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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, noting the amended language, in LaVoie, the ‘sweep phase’ or supply of a dilution gas may happen at the start of the RF power as in para 0317 or after as in Fig. 31, with the timing available in the Tables, in particular because the sweep gas arrives after a delay as shown in Fig. 17 and para 0219, essentially making the start of the sweep, or dilution gas, into the reaction area after the plasma is started, meeting the claim language. During this sequence, in Fig. 31, both reactant gases and plasma are flowed, meeting the continuous flow language as broadly claimed. New grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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 1-3 and 6-16 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 1 includes the language: wherein a start of the supply of the dilution gas is after a start of the supply of the radio- frequency power and wherein, in the supplying the dilution gas, the nitrogen-containing gas and the Si precursor gas are continuously supplied into the processing container. It is unclear how “in the supplying the dilution gas” and “continuously supplied” should be defined. Does the claim mean that the N and Si containing gases are literally supplied within the dilution gas? The N and Si supply is not continuous, as earlier in the claim their introduction is staggered. The claim also does not give an end point or a time period for which these gases are continuous, making this undefined. Clarification and definition of the time periods of each gas introduction is suggested to make this claim language clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVoie et al. (US 2014/0209562 A1) in view of Meng et al. (Materials 2016, 9, 1007)
LaVoie et al. teaches a method of forming a silicon nitride film (abstract) preparing a substrate in a processing container (Fig. 13); supplying a nitrogen-containing gas into the processing container (para 0071-0072, Fig. 4, 11 etc. – nitrogen containing reactant as “Reactant A”); supplying a Si precursor gas into the processing container after the nitrogen-containing gas is supplied and after a pressure control inside the processing container is stabilized (Reactant B, Fig. 4, 11, para 0105); generating plasma within the processing container by supplying radio-frequency power (para 0090, 0177, 0231) for plasma generation after the Si precursor gas is supplied and before the pressure control inside the processing container is stabilized (as broadly claimed as discussed above in Fig. 30-31 para 0190-0191, it is also submitted that the exposure times in Tables 2 and 4 are generally the same as those in the instant specification- also see Fig. 16 for a more detailed show of stabilization based on gas travel times); and forming the silicon nitride film by exposing the substrate to the plasma (abstract). The pressure stabilization is controlled by the exhaust in para 0250. Further, the plasma is ignited before the reactant pressure is stabilized as it is ignited in LaVoie in less than 10 sec (Fig. 16, Fig. 31, Table 5) and this is the same time period as T1 in instant Fig. 3, para 0048. In the instant specification, Figure 3 – which is reflected in the claim language- is similar to Fig. 31 of LaVoie, in particular the time period designated as T1 in the instant specification in between the start of the reactant and start of plasma. In the instant specification, T1 is less than 10 seconds (instant para 0048). In LaVoie, the time period set for the reactant (reactant B) is less than 10 seconds as well in Table 5. Thus, Lavoie teaches the same time period and relative times as the instant specification and meets the claim.
The ‘sweep phase’ or supply of a dilution gas may happen at the start of the RF power as in para 0317 or after as in Fig. 31, with the timing available in the Tables, in particular because the sweep gas arrives after a delay as shown in Fig. 17 and para 0219, essentially making the start of the sweep, or dilution gas, into the reaction area after the plasma is started, meeting the claim language. During this sequence, in Fig. 31, both reactant gases and plasma are flowed, meeting the continuous flow language as broadly claimed.
LaVoie et al. does not teach the substrate having a graphene film on a surface of the substrate and the SiN film deposited on the film. Meng et al. teaches that it is common to have SiN films deposited on graphene for certain applications such as graphene field effect transistors on p 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LaVoie et al. to include depositing a SiN film on graphene layers as taught by Meng et al. in order to use the invention in other applications such as graphene field effect transistors.
As to claims 2-3, LaVoie Tables 2 and 4-5 show that each phase lasts up to 10 seconds, meeting the claim limitations considering Figures 30-31.
As to claim 6, the ‘sweep phase’ or supply of a dilution gas may happen at the start of the RF power as in para 0317 or after as in Fig. 31, with the timing available in the Tables.
As to claim 12, the radio-frequency power is microwave power in LaVoie para 0129, for example.
As to claim 13, the nitrogen gas is as claimed in LaVoie para 0105, for example.
As to claims 14 and 16, other gases may be supplied to make other SiN films in LaVoie para 0124, for example.
