions ( e.g., gas, temperature, pressure) that can improve a property of the deposited film” (paragraph 57, liens 3-5), and goes on to describe the various parameters that can be chosen to improve the anneal in paragraphs 57-61.
TANAKA teaches “In some embodiments, the anneal environment comprises a plasma in which an annealing gas is flowed into” (paragraph 57, lines 11-13).
TANAKA is silent on how the plasma is generated.
SASAKI teaches “Furthermore, the electrode 51 is connected to a DC power supply 52 with an actuator 52a for converting applied voltages in such a way as to apply a predetermined voltage to the electrode 51 in each process, for example, apply a first DC voltage in a first process and a second DC voltage to the electrode 51 in a second process” (paragraph 49, lines 14-19), “a DC power supply for applying a DC voltage to the one or more electrodes to adjust a plasma sheath region above the ring member” (claim 1, lines 9-11), “In accordance with a plasma processing apparatus of the present invention, since a specified DC voltage is applied to an electrode in the ring member formed of an insulator, thickness of the ion sheath region at a boundary between the surface of the ring member and plasma state can be adjusted in each processing treatment” (paragraph 14, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein adjusting the DC power on a plasma can adjust the sheath for different processes.
SASAKI also teaches that this DC power is applied at the same time as a high frequency power (paragraph 57) as a part of its process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include performing a hardening process by applying a second DC power source, supplying a purge gas, and applying a second RF power source to form the plasma to harden a sedimentary film formed in an interior of the process chamber in the process of SINGHAL because TANAKA teaches that such annealing/hardening processes can improve films of the same composition as SINGHAL’s protective films and SASAKI teaches using a DC power to shape the sheath of the plasma during the treatment.
As for claim 3, SINGHAL teaches “In some implementations, the protective coating includes an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, or combinations thereof. For example, the protective coating may include silicon oxide (SiO2 ), aluminum oxide (Al2O3 ) , zirconium oxide (ZrO2) , hafuium oxide (HfO2) , tin oxide (SnO2 ) , or silicon nitride (Si3N4)” (paragraph 61, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein depositing the thin film includes depositing a first thin film and a second thin film on the substrate at least once to form a composite film on the substrate.
As for claim 4, SINGHAL teaches “In some implementations, the protective coating includes an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, or combinations thereof. For example, the protective coating may include silicon oxide (SiO2 ), aluminum oxide (Al2O3 ) , zirconium oxide (ZrO2) , hafuium oxide (HfO2) , tin oxide (SnO2 ) , or silicon nitride (Si3N4)” (paragraph 61, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein the first thin film and the second thin film are each one of a silicon oxide layer (Si02 layer), a silicon nitride layer (SiN layer), a silicon oxynitride layer (SiON layer), and a silicon carbonitride layer (SiOCN), and the first thin film and the 10 second thin film have different compositions.
As for claim 5, SINGHAL teaches “In some implementations, the protective coating includes an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, or combinations thereof. For example, the protective coating may include silicon oxide (SiO2 ), aluminum oxide (Al2O3 ) , zirconium oxide (ZrO2) , hafuium oxide (HfO2) , tin oxide (SnO2 ) , or silicon nitride (Si3N4)” (paragraph 61, lines 1-6), i.e. wherein the first thin film is a silicon oxide layer (Si02 layer) and the second thin film is a silicon nitride layer (SiN layer).
As for claim 6, SINGHAL teaches “In some embodiments, RF power supply 114 may be configured to control high- and low-frequency RF power sources independently of one another. Example low-frequency RF frequencies may include, but are not limited to, frequencies between 50 kHz and 700 kHz. Example high-frequency RF frequencies may include, but are not limited to, frequencies between 1.8 MHz and 2.45 GHz” (paragraph 38, lines 12-19, i.e. wherein depositing the thin film includes supplying at least one of an HF power source and a VHF power source to form the first plasma for depositing the thin film.
As for claim 7, SINGHAL is silent on DC power sources.
SASAKI teaches “FIG. 3A, an ion sheath region (a plasma sheath region) including high-density positive ion species 200 is formed at a boundary between the surface of the wafer W and the plasma P due to higher velocities of electrons compared with those of positive ion species. Further, an ion sheath region is also formed at a boundary between the surface of the focus ring 5 and the plasma P in the same manner, and is thicker than the ion sheath region on the surface of the wafer W because the focus ring 5 is made of an insulating material. The ion sheath region on the surface of the focus ring 5 are formed with various shapes according to the shapes, material and the like of the focus ring 5. As described above, when the ion sheath regions are different in thickness, there is a difference of the plasma density in the surface of the wafer W, particularly, between the peripheral portion thereof and the central portion thereof. However, for example, when a positive DC voltage is applied to the electrode 51 embedded in the focus ring 5, a repulsive force whose magnitude is suitable for the applied voltage acts between the positive ion species 200 and the electrode 51, so that the positive ion species 200 in the ion sheath region are returned into the plasma P, changing the ion sheath region in shape, especially, in thickness. As a result, the plasma density is changed” (paragraph 52, lines 6-27), i.e. wherein applying a positive DC voltage will repulse the ions from a surface, such as a chuck surface that has no coating on it to be annealed by the plasma.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the second DC power source has a higher voltage than the first DC power source in the process of SINGHAL because SASAKI teaches that such an adjustment allows for the repulsing of ins away from a surface that is not desired to be treated.
As for claim 8, SINGHAL is silent on DC power sources.
SASAKI teaches “FIG. 3A, an ion sheath region (a plasma sheath region) including high-density positive ion species 200 is formed at a boundary between the surface of the wafer W and the plasma P due to higher velocities of electrons compared with those of positive ion species. Further, an ion sheath region is also formed at a boundary between the surface of the focus ring 5 and the plasma P in the same manner, and is thicker than the ion sheath region on the surface of the wafer W because the focus ring 5 is made of an insulating material. The ion sheath region on the surface of the focus ring 5 are formed with various shapes according to the shapes, material and the like of the focus ring 5. As described above, when the ion sheath regions are different in thickness, there is a difference of the plasma density in the surface of the wafer W, particularly, between the peripheral portion thereof and the central portion thereof. However, for example, when a positive DC voltage is applied to the electrode 51 embedded in the focus ring 5, a repulsive force whose magnitude is suitable for the applied voltage acts between the positive ion species 200 and the electrode 51, so that the positive ion species 200 in the ion sheath region are returned into the plasma P, changing the ion sheath region in shape, especially, in thickness. As a result, the plasma density is changed” (paragraph 52, lines 6-27), i.e. wherein applying a positive DC voltage will repulse the ions from a surface, such as a chuck surface that has no coating on it to be annealed by the plasma and wherein ‘a positive voltage’ is a range that overlaps with wherein the second DC power source is a positive voltage of 100 to 1,000 volts. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein the second DC power source is a positive voltage of 100 to 1,000 volts in the process of SINGHAL because SASAKI teaches that such an adjustment allows for the repulsing of ins away from a surface that is not desired to be treated.
As for claim 11, SINGHAL is silent on the annealing.
TANAKA teaches “In some embodiments, the substrate surface is exposed to the anneal environment for a time in the range of about 30 seconds to about 10 minutes, or about 1 minute to about 8 minutes, or for a time greater than 60 seconds, 90 seconds or 120 seconds” (paragraph 58, lines 4-9), i.e. a range that overlaps wherein performing the hardening process is performed for 5 to 180 seconds. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein performing the hardening process is performed for 5 to 180 seconds in the process of SINGHAL because TANAKA teaches that such annealing/hardening processes can improve films of the same composition as SINGHAL’s protective films
As for claim 12, SINGHAL is silent on the anneal or the deposition film.
