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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 22, it is unclear whether the “exposed layer” is part of the “structure”: ”a structure comprising the exposed layer.” Or not part of the “structure”: "a surface of an exposed layer…on a structure.” The claim language is confusing regarding the “surface” of “the exposed layer.” For clarity, the features are understood to mean “cleaning a surface of an exposed layer by a cyclic plasma treatment comprising more than one treatment cycle, in a plasma reactor comprising a reaction chamber, on a structure, [[comprising]] the surface of the exposed layer comprising a Group III-V material [[on the surface]]….”
Regarding claim 11, it contradicts features “forming a plasma from the gas in the reaction chamber” in claim 1 by stating “the forming of the plasma comprises using a remote source.”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4,8-11,13,14,16,19,22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmer et al (US Patent 9,190,266 B1), Andrew D. CARTER, et al, "Al2O3 Growth on (100) In0.53Ga0.47As Initiated by Cyclic Trimethylaluminum and Hydrogen Plasma Exposures", The Japan Society of Applied Physics, 2011, vol. 34, a reference submitted by Applicant, Kryliouk (PG Pub 2010/0273290 A1), and Horie (PG Pub 2013/0295768 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stemmer teaches a method for preparing a microelectronic component, the method comprising: cleaning a surface of an exposed layer (InGaAs, column 3, lines 38-41) by a cyclic plasma treatment comprising more than one treatment cycle (“cycles”, claim 1), in a plasma reactor comprising a reaction chamber (claim 1), on a structure comprising the exposed layer comprising a Group III-V material (InGaAs) on the surface, the structure being disposed on a substrate (the surface that the structure is placed in the chamber) inside the reaction chamber, to obtain a cleaned surface, wherein each treatment cycle comprises: injecting a gas comprising nitrogen and hydrogen (ammonia, claim 1) in the reaction chamber and forming a plasma from the gas in the reaction chamber (claim 1), at a plasma potential (inherent), and depositing, on the cleaned surface, a second layer of a second material comprising: a Group III element and/or a Group V element of the periodic table; and/or a metal oxide (TiO2, claim 1).
Stemmer does not teach each treatment cycle comprises purging the reaction chamber.
In the same field of endeavor, Carter teaches each treatment cycle comprises purging the reaction chamber (page 1, right column), for the benefit of removing contaminants (claims 8 and 9 of Kryliouk).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to comprise in each treatment cycle purging the reaction chamber for the benefit of removing contaminants.
Stemmer does not teach during the forming a plasma from the gas a bias voltage is applied to the substrate, the plasma potential being controlled independently
In the same field of endeavor, Horie teaches, forming a plasma from a gas or mixture in the reaction chamber, for the benefits of applying the plasma before deactivation and of improving processing speed (paragraph [0073]), wherein the plasma is generated at a plasma potential (273, fig. 1), and during which a bias voltage (Vpp) is applied to the substrate, for the benefit of improving film property (paragraph [0080]), and the plasma potential being controlled independently (272/273, fig. 1), for the known benefit of providing power to generate the plasma independently.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a plasma from said the gas or mixture in the reaction chamber for the benefits of applying the plasma before deactivation and of improving processing speed, wherein the plasma was generated at a plasma potential, and during which a bias voltage is applied to the substrate, for the benefit of improving film property, and the plasma potential being controlled independently, for the known benefit of providing power to generate the plasma independently.
Claim 4, Stemmer teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the as comprises ammonia (claim 1).
Claim 8, Carter teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a duration of the purging is greater than or equal to 1 second and less than or equal to 6 seconds (page 1, right column).
Claim 9, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the cleaning of the surface comprises no more than 20 of the treatment cycle (column 5, lines 62-63).
Claim 10, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the cleaning of the surface comprises at least 3 of the treatment cycle (column 5, lines 62-63).
Claim 11, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the forming of the plasma comprises using a remote source (column 2, lines 25-26).
Claim 13, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein during the forming of the plasma and/or the cleaning, a temperature of the substrate is in a range of from 200 to 350°C (column 8, line 64).
Claim 14, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein during the forming of the plasma, a pressure in the reaction chamber is less than or equal to 50 mTorr (column 9, line 1).
Claim 16, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the structure comprises a layer, a three-dimensional structure, or a plurality of three- dimensional structures (InGaAs, column 8, lines 58-60).
Claim 19, Stemmer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second layer deposited on the cleaned surface comprises a dielectric material (TiO2, claim 1).