As to claim 15, the silicon gas, claimed as a silane gas, is in Lavoie para 0105.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVoie et al. (US 2014/0209562 A1) in view of Meng et al. (Materials 2016, 9, 1007) and in further view of Kuwano et al. (US 2021/0324510 A1)
LaVoie et al. teaches a method of forming a silicon nitride film (abstract) preparing a substrate in a processing container (Fig. 13); supplying a nitrogen-containing gas into the processing container (para 0071-0072, Fig. 4, 11 etc. – nitrogen containing reactant as “Reactant A”); supplying a Si precursor gas into the processing container after the nitrogen-containing gas is supplied and after a pressure control inside the processing container is stabilized (Reactant B, Fig. 4, 11, para 0105); generating plasma within the processing container by supplying radio-frequency power (para 0090, 0177, 0231) for plasma generation after the Si precursor gas is supplied and before the pressure control inside the processing container is stabilized (as broadly claimed as discussed above in Fig. 30-31 para 0190-0191, it is also submitted that the exposure times in Tables 2 and 4 are generally the same as those in the instant specification- also see Fig. 16 for a more detailed show of stabilization based on gas travel times); and forming the silicon nitride film by exposing the substrate to the plasma (abstract). The pressure stabilization is controlled by the exhaust in para 0250. Further, the plasma is ignited before the reactant pressure is stabilized as it is ignited in LaVoie in less than 10 sec (Fig. 16, Fig. 31, Table 5) and this is the same time period as T1 in instant Fig. 3, para 0048. In the instant specification, Figure 3 – which is reflected in the claim language- is similar to Fig. 31 of LaVoie, in particular the time period designated as T1 in the instant specification in between the start of the reactant and start of plasma. In the instant specification, T1 is less than 10 seconds (instant para 0048). In LaVoie, the time period set for the reactant (reactant B) is less than 10 seconds as well in Table 5. Thus, Lavoie teaches the same time period and relative times as the instant specification and meets the claim.
The ‘sweep phase’ or supply of a dilution gas may happen at the start of the RF power as in para 0317 or after as in Fig. 31, with the timing available in the Tables, in particular because the sweep gas arrives after a delay as shown in Fig. 17 and para 0219, essentially making the start of the sweep, or dilution gas, into the reaction area after the plasma is started, meeting the claim language. During this sequence, in Fig. 31, both reactant gases and plasma are flowed, meeting the continuous flow language as broadly claimed.
LaVoie et al. does not teach the substrate having a graphene film on a surface of the substrate and the SiN film deposited on the film. Meng et al. teaches that it is common to have SiN films deposited on graphene for certain applications such as graphene field effect transistors on p 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LaVoie et al. to include depositing a SiN film on graphene layers as taught by Meng et al. in order to use the invention in other applications such as graphene field effect transistors.
Further, Kawano et al. shows another configuration where the inert or dilution gas is used throughout with the source and reactant gases, where it is modified then turned on again after the start of the plasma (Fig. 3-4). This occurs in order to have a second purge step in paras 0073-0074 that is more efficient at removing reactants. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to modify the sequence of LaVoie et al. to include extra dilution gas after the introduction of the plasma, in addition to that which is already being used with the reactants and plasma as taught by Kawano et al. in order to have a more efficient purge.
As to claims 2-3, LaVoie Tables 2 and 4-5 show that each phase lasts up to 10 seconds, meeting the claim limitations considering Figures 30-31.
As to claim 6, the ‘sweep phase’ or supply of a dilution gas may happen at the start of the RF power as in para 0317 or after as in Fig. 31, with the timing available in the Tables.
As to claim 12, the radio-frequency power is microwave power in LaVoie para 0129, for example.
As to claim 13, the nitrogen gas is as claimed in LaVoie para 0105, for example.
As to claims 14 and 16, other gases may be supplied to make other SiN films in LaVoie para 0124, for example.
As to claim 15, the silicon gas, claimed as a silane gas, is in Lavoie para 0105.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaVoie et al. (US 2014/0209562 A1) in view of Meng et al. (Materials 2016, 9, 1007) in further view of Kohno et al. (US 2009/0308840 A1) OR Lavoie et al. in view of Meng et al. and Kuwano et al. in further view of Kohno et al.
As to claims 1 and 6, Kohno et al. further shows diagrams of dilution gas such as that taught in the sweeps of LaVoie with varying timings regarding RF power in Fig. 3. It would also be obvious to use these timings in LaVoie as Kohno teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. As to claim 15, Kohno additionally teaches other silanes for the formation of SiN films in para 0002.
As to claims 7-8 and 10, LaVoie teaches a configuration with an upper gas introduction port (showerhead) in Figs. 13-14 and 19. La Voie does not teach a side port for the introduction of gas. Kohno teaches a configuration with a side port 15a, 15b that contributes to a uniform exposure of the Silicon and dilution gases along with introduction of the Silicon and dilution gases in the top portion in paras 0060,0066, for example. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify LaVoie et al. to include a side port for the introduction of gas as taught by Kohno in order to have a uniform exposure of the gases in the chamber.
As to claims 9 and 11, the ratio of gases to each supply hole would be modified to reach the uniform distribution of gases in Kohno in para 0060, 0066, for example. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed flow ratios, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718