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
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment on 07/28/2026. Currently, claims 1-2 and 4-19 are pending in the application. Claim 18 has been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3 has been cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NAGATO et al (US 20190127848 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose a method of processing a substrate (24, [0067]), comprising:
(a) loading the substrate into a process container (22, Figure 1) at a loading temperature ([0067]-[0068]);
(b) setting an interior of the process container to a film formation temperature ([0068]);
(c) forming a metal film ([0140]) on a surface of the substrate by supplying a process gas ([0078]) into the process container (22);
(d) setting the interior of the process container to an unloading temperature lower than the loading temperature ([0120], Figure 7); and
(e) unloading the substrate (24, [0095]) from the process container (Figure 7),
wherein in at least a portion of (b), one of a reducing gas, a high-thermal conductive gas, and a reductive high-thermal conductive gas is supplied into the process container ([0065] and [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 1, wherein the process gas includes a metal-containing gas and a reducing gas, and wherein in (c), a cycle is performed a predetermined number of times, the cycle including: supplying the metal-containing gas into the process container; and supplying the reducing gas into the process container ([0065] and [0078], process gas includes a metal-containing gas is not explicitly teach but anticipated to be a gas containing metal since NAGATO teaches of forming metal layer, [0140]).
Regarding claim 4, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 3, wherein in at least a portion of (b), a supply amount of one of the reducing gas, the high-thermal conductive gas, and the reductive high-thermal conductive gas into the process container is increased ([0065], [0078] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 5, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 2, wherein the reducing gas that is supplied in (c) is a reductive high-thermal conductive gas, and wherein the method further comprises (f) supplying a high-thermal conductive gas into the process container before (c) ([0065], [0078] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 6, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 5, wherein in at least a portion of (f), a supply amount of the high-thermal conductive gas is increased ([0065], [0078] and [0131]).
Regarding claim 7, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 1, wherein in at least a portion of (d), the interior of the process container is kept in a vacuum state, and an internal temperature of the process container is changed ([0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 8, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 1, wherein in at least a portion of (d), at least one selected from the group of a reducing gas, a high-thermal conductive gas, and a reductive high-thermal conductive gas is supplied into the process container ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 9, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 1, further comprising: before (d), (g) setting the interior of the process container to a holding temperature; and (h) keeping the interior of the process container at the holding temperature ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 10, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 9, wherein in at least a portion of (g), the interior of the process container is kept in a vacuum state, and an internal temperature of the process container is lowered to the unloading temperature ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 11, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 9, wherein in at least a portion of (g), at least one selected from the group of a reducing gas, a high-thermal conductive gas, and a reductive high-thermal conductive gas is supplied into the process container ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 12, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 9, wherein in at least a portion of (h), a reducing gas is supplied into the process container ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 13, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 3, wherein the reducing gas is a hydrogen-containing gas ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 15, The method of claim 1, wherein the metal film is a film containing molybdenum ([0140]).
Regarding claim 16, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 2, wherein the metal-containing gas contains a halogen element ([0065], [0078], [0092] and [0120]).
Regarding claim 17, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of claim 1 ([0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose non-transitory computer-readable recording medium ([0002]) storing a program that causes, by a computer ([0063]), a substrate processing apparatus to perform a method comprising:
(a) loading a substrate (24, [0028]) into a process container (22) at a loading temperature ([0067]-[0068]);
(b) setting an interior of the process container to a film formation temperature ([0068]);
(c) forming a metal film ([0140]) on a surface of the substrate by supplying a process gas ([0065]) into the process container;
(d) setting the interior of the process container (22) to an unloading temperature lower than the loading temperature ([0120], Figure 7); and
(e) unloading the substrate (24, [0095]) from the process container (Figure 7), wherein in at least a portion of (b), one of a reducing gas, a high-thermal conductive gas, and a reductive high-thermal conductive gas is supplied into the process container ([0065] and [0078]).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over NAGATO et al (US 20190127848 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Figures 1/5/7 of NAGATO disclose that the method of claim 13, wherein the hydrogen-containing gas contains a hydrogen gas ([0065]) but does not explicitly teach that wherein a mass fraction of the hydrogen gas in the hydrogen-containing gas is 70% or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to form an good quality film with lower cost since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over HARADA et al (US 20110104896 A1) in view of NAGATO et al (US 20190127848 A1) as evidence.