Claim 22, Stemmer, Carter, Kryliouk, and Horie teaches (see claim 1) a method for preparing a microelectronic component, the method comprising: cleaning a surface of an exposed layer by a cyclic plasma treatment comprising more than one treatment cycle, in a plasma reactor comprising a reaction chamber, on a structure comprising the exposed layer comprising a Group III-V material on the surface, the structure being disposed on a substrate inside the reaction chamber, to obtain a cleaned surface, wherein each treatment cycle comprises: purging the reaction chamber; injecting a gas comprising ammonia, argon, and/or helium in the reaction chamber and forming a plasma from the gas in the reaction chamber, at a plasma potential, during which a bias voltage is applied to the substrate, the plasma potential being controlled independently; and depositing, on the cleaned surface, a second layer of a second material comprising: a Group III element and/or a Group V element of the periodic table; and/or a metal oxide.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmer et al (US Patent 9,190,266 B1), Andrew D. CARTER, et al, "Al2O3 Growth on (100) In0.53Ga0.47As Initiated by Cyclic Trimethylaluminum and Hydrogen Plasma Exposures", The Japan Society of Applied Physics, 2011, vol. 34, a reference submitted by Applicant, Kryliouk (PG Pub 2010/0273290 A1), and Horie (PG Pub 2013/0295768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan et al (PG Pub 2016/0293384 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Horie does not teach wherein the bias voltage is applied for at least 70% of a duration of the forming of the plasma.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan teaches the bias voltage is applied for at least 70% of a duration of the forming of the plasma (applying bias while exposing to plasma, paragraph [0007]), for the benefit of removing contamination (paragraph [0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the bias voltage for at least 70% of a duration of the forming of the plasma for the benefit of removing contamination.
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Stemmer further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein forming the plasma comprises using an inductive source (column 9, line 2), and a power of the inductive source is between 100 and 300W (column 9, line 2).
Stemmer does not teach using radiofrequency source.
In the same field of endeavor, Yan teaches radiofrequency source (RF, paragraph [0007), for the benefit of removing contamination (paragraph [0005]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use radio frequency source, for the benefit of removing contamination.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmer et al (US Patent 9,190,266 B1), Andrew D. CARTER, et al, "Al2O3 Growth on (100) In0.53Ga0.47As Initiated by Cyclic Trimethylaluminum and Hydrogen Plasma Exposures", The Japan Society of Applied Physics, 2011, vol. 34, a reference submitted by Applicant, Kryliouk (PG Pub 2010/0273290 A1), and Horie (PG Pub 2013/0295768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (PG Pub 2010/0200884 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Stemmer does not teach each treatment cycle comprises stabilizing the gas injected into the reaction chamber, and wherein the stabilizing is performed at least before forming the plasma.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a treatment cycle comprises stabilizing the gas injected into the reaction chamber, and wherein the stabilizing is performed at least before forming the plasma (column 57, lines 58-62), for the benefit of reducing pressure shock upon plasma generation (column 57, lines 58-62).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to comprise in each treatment cycle stabilizing the gas injected into the reaction chamber, and wherein the stabilizing was performed at least before forming the plasma for the benefit of reducing pressure shock upon plasma generation
Claim(s) 17,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmer et al (US Patent 9,190,266 B1), Andrew D. CARTER, et al, "Al2O3 Growth on (100) In0.53Ga0.47As Initiated by Cyclic Trimethylaluminum and Hydrogen Plasma Exposures", The Japan Society of Applied Physics, 2011, vol. 34, a reference submitted by Applicant, Kryliouk (PG Pub 2010/0273290 A1), and Horie (PG Pub 2013/0295768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiaoye QIN, et al , "Impact of N2 and forming gas plasma exposure on the growth and interfacial characteristics of Al2O3 on AIGaN", APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS, 103, 221604, 2013, a reference submitted by Applicant.
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Stemmer does not teach the exposed layer comprises a Group III-N material.
In the same field of endeavor, Qin teaches the exposed layer comprises a Group III-N material (AlGaN, page 1, left column), for the benefit of providing a device with high electron mobility (page 1, left column).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the exposed layer to comprise a Group III-N material, for the benefit of providing a device with high electron mobility.
Claim 18, Qin teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the exposed layer comprises gallium nitride (page 1, left column).
Claim 20, Qin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the microelectronic component is a transistor, and wherein the transistor comprises an active layer (AlGaN, page 1, left column) comprising a cleaned Group III-V material (page 1, left column).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stemmer et al (US Patent 9,190,266 B1), Andrew D. CARTER, et al, "Al2O3 Growth on (100) In0.53Ga0.47As Initiated by Cyclic Trimethylaluminum and Hydrogen Plasma Exposures", The Japan Society of Applied Physics, 2011, vol. 34, a reference submitted by Applicant, Kryliouk (PG Pub 2010/0273290 A1), and Horie (PG Pub 2013/0295768 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (PG Pub 2010/0200884 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Stemmer does not teach the microelectronic component is a light-emitting diode.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a light-emitting diode provides lighting with low-power consumption (paragraph [0003]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the microelectronic component a light-emitting diode, for the benefit of providing lighting with low-power consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights