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 U.S.C. § 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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al. (US Pub. 20170350038), hereinafter referred to as Lo, and Sharma (US Pub. 20050009359), hereinafter referred to as Sandhu.
Regarding claim 1, Lo teaches a method of treating a substrate, comprising: exposing the substrate to a vacuum (Lo, para. 20), treating the substrate with a pre-treatment gas or plasma (Lo, 414/416, Fig. 4, para. 39-40), wherein the pre- treatment gas or plasma is a non-oxidizing pre-treatment gas or plasma (Lo, paras. 19, 20, 24, para. 20.describes the plasma process as a reducing process); and oxidizing the substrate while the substrate is still under the vacuum (Lo, para. 38, shows it is a vacuum processing system, and shows thermal oxidation).
Lo does not teach wherein the substrate has one or more memory holes or trenches. However, Sharma teaches a cleaning method for the sidewalls and bottoms of vias to remove organometallic or polymeric residues (Sharma, para. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to utilize the cleaning method of Lo to remove the residue from the vias of Sharma in order to increase yield, reduce via resistance and increase reliability (Sharma para. 2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more memory holes or trenches has impurity buildup (Sharma, para. 2).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the impurity buildup comprises hydrocarbons (Sharma, para 2, shows that the residue may contain carbon and hydrogen, and Lo, para. 19 shows the contaminants may be hydrocarbons).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Lo teaches treating the substrate at a temperature greater than or equal to 50°C and less than or equal to 850°C. Specifically, Lo teaches performing the non-oxidizing/reducing treatment process at a temperature of about 25°C to about 400°C (Lo, para. [0020]). The temperature range taught by Lo (25°C to 400°C) overlaps with the claimed temperature range (50°C to 850°C). It is well established that when a claimed range and a prior art range overlap or intersect, the claimed range is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05(I); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the treatment at a temperature within the overlapping range (e.g., between 50°C and 400°C) to effectively remove surface contaminants as taught by Lo.
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Lo teaches treating the substrate at a temperature greater than or equal to 50°C and less than or equal to 300°C. Specifically, Lo teaches performing the non-oxidizing/reducing treatment process at a temperature of about 25°C to about 400°C (Lo, para. [0020]). The claimed temperature range (50°C to 300°C) falls entirely within the broader temperature range taught by Lo. It is well established that a prior art reference disclosing a range that encompasses a narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05(I); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a temperature within the claimed range, as it is fully encompassed by the standard operating conditions disclosed by Lo.
Regarding claim 6, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises Si, SiOxNy, or SiN (Lo, para. 15).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the pre-treatment gas or plasma comprises an inert gas (Lo, paras. 24-25).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the inert gas comprises N2, Ar, He, or a combination thereof (Lo, paras. 24-25).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the oxidizing the substrate is a multi- step process (Lo, para. 22 shows that the process can be repeated as many times as necessary).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the treating the substrate is performed at a pressure greater than or equal to 0.1 Torr and less than or equal to atmospheric pressure (Lo, para. 20, shows 100mTorr-300 mTorr, 1 atm is approximately 760 Torr).
Regarding claim 15, Lo teaches a method of treating a substrate, comprising: exposing the substrate to a vacuum (Lo, par. 20), treating the substrate with an inert gas (Lo, 414, Fig. 4, para. 39, paras 24-25), wherein treating the substrate is a non- oxidizing treatment (Lo, para. 20, describes it as a reducing treatment); and oxidizing the substrate while the substrate is still under the vacuum (Lo, para. 38).