MALIK further teaches “In some embodiments, a protective cover is placed on some or all of a top surface of the substrate support pedestal in the process chamber. The protective cover can be positioned on the substrate support pedestal such that an area on the pedestal that is equal to or greater than a diameter of a substrate is not coated by the protective film during deposition. The protective cover can be used to protect the backside of the substrate from contamination from the protective film, which can negatively impact downstream operations” (paragraph 11, lines 16-25), wherein there is a substrate/cover on the support during deposition that has a film coated on it during the plasma processing in order to protect the underlying support. Therefore MALIK teaches wherein performing the hardening process further includes stabilizing in which the deposition film is subjected to a hardening treatment and then the applying of the second DC power source and second RF power source is discontinued as the cover is not removed until after the annealing process is ended when combined with SINGHAL and TANAKA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein performing the hardening process further includes stabilizing in which the deposition film is subjected to a hardening treatment and then the applying of the second DC power source and second RF power source is discontinued in the process of SINGHAL because MALIK teaches that such a process protects the underlying support from developing a coating that can negatively impact lack processes and TANAKA teaches that such annealing/hardening processes can improve films of the same composition as SINGHAL’s protective films.
As for claim 13, SINGHAL teaches “A typical ALD cycle may include: (i) dosing that delivers and adsorbs precursor material onto a substrate surface, (ii) purging excess precursor material from the chamber and leaving a self-limited monolayer on the substrate surface, (iii) delivery of reactant material to react with the adsorbed precursor material, and (iv) purging of unreacted reactant material or reaction byproducts from the chamber. Deposition reactions in the ALD cycle may be thermally-induced or plasma-induced. ALD may be used to produce a highly conformal film” (paragraph 53, lines 16-25) and “In some implementations, the protective coating includes an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, or combinations thereof.” (paragraph 61, lines 1-6), and, as combined with MALIK in the rejection of claim 1 such that there is a cover on the support i.e. wherein depositing the thin film includes forming a composite film formed by alternately depositing a first thin film and a second thin film at least once by alternately depositing a plurality of heterogeneous thin films on an upper portion of the substrate.
Claim(s) 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al US PGPub 2021/0340670 hereinafter SINGHAL in view of Malik et al. US PGPub 2019/0368035 hereinafter MALIK, Sasaki et al. US PGPub 2005/0103275 hereinafter SASAKI and Tanaka et al. US PGPub 2017/0170009 hereinafter TANAKA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanbhag et al. US PGPub 2019/0185999 hereinafter SHANBHAG.
As for claim 2, SINGHAL is silent on wherein depositing the thin film includes depositing the thin film with a thickness of at least 10 to 25 μm.
SHANBHAG teaches “Forming a protective coating ex situ in an atomic layer deposition process to coat one or more chamber components subsequently installed in a reaction chamber provides a number of benefits over more conventional coating methods such as in situ deposition of an undercoat” 9abstract, lines 1-5).
SHANBHAG teaches “The final thickness of the protective coating may be between about 1 nm and 10 mm” (paragraph 13, lines 6-7), i.e. a range that overlaps with wherein depositing the thin film includes depositing the thin film with a thickness of at least 10 to 25 μm. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d, 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a range that overlaps with wherein depositing the thin film includes depositing the thin film with a thickness of at least 10 to 25 μm in the process of SINGHAL because SHANBHAG teaches that such a range was a known range for forming protective coatings for reaction chambers. It is a prima facie case of obviousness to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al US PGPub 2021/0340670 hereinafter SINGHAL in view of Malik et al. US PGPub 2019/0368035 hereinafter MALIK, Sasaki et al. US PGPub 2005/0103275 hereinafter SASAKI and Tanaka et al. US PGPub 2017/0170009 hereinafter TANAKA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varadarajan et al. US Patent Number 9,837,270 hereinafter VARADARAJAN.
As for claim 9, SINGHAL and TANAKA is silent on the amount of power used for each process.
VARADARAJAN teaches “Provided are methods and apparatuses for densifying a silicon carbide film using remote plasma treatment” (abstract, lines 1-2).
VARADARAJAN further teaches “In some embodiments, the RF power applied to the remote plasma source can vary depending on the type of plasma source, wafer size, and other operating conditions. Typically, for example, RF power for an inductively-coupled plasma for a 300-mm wafer can be between about 300 Watts and about 10 Kilowatts, or between about 1 Kilowatt and about 6 Kilowatts. Higher RF power may be applied to generate more radicals in the remote plasma source” 9paragraph 15, lines 52-59), i.e. wherein the power is a result effective variable to get the desired radicals for the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the power of the deposition and the power of the annealing process such that the desired application of coating and the treatment of that coating is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the comparison of two parameters from different processes attempting to achieve different things. The power of a deposition process and the power of an annealing process inherently serve very different purposes and whether one is greater than other appears to be a matter of circumstance rather than of any kind of patentable effect. It is the position of the examiner that the criticality on the comparison of different powers during different processes does not provide patentable distinction as the comparison appears to be incidental absent evidence.
As for claim 10, SINGHAL and TANAKA is silent on the amount of power used for each process.
VARADARAJAN teaches “Provided are methods and apparatuses for densifying a silicon carbide film using remote plasma treatment” (abstract, lines 1-2).
VARADARAJAN further teaches “In some embodiments, the RF power applied to the remote plasma source can vary depending on the type of plasma source, wafer size, and other operating conditions. Typically, for example, RF power for an inductively-coupled plasma for a 300-mm wafer can be between about 300 Watts and about 10 Kilowatts, or between about 1 Kilowatt and about 6 Kilowatts. Higher RF power may be applied to generate more radicals in the remote plasma source” 9paragraph 15, lines 52-59), i.e. wherein the power is a result effective variable to get the desired radicals for the process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to design the power of the deposition and the power of the annealing process such that the desired application of coating and the treatment of that coating is achieved. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al US PGPub 2021/0340670 hereinafter SINGHAL in view of Malik et al. US PGPub 2019/0368035 hereinafter MALIK, Sasaki et al. US PGPub 2005/0103275 hereinafter SASAKI and Tanaka et al. US PGPub 2017/0170009 hereinafter TANAKA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shen et al. US PGPub 2017/0365487 hereinafter SHEN.
As for claim 14, SINGHAL is silent on wherein a deposition pattern comprising a plurality of pattern blocks and a high aspect ratio space formed between the pattern blocks, respectively, is formed on the substrate.
However, SINGHAL does teach “However, in some instances, it will be appreciated that the protective coating may be deposited on surfaces of the plurality of chamber components with a wafer present in the reaction chamber” (paragraph 59, lines 5-8).
SHEN teaches “Methods for fabricating a 3D NAND flash memory are disclosed,” (abstract, line 1-2).
SHEN further teaches depositing alternating layers “the alternating layers comprising a layer of silicon oxide and a layer of silicon nitride” (paragraph 26) and then a process of patterning those layers (paragraph 203), i.e. wherein a deposition pattern comprising a plurality of pattern blocks and a high aspect ratio space formed between the pattern blocks, respectively, is formed on the substrate.
SINGHAL teaches “In some implementations, the protective coating includes an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, or combinations thereof. For example, the protective coating may include silicon oxide (SiO2 ), aluminum oxide (Al2O3 ) , zirconium oxide (ZrO2) , hafuium oxide (HfO2) , tin oxide (SnO2 ) , or silicon nitride (Si3N4)” (paragraph 61, lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein a deposition pattern comprising a plurality of pattern blocks and a high aspect ratio space formed between the pattern blocks, respectively, is formed on the substrate on the wafer of SINGHAL because SHEN teach such patterns were made of the same material as SINGHAL’s protective film deposition and can be used to form patterns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN A DAGENAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1114. The examiner can normally be reached 8-12 and 1-5.
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, 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.
/KRISTEN A DAGENAIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights