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
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group II, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on February 18th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Group I, claims 20-21 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Action on merits of Group II, claims 1-19 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 15th, 2023, March 29th, 2024, October 23rd, 2024, May 22nd, 2025 and September 30th, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/15/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The 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 § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 recites: " A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1”. The intended use of the method of claim 1 in a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device fails to further limit the device of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, 10-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Miyahara (US 2018/0033608, hereinafter as Miya ‘608).
Regarding Claim 1, Miya ‘608 teaches a method of processing a substrate, comprising:
(a) forming a first inhibitor layer on a first surface of the substrate (202/203; [0061]) having the first surface and a second surface by supplying a first modifying agent (204; [0064]), which reacts with the first surface, to the substrate (wafer (W); [0061]) (supply chlorine containing gas (204), Figs. 7-9, (step 12); [0064];
(b) forming a first film (a first part of SiN (205); [0065]) on the second surface by supplying a first film-forming agent, in which a first energy is imparted to at least a portion of the first film-forming agent, to the substrate;
(c) forming a second film (a second part of SiN (205) by ALD; [0065]) on the first film formed on the second surface by supplying a second film-forming agent, in which a second energy is imparted to at least a portion of the second film-forming agent, to the substrate, wherein a film including at least one selected from the group of the first film and the second film has been formed on the first surface (see para. [0067]);
(d) removing the film formed on the first surface by supplying an etching agent to the substrate (step 14);
(e) forming a second inhibitor layer on the first surface after the film has been removed, by supplying a second modifying agent, which reacts with the first surface, to the substrate (step 12, new cycle, Fig. 7); and
(f) forming a third film on the second film on the first film formed on the second surface by supplying a third film-forming agent, in which a third energy is imparted to at least a portion of the third film-forming agent, to the substrate (step 13, new cycle, see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 2, Miya ‘608 teaches in (b), a first precursor (DCS; [0065]) and a first reactant (NH3; [0065]) are used as the first film-forming agent, wherein in (c), a second precursor (DCS; [0065]) and a second reactant (NH3; [0065]) are used as the second film- forming agent, and wherein in (f), as the third film-forming agent, a third precursor (DCS; [0065]) and a third reactant (NH3; [0065]) are used, a third precursor, a third reactant, and a catalyst are used, or a third precursor, a third reactant, and a fourth reactant are used (see Fig. 7; para. [0070]).
Regarding Claim 6, Miya ‘608 teaches the second precursor has a same molecular structure as the first precursor (repeating cycles, see Fig. 7, [0070]).
Regarding Claim 8, Miya ‘608 teaches in (b), the first precursor and the first reactant are alternately supplied to the substrate (see para. [0030]), wherein in (c), the second precursor and the second reactant are alternately supplied to the substrate (see para. [0030]), and wherein in (f), the third precursor and the third reactant are alternately supplied to the substrate (see para. [0030]), the third precursor and the third reactant are alternately supplied to the substrate and the catalyst is supplied together with at least one selected from the group of the third precursor and the third reactant, or the third precursor and the fourth reactant are alternately supplied to the substrate and then the third reactant, which is activated, is supplied to the substrate (see para. [0030]) (see Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 10, Miya ‘608 teaches the second energy is an energy equal to the first energy (see Fig. 7; [0005]-[0006] and [0070]).
Regarding Claim 11, Miya ‘608 teaches the third energy is an energy equal to the second energy (see Fig. 7; [0005]-[0006] and [0070]).
Regarding Claim 12, Miya ‘608 teaches (b) is performed at a first temperature, and (c) is performed at a second temperature equal to the first temperature (see Fig. 7; para. [0070])
Regarding Claim 13, Miya ‘608 teaches (b) is performed at a first temperature, (c) is performed at a second temperature, and (f) is performed at a third temperature equal to the second temperature (see Fig. 7; [0005]-[0006] and [0070]).
Regarding Claim 17, Miya ‘608 teaches the first surface is a surface of an oxygen-containing film, and the second surface is a surface of an oxygen-free film (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Miya ‘608 teaches the oxygen-containing film is an oxide film (202; [0040]), and the oxygen-free film is a nitride film (203; [0040]) (see Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 19, Miya ‘608 teaches a semiconductor device (see Figs. 11A-11C; [0073]).
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.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miya ‘608 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the second precursor has a different molecular structure from the first precursor”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the second precursor has a different molecular structure from the first precursor on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the second precursor has a different molecular structure from the first precursor when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 4, Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a thermal decomposition temperature of the second precursor is lower than a thermal decomposition temperature of the first precursor”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thermal decomposition temperature of the second precursor is lower than a thermal decomposition temperature of the first precursor on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a thermal decomposition temperature of the second precursor is lower than a thermal decomposition temperature of the first precursor when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 5, Miya ‘608 teaches each of the first film and the second film (205) contains atoms X (e.g. (N); [0065]).
Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first precursor does not contain a chemical bond between the atoms X, and the second precursor contains a chemical bond between the atoms X”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first precursor does not contain a chemical bond between the atoms X, and the second precursor contains a chemical bond between the atoms X on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first precursor does not contain a chemical bond between the atoms X, and the second precursor contains a chemical bond between the atoms X when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 7, Miya ‘608 teaches the first reactant, the second reactant, and the fourth reactant have a same molecular structure (see Fig. 7; [0070]),
Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first reactant and the third reactant have different molecular structures”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first reactant and the third reactant have different molecular structures on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the first reactant and the third reactant have different molecular structures when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 9, Miya ‘608 teaches in (b), the first film is formed on the first surface (see Fig. 9).
Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “after performing (b) and before performing (c), removing the first film formed on the first surface by supplying an etching agent to the substrate”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select after performing (b) and before performing (c), removing the first film formed on the first surface by supplying an etching agent to the substrate on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select after performing (b) and before performing (c), removing the first film formed on the first surface by supplying an etching agent to the substrate when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Regarding Claim 14, Miya ‘608 teaches the second film is made of a same material as the first film (SiN).
Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the third film is made of a different material from the first film and the second film”.
Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “
Regarding Claim 15, Miya ‘608 teaches the second film is made of a same material as the first film (SiN) (see [0065]). It would obviously appear that an oxidation resistance of the second film is equal to an oxidation resistance of the first film.
Regarding Claim 16, Miya ‘608 teaches the first film and the second film are nitride films (see para. [0065])
Miya ‘608 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the third film is an oxide film”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select an oxide film for the third film on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select an oxide film for the third film when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Kim et al. (US 2022/0259722 A1)
Hane et al. (US 2018/0366315 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights