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 13-25 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/JP2022/017517. Amended claims 16, 21 are noted.
The amendment dated 08/10/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendments to the title and claims. In view of said amendments, the objection to the title and the 112 rejection have been withdrawn. In view of the arguments on p.12 with respect to the inert gas, the obviousness double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 25 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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 13-21, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (2020/0017968).
Kato teaches a deposition method (title) which includes forming an adsorption inhibiting region on a substrate and adsorbing a raw material gas on an adsorption site which is not a non-adsorption inhibiting region and reacting said raw material gas with a reactant gas by a plasma (abstract). The adsorption inhibiting region is formed using an adsorption inhibiting gas (0034) and the nitride film can be formed in a fine recess on a substrate surface (0003). In one embodiment, the plasma is used to activate a nitride gas (0006) which is reacted with a silicon containing gas used as a raw material gas (0034) to form a silicon nitride film (0037). The nitride gas can be ammonia (0034) used along with an inert gas (0084) in which both flow rates are controlled (0058). However, the reference fails to teach a nitrogen containing gas having a greater flow rate than the inert gas.
It is noted that the reference clearly teaches a nitride gas whose flow rate is controlled by a flow controller and that a mixture of ammonia and argon is used and that each can be supplied separately (0058). A teaching of supplying ammonia and argon separately inherently means that a flow rate of each is utilized. To use more ammonia would have been obvious given such a teaching in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Kato teaches repeating (0120).
Regarding claim 15, Kato teaches ammonia and argon (0084).
Regarding claim 16, Kato teaches a plasma (0034-0038).
Regarding claims 17-18, the applicant requires sequential exposure to plasma. Kato teaches a plasma (0034-0036). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959)
Regarding claim 19, the applicant requires repeating and sequential exposure to plasma. Kato teaches repeating (0120) and a plasma (0034-0036). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant requires a mixed gas and sequential exposure to plasma. Kato teaches a mixed gas (0037) and a plasma (0034-0036). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes.
Regarding claim 21, Kato teaches a plasma and chlorine (0034-0038).
Regarding claim 24, Kato teaches chlorine (0037).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (2020/0017968) in view of JP 2018-523753 (see English Translation). Kato fails to teach modifying gas plasma.
JP’753 teaches a method for depositing silicon nitride films (title) in which a precursor is reacted in the presence of a plasma (abstract). In one embodiment, a post-deposition plasma treatment can be utilized (paragraph bridging pp.11-12). To utilize a post-deposition plasma in Kato would have been obvious to one skilled in the art with the expectation of success because JP’573 teaches of using a post-deposition plasma after forming a silicon nitride film.
Regarding claim 23, the applicant requires a flow rate ratio. It is noted that JP’753 clearly teaches the use of a hydrogen/argon plasma. Such a teaching inherently means that a ratio of hydrogen and argon exists. To utilize the claimed ratio would have been obvious given such a teaching in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the reference fails to teach the claimed nitrogen gas having a higher flow rate than a flow rate of the inert gas (pp.9-10).
The examiner agrees in part. As stated above, Kato clearly teaches a nitride gas whose flow rate is controlled by a flow controller and that a mixture of ammonia and argon is used and that each can be supplied separately (0058). The examiner concedes that the reference is silent on a higher flow rate of the nitrogen gas. However, a teaching of supplying ammonia and argon separately inherently means that a flow rate of each is utilized. To use more ammonia would have been obvious given such a teaching in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Furthermore, the respective flow rates of the nitrogen-containing gas and of the inert gas do not appear critical to the generation of plasma from the nitriding gas. Certainly there is no evidence of record to show any criticality of flow rates affecting the generation of the plasma. To that end, the claims don't reflect that the N2-containing gas and the inert gas are administered at differing flow rates, nor do they indicate the flow rate of the overall nitriding gas. All that's required is that the nitriding gas generates the plasma, a fact clearly taught by Kato.
Applicant’s arguments dated 08/10/2026 has been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
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 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 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 09/29/2026
Prosecution Insights