Lo does not teach wherein the substrate has one or more memory holes or trenches. However, Sharma teaches a cleaning method for the sidewalls and bottoms of vias to remove organometallic or polymeric residues (Sharma, para. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to utilize the cleaning method of Lo to remove the residue from the vias of Sharma in order to increase yield, reduce via resistance and increase reliability (Sharma para. 2).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 15, wherein at least one of the one or more memory holes or trenches has impurity buildup (Sharma, para. 2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified method of Lo teaches treating the substrate at a temperature greater than or equal to 50°C and less than or equal to 300°C. Specifically, Lo teaches performing the non-oxidizing/reducing treatment process at a temperature of about 25°C to about 400°C (Lo, para. [0020]). The claimed temperature range (50°C to 300°C) falls entirely within the broader temperature range taught by Lo. It is well established that a prior art reference disclosing a range that encompasses a narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05(I); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a temperature within the claimed range, as it is fully encompassed by the standard operating conditions disclosed by Lo.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo and Sharma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandhu (US Pub 20190355578), hereinafter referred to as Sandhu.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the treating the substrate with the pre-treatment gas or plasma is performed for a time ranging from 5 seconds to 3 minutes.
However, Sandhu teaches a method wherein after the surface of a substrate is etched, the substrate is cleaned to remove contaminants (Sandhu, paras. 30-36) and this process may take between 10 seconds and 3 minutes (Sandhu, para. 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the treatment method of Lo and Sharma in order to remove greater than 90% of the contaminants (Sandhu para. 35).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo and Sharma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toh (US Pub 20170117118), hereinafter referred to as Toh.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 1, but does not wherein the treating the substrate with the pre- treatment gas or plasma is performed in a chamber and the oxidizing the substrate is performed in the chamber.
However, Toh teaches a chamber body (Toh, 100, Fig. 1) wherein various gasses may be provided for treatment (Toh, para. 26). Among these gases are inert gases and oxygen (Toh para. 26). Toh teaches a series of valves (Toh, 166, Fig. 1, para. 27) which can provide the process gasses from sources (Toh 161-164, Fig. 1, para. 27). The CPU (Toh, 174, Fig. 1, para. 27) controls the process sequence and timing, mixture of gasses and other process parameters (Toh, para. 27).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the method of Lo and Sharma with the chamber of Toh. Toh teaches the known benefits of performing multiple gas treatments in a single chamber using a CPU and valves to control gas mixtures (Toh, para. 27). It would have been obvious to configure one of the processing chambers of Lo (402a-d) to perform both the non-oxidizing treatment and the oxidation step in situ, as taught by Toh, to minimize transition times and prevent cross-contamination between steps
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo and Sharma as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Toh.
Regarding claim 18, modified Lo teaches the method of claim 15, but does not teach wherein the inert gas has a flow rate of greater than or equal to 10 sccm to 20 slm. Lo is silent on the follow rate of inert gas or plasma.
However, Toh teaches a treatment system that uses inert gases wherein the flow rate is 200 sccm-1.5 slm (Toh, para. 49).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the method Lo and Sharma with the flow rate of Toh to form the processing gas (Toh, para. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, line 15- page 6, line 5, filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims and 1, 4-6, 8-10, 14, 15, 17 and 18 under Kitagawa have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lo and Sharma, with respect to claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17, and Lo, Sharma and To with respect to claims 8 and 18.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, lines 7-15 , filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 2 and 3 under Kitagawa and Sharma have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lo and Sharma.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, lines 16-23, filed 6/9/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under Kitagawa and Sharma have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lo and Sharma.
Applicant’s arguments, seepage 6, line 24- page 7, line 6, filed 6/09/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 7 and 13 under Kitagawa and Sandhu have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lo and Sharma with regards to claim 13 and Lo, Sharma and Sandhu with regards to claim 7.
Applicant's traverse of Species I and Subspecies II in the reply filed on 6/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that:
For claims 11 and 12 applicant claims they should be eligible for rejoinder as depending from claim 1 as the generic claim and they include all limitations.
This is not found persuasive because the species and subspecies would require a separate field of search and claim one has been rejected under a new grounds of rejection under Lo and Sharma.
For claims 19 and 20, applicant states claim 19 does not require a materially different field of search.
This is not found persuasive because the species would require a separate field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and remains FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xie et al. (US 10283345) teaches a method of removing contaminants from a surface at temperatures between 250 °C and 350 °C.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIERAN M CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-9654. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 5712703042. 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.
/KIERAN M. CUNNINGHAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights