DETAILED ACTION
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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Haukka [Us 20130012003] in view of Ko [US 20210193454].
Claim 1: Haukka teaches a method for depositing gallium nitride by atomic layer deposition (ALD) [title], wherein the method comprises loading a substrate into a chamber, and forming a gallium nitride onto the substrate [0029-0030, abstract]; wherein the forming the gallium nitride thin film comprise supplying a source gas containing gallium onto the substrate [0010]; supplying a reactant gas containing nitrogen [0010]; and activating and supplying a post treatment gas containing hydrogen onto the substrate [0011]. If in the event the prior art does not explicitly teach post treatment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret post treatment gas as a gas that supplied after a supplying step. However, the prior art does not appear to teach wherein a gas injection unit is provided in the chamber, and the gas injection unit comprises: an upper frame; and a lower frame, spaced apart from the lower side of the upper frame and installed a first electrode and a second electrode spaced apart from the first electrode, provided on a lower surface thereof;
wherein the supplying the reactant gas activates the reactant gas in the gas injection unit, which includes a spaced apart space between the first electrode and the second electrode, and injects the reactant gas onto the substrate. Ko is provided.
Ko teaches a method of atomic layer deposition in a deposition chamber [abstract], wherein the film deposited can include [0063], and the deposition chamber includes an upper frame (117) and lower frame (121) spaced apart from the lower side of the upper frame [Fig. 1a] and installed a first electrode (129) and a second electrode (123) [0024] spaced apart from the first electrode provided on a lower surface thereof [Fig. 1a]; wherein the supplying the reactant gas in the gas injection unit, which includes a spaced apart space between the first electrode and the second electrode and injects the reactant gas onto the substrate [Fig. 1a, 0020]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the deposition chamber setup for ALD as taught by Ko since Ko teaches this deposition arrangement is suitable and operable for processing small feature sizes comprising semiconductor material such as GaN that is common in the semiconductor industry [0003; 0011].
Claim 2: Haukka teaches the temperature of the process can be 600 degrees or lower [0009].
Claim 4: Haukka teaches the temperature of the process can be less than 400 degrees or lower [0009], wherein where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 7: Haukka teaches forming the gallium nitride thin film further comprises purging the reactant gas before the post-treatment gas (hydrogen) [0041].
Claim 8: Haukka teaches the source gas is trimethyl gallium (TMG) [0010] and the reactant gas is ammonia (NH3) [0010] and hydrogen gas [0010-0011].
Claim 9: Haukka teaches depositing an aluminum nitride film before the gallium nitride thin film [0062].
Claim 10: Haukka teaches performing the deposition cycles a plurality of times [0008].
Claim 11: Haukka teaches supplying a dopant gas either simultaneously or after the source gas [0052].
Claim 12: Haukka teaches MgCp2 can be a dopant gas [0056].
Claim 13: Haukka teaches a method for depositing gallium nitride by atomic layer deposition (ALD) [title], wherein the method comprises loading a substrate into a chamber, and forming a gallium nitride onto the substrate [0029-0030, abstract]; wherein the forming the gallium nitride thin film comprise supplying a source gas containing gallium onto the substrate [0010]; supplying a reactant gas containing nitrogen [0010]. Haukka teaches the temperature of the process can be 600 degrees or lower [0009].
Claim 14: Haukka teaches activating and supplying a post treatment gas containing hydrogen onto the substrate after source gas [0011; 0040]. If in the event the prior art does not explicitly teach post treatment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret post treatment gas as a gas that supplied after a supplying step.
Claim 15: Haukka teaches the temperature of the process can be less than 400 degrees or lower [0009], wherein where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 16: Haukka teaches a method for depositing gallium nitride by atomic layer deposition (ALD) [title], wherein the method comprises loading a substrate into a chamber, and forming a gallium nitride onto the substrate [0029-0030, abstract]; wherein the forming the gallium nitride thin film comprise supplying a source gas containing gallium onto the substrate [0010]; supplying a reactant gas containing nitrogen [0010].
Claim 17: Haukka teaches activating and supplying a post treatment gas containing hydrogen onto the substrate after source gas [0011; 0040]. If in the event the prior art does not explicitly teach post treatment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret post treatment gas as a gas that supplied after a supplying step.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka in view of Ko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park [Us 20040191413].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claim 3. Park is provided.
Claim 3: Park teaches a method for depositing thin film [title], wherein the first gas and second gas can be supplied through different supply paths [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide different supply paths since Park teaches such apparatus arrangement is well known in the vapor deposition art.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka in view of Ko as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chua [US 20130130481].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of claims 5-6. Chua is provided.
Claim 5-6: Chua teaches that hydrogen is supplied between cycles between the source gas and the reactant [0008, 0033-0035], wherein the source gas can be purged prior [0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide activated hydrogen between supplying steps since Chua teaches hydrogen can further enhance GaN deposition [0001].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718