Regarding claim 19, Figure 1 of HARADA discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer (the process of HARADA is anticipated to use a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform the process, please also see [0002] of NAGATO as evidence wherein an equivalent process is performed using computer), a substrate processing apparatus to perform a method comprising:
(a) loading a substrate into a process container at a loading temperature (S1-S2, Figure 1, [0109]-[0114]);
(b) setting an interior of the process container to a film formation temperature ([0115]-[0124]);
(c) forming a metal film on a surface of the substrate by supplying a process gas into the process container ([0125]-[0128]); and
(e) unloading the substrate from the process container (S7-S8, Figure 1),
wherein in at least a portion of (b), one of a reducing gas, a high-thermal conductive gas, and a reductive high-thermal conductive gas is supplied into the process container ([0086] and [0128], reducing gas is supplied).
HARADA does not explicitly teach a step (d) setting the interior of the process container to an unloading temperature lower than the loading temperature.
However, NAGATO is a pertinent art which teaches a processing method is provided. The method includes: (a) processing a substrate accommodated in a substrate holding region of a substrate retainer in a process chamber at a first temperature, the substrate retainer including a heat insulating region on one end thereof and the substrate holding region on the other end thereof; (b) supplying a cleaning gas to the heat insulating region at a second temperature variable within a temperature range lower than the first temperature and higher than a room temperature after unloading the substrate accommodated in the substrate retainer; and (c) supplying the cleaning gas to the substrate holding region at a third temperature variable within another temperature range lower than the second temperature after unloading the substrate accommodated in the substrate retainer ([0006]), wherein Figure 7 of NAGATO teaches that the temperature is lower before unloading the substrate.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of HARADA by using a step of setting the interior of the process container to an unloading temperature lower than the loading temperature according to the teaching of NAGATO in order to form an improved film with improved cleaning of the processing chamber ([0003]-[0004] of NAGATO).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main arguments regarding claims 1 and 19 include: Either NAGATO or HARADA does not teach the limitation “wherein in at least a portion of (b), one of a reducing gas, a high-thermal conductive gas, and a reductive high-thermal conductive gas is supplied into the process container”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully points out that “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention, MPEP § 2141.02. Further, The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In this case, NAGATO teaches that the vacuum pump 96 vacuum-exhausts the process chamber 22 until the inner pressure of the process chamber 22 reaches a desired pressure (vacuum degree). In the pressure and temperature adjusting step, the inner pressure of the process chamber 22 is measured by the pressure sensor 92, and the APC valve 94 is feedback-controlled based on the measured pressure (pressure adjusting step). The vacuum pump 96 continuously vacuum-exhausts the process chamber 22 until at least the processing of the substrates 24 is completed. It is clear from the above that there are some gas (activated since the heater is on for heating to a desired temperature) inside the chamber 22 to be moved out by vacuum pump 96 during pressure and temperature setup. Further, the claim does not limit by any gas name or any time frame for the step (b) wherein one can consider the step of supplying first gas in the chamber as part of the step (b) to meet the claimed limitations on a broadest reasonable interpretation, wherein the second gas supplied as the process gas in the claimed step (c), wherein NAGATO teaches of different gases are supplied in the method of forming a film ([0065] or [0078]).
Further, In regard to claim 19 rejected by prior art HARADA which explicitly teaches the added limitation in claim 19 in paragraph [0086] and [0128], wherein HARADA teaches that the reducing gas supply process S5a may be started while the temperature of a wafer 200 is increased. This may advance the completion time of the pretreatment process S5, and thus the throughput of the substrate processing process can be improved.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
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 extension fee 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 KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. 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.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights