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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
It is noted that the abstract begins with “There is provided”. The examiner suggests its deletion.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (2013/0203268) in view of Fukiage et al. (2018/0142350).
Kato teaches a film deposition method for forming a film on a substrate by repeatedly performing a process of sequentially supplying a first process gas and a second process gas that react with one another inside a vacuum chamber by mounting a substrate on the surface of a turntable inside a vacuum chamber (0012). The method specifically supplying a first process gas that is adsorbed on the surface of the substrate to a first process area, and supplying a second process gas to a second process area to cause a reaction with components of the first process gas adsorbed on the surface of the substrate and form a reaction product on the substrate (0012). In addition, a modification gas that does not react with the first process gas and the second process gas to a modification area for performing a modification process on the reaction product on the substrate using plasma is used (0012). While the modification can be a mixed gas (0057), the reference fails to teach a second modification gas.
Fukiage teaches a film forming processing method (title) in which a first modification process and a second modification process are used (0039). Specifically, a second modification gas is used (0052). It would have been obvious to use a second medication gas in the process of Kato with the expectation of success because Fukiage teaches of using a second modification gas in a film forming method.
Regarding claim 2, Fukiage teaches a substrate with a recess (0043).
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches silicon nitride (0005), which has two elements and is adsorbed (0049).
Regarding claim 4, Kato teaches a modification gas which does not react (0012) and Fukiage teaches a second modification gas (0052).
Regarding claim 5, Kato teaches dichlorosilane and ammonia (0057) which have different molecular weights.
Regarding claim 6, Kato teaches dichlorosilane and ammonia (0057) which have different reactivities.
Regarding claim 7, Kato teaches different regions (0070).
Regarding claim 8, Fukiage teaches of adjusting the supply time (0072).
Regarding claim 9, Kato teaches different pressures (0011).
Regarding claim 10, Fukiage teaches of adjusting the supply time (0072).
Regarding claim 11, the applicant requires the same gas. Fukiage teaches NH3 and Ar (0075). To utilize one gas would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 12, Fukiage teaches different gases (0075).
Regarding claim 13, Kato teaches dichlorosilane and ammonia (0057) which have different absorption capacities.
Regarding claim 14, the applicant requires a second recess. Fukiage teaches a substrate with a recess (0043). To utilize a second recess would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 15, Kato teaches dichlorosilane and ammonia (0057) and Fukiage teaches that ammonia can be the reaction gas (0004).
Regarding claim 16, Kato teaches silicon nitride (0005) using ammonia (0057), which produces the nitrogen.
Regarding claim 17 Kato teaches dichlorosilane and ammonia (0057) and Fukiage teaches that ammonia can be the reaction gas (0004).
Regarding claim 18, Kato teaches a semiconductor wafer (0005).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 08/03/2026
Prosecution Insights