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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 seems to describe “the plasma discharge” as a product being made, “the low-power plasma discharge is produced by gas-phase ionization”, i.e. plasma gas; however, claim 1 seems to refer the same as an apparatus that makes radicals, “providing a first precursor into a low-power plasma discharge to form a radicalized first precursor.” The “plasma discharge” in claim 24 seems to mean also a plasma gas and not plasma chamber in claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, if the “plasma discharge” is interpreted as a plasma gas as suggested by Applicant, the method sets forth in claim 23 is inexecutable with that in claim 1. Claim 1 requires the plasma gas (the radicalized first precursor) to be formed (chemisorbs) onto the first substrate; while claim 23 requires it to be separated from the substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1,21,23,24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiropoulo et al (PG Pub 2016/0064208 A1) and Mountisier et al (PG Pub 2015/0380302 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zafiropoulo teaches a method for forming a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: providing a substrate (40, fig. 1) in a reaction chamber; providing a first precursor (112, fig. 2) into a plasma discharge (100 and 26) to form a radicalized first precursor (first precursor, O*, fig. 2, paragraphs [0029][0037][0052]); contacting a surface of the substrate with the radicalized first precursor (“first precursor”, O*, fig. 2, paragraphs [0029][0037][0052]), wherein at least a portion of the radicalized first precursor chemisorbs (paragraph [0029)) onto the surface of the substrate to form a chemisorbed layer and wherein the chemisorption (paragraph [0029)) is self-limited (paragraph [0004]); purging the reaction chamber (paragraph [0029); contacting the surface of the substrate with a reactive gas (second precursor, paragraph [0037]), wherein at least a portion of the reactive gas reacts with the chemisorbed layer to form a film (thin film, paragraph [0037]); and purging the reaction chamber (cycle repeats, paragraph [0029]).
Zafiropoulo does not explicitly teach the plasma discharge to be low power.
In the same field of endeavor, Mountsier teaches a plasma discharge to be low power, for the benefit of achieving little or no damage to an exposed surface (paragraph [0064]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a low-power plasma discharge for the benefit of achieving little or no damage to an exposed surface.
Regarding claim 21, Zafiropoulo in view of Mountsier teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first precursor undergoes partial breakdown (112 dissocitates, fig. 2, paragraph [0051]) in the low- power plasma discharge to form the radicalized first precursor.
Regarding claim 23, Zafiropoulo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the low-power plasma discharge (100, fig. 1) is spatially separated from the surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 24, Zafiropoulo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the low-power plasma discharge is formed in a remote plasma unit (100 is a separate unit from chamber 26, fig. 1).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zafiropoulo et al (PG Pub 2016/0064208 A1) and Mountisier et al (PG Pub 2015/0380302 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martinson et al (PG Pub 2014/0053779 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach wherein the formation of the chemisorbed layer is a self-limiting process and the reaction of the reactive gas with the chemisorbed layer is a self-limiting process. However, it is well known that chemisorption (paragraph [0029] of Zafiropoulo) is a self-limiting process.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Martinson teaches a self-limiting process can achieve the benefit of providing a high-quality film (paragraph [0008]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the formation of the chemisorbed layer a self-limiting process and the reaction of the reactive gas with the chemisorbed layer a self-limiting process, for the benefit of providing a high-quality film.
Claim(s) 1,2,6,9-11,14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri et al (PG Pub 2016/0148800 A1) and Field (PG Pub 2021/0384029 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Henri teaches a method for forming a film on a surface of a substrate, comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (101, fig. 1); providing a first precursor (silicon with S—H bond, paragraph [0050]) into a plasma discharge (plasma is ignited in operation 106, paragraph [0048]; or 250A/260A, fig. 2) to form a radicalized first precursor (paragraphs [0050][0055]); contacting a surface of the substrate with the radicalized first precursor (103, fig. 1), wherein at least a portion of the radicalized first precursor chemisorbs (adsorb, 103, fig. 1) onto the surface of the substrate to form a chemisorbed layer and wherein the chemisorption is self-limited (paragraph [0035]); purging the reaction chamber (105); contacting the surface of the substrate with a reactive gas (107, paragraph [0053]), wherein at least a portion of the reactive gas reacts with the chemisorbed layer to form a film (paragraph [0053]); and purging the reaction chamber (109).
Henri does not explicitly teach the plasma discharge to be low power.
Henri teaches to use plasma with power as low as 600 W (paragraph [0055]), depending on the size of the wafer.
It is well known in the art that plasma power of 600 W is low power (paragraph [0061] of Field).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the power of the plasma discharge according to the size of the wafer needed to be process and to use low-power plasma discharge manufacture small-size wafers. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Henri teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: repeating the contacting steps and the purging steps to grow the film to a targeted thickness (113, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Henri teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a second plasma discharge (107, paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Henri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first precursor comprises silicon (paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Henri teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first precursor is selected from the group consisting of: a silane (paragraphs [0035][0038]), a halosilane, an aminosilane, a silicon alkoxide, a siloxane, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 11, Henri teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the first precursor is selected from the group consisting of: dimethylsilane, diethylsilane, trimethylsilane (paragraph [0042]), triethylsilane, dichlorosilane, diiodosilane, hexachlorodisilane, octachlorotrisilane, bis(dimethylamino)silane, bis(diethylamino)silane, diisopropylaminosilane, N-(diethylaminosilyl)-N-ethylethanamine, hexamethylcyclotrisilazane, tetraethylotrhosilicate, dimethoxydimethylsilane, trimethoxymethylsilane, octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, 1,1,3,5,5,7-hexamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, 1,3,5,7-tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, and combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Henri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the reactive gas comprises one or more of oxygen (paragraph [0053]), ozone, water, hydrogen peroxide, an alcohol, nitrogen dioxide, nitrous oxide, oxygen atoms, ammonia, hydrazine, nitric oxide, nitrogen atoms, hydrogen, and hydrogen atoms.
Regarding claim 15, Henri teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the film is selected from the group consisting of: silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, silicon oxycarbonitride, silicon carbonitride, silicon carbide, silicon oxycarbide, silicon oxide (paragraph [0053]), and combinations thereof.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri et al (PG Pub 2016/0148800 A1) and Field (PG Pub 2021/0384029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Riazimehr et al (PG Pub 2025/0051923 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the step of contacting the surface of the substrate with the radicalized first precursor occurs in the substantial absence of charged species.
In the same field of endeavor, Riazimehr teaches ions damage substrate surface (paragraph [0047]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the step of contacting the surface of the substrate with the radicalized first precursor to occur in the substantial absence of charged species, for the benefit of avoiding ions damaging substrate surface.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri et al (PG Pub 2016/0148800 A1) and Field (PG Pub 2021/0384029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mountsier et al (PG Pub 2015/0380302 A1) and Riazimehr et al (PG Pub 2025/0051923 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach an ion trap is provided in the reaction chamber between the low-power plasma discharge and the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Mountsier teaches that plasma produces ions in additional radicals and teaches to use an ion trap (faceplate, paragraph [0066]) to filter out the ions (paragraph [0066]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an ion trap in the reaction chamber between the low-power plasma discharge and the substrate, for the benefit of preventing the ions from damaging substrate surface (paragraph [0047] of Riazimehr).
Claim(s) 5,7,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri et al (PG Pub 2016/0148800 A1) and Field (PG Pub 2021/0384029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mountsier et al (PG Pub 2015/0380302 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Henri further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the low-power plasma discharge is produced by gas-phase ionization of a gas (paragraphs [0012][0080]) with a radio frequency (RF) (paragraph [0055]).
The previous combination does not teach the radio frequency (RF) power of 100 W or less.
In the same field of endeavor, Mountsier teaches to use a radio frequency (RF) power of 100 W or less (paragraph [0065]), for the benefit of avoiding damage to the deposited layer (paragraphs [0062][0064]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a radio frequency (RF) power of 100 W or less for the benefit of avoiding damage to the deposited layer.
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 6.
Henri further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the second plasma discharge is produced by gas-phase ionization of a gas comprising the reactive gas with a radio frequency (RF) power of at least 20 W (paragraphs [0053][0055]).
Henri does not teach the radio frequency power is less than 200 W.
In the same field of endeavor, Mountsier teaches to use a radio frequency (RF) power of less than 200 W (paragraph [0065]), for the benefit of avoiding damage to the deposited layer (paragraphs [0062][0064]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a radio frequency (RF) power of less than 200 W for the benefit of avoiding damage to the deposited layer.
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 6.
The previous combination does not teach a temperature of the substrate is at least 40°C and no more than 450°C.
In the same field of endeavor, Mountsier teaches in an ALD process a temperature of the substrate is at least 40°C and no more than 450°C (180-400°C, paragraph [0054]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a temperature of the substrate at least 40°C and no more than 450°C, for the benefit of maintaining a proper substrate temperature for an ALD process (paragraph [0054]).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henri et al (PG Pub 2016/0148800 A1) and Field (PG Pub 2021/0384029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al (PG Pub 2026/0090294 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
The previous combination does not teach the first precursor comprises boron.
In the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches to make a precursor to comprise boron (paragraph [0027]), for the benefit of providing a layer having boron content (paragraph [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the precursor to comprise boron, for the benefit of providing a layer having boron content.
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches wherein the first precursor is selected from the group consisting of: a borane (paragraph [0027]), an alkyl borane, an aryl borane, a carborane, an amine borane, an amino borane, a borate ester, a borazine, and combinations thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that, page 11, last paragraph
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires that the claim language meet the threshold requirement of notifying a person of ordinary skill in the art of the claim boundaries. Applicant respectfully submits that there is no inconsistency between claims 1 and 5. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and merely further defines how the low-power plasma discharge recited in claim 1 is produced, i.e., "by gas-phase ionization of a gas with a radio frequency (RF) power of 100 W or less." A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that a plasma discharge is produced by gas-phase ionization and that the first precursor is provided into that discharge; these recitations are complementary, not contradictory.
In response, the only meaning the term “a…plasma discharge”—in “providing a first precursor into a low-power plasma discharge to form a radicalized first precursor”, claim 1—makes sense is a plasma discharge chamber, as an apparatus that produces plasma. From Applicant’s arguments, Applicant seems to intend the term to mean a plasma gas, and not a plasma discharge chamber interpreted by Examiner. In order for “a low-power plasma discharge” to mean a plasma gas, as Applicant argues, “providing…into” has to mean converting into. However, no English dictionary defines providing to mean converting. Thus, the BRI of provide has to mean to supply or to distribute, which are synonyms cited on PROVIDE Synonyms: 34 Similar and Opposite Words | Merriam-Webster Thesaurus.
Applicant argues, page 12, remarks, that Henri does not teach the plasma discharge in claim 1.
In response, Henri teaches the chamber to be a plasma discharge chamber (“in-situ plasma”, paragraph [0048]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights