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 .
Election/Restrictions
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/18/2026. Applicant has elected Group I and Species Ai, corresponding to claims 1-8, 12-17.
Invention Group II and Species Aii, corresponding to 9-11 and 18-19, is withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The specification submitted 3/8/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 3/8/2024 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
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, 3-5, 7, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Knapp-681 (US 20100151681)
Regarding Claim 1, Knapp-681 teaches a method of processing a substrate (see Fig. 6C and corresponding text), comprising:
forming a film containing a first element (titanium) and a second element (nitrogen) different from the first element on the substrate (feature 40; see [0025, 37]) by performing a process a predetermined number of times ([0044]), the process including:
(a) supplying a first gas (TiCl4) containing the first element (titanium) and a halogen element (chlorine) to the substrate;
(b) supplying a second gas (NH3) containing the second element (nitrogen) to the substrate;
(c) supplying a third gas (first SiH4 pulse) containing a third element (silicon) and having a reducing character to the substrate (silane has this physical property intrinsically); and
(d) supplying a fourth gas (second SiH4 pulse) containing a fourth element (silicon) and having a reducing character to the substrate (silane has this physical property intrinsically),
wherein (a) and (d) are performed consecutively, and (b) and (c) are performed consecutively (shown in Fig. 6C).
Regarding Claim 3, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the film does not contain at least one selected from the group of the third element and the fourth element ([0045] teaches that no significant silicon was incorporated in the film).
Regarding Claim 4, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein between (b) and (c), a state, in which at least one selected from the group of the second gas and the third gas exists in a space where the substrate exists, is maintained (see Fig. 6C and see also [0048]).
Regarding Claim 5, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein between (b) and (c), a space where the substrate exists is not purged (see Fig. 6C and see also [0048]).
Regarding Claim 7, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein between (b) and (c), a space where the substrate exists is not vacuum-exhausted in a state where a gas is not supplied to the substrate (see Fig. 6C and see also [0048]).
Regarding Claim 14, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first element is a metal element (titanium), and the film is a metal element-containing film (TiCl4).
Regarding Claim 15, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the third element is a Group XIII element, a Group XIV element, or a Group XV element (silicon is Group XIV).
Regarding Claim 16, Knapp-681 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the fourth element is a Group XIII element, a Group XIV element, or a Group XV element (silicon is Group XIV).
Regarding Claim 17, Knapp-681 teaches the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1 (see essentially the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 1, 3-8, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ogawa-269 (US # 20200194269)
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa-269 teaches a method of processing a substrate (200), comprising:
forming a film (TiN film; see [0096, 106]) containing a first element (titanium) and a second element (nitrogen) different from the first element on the substrate by performing a process (see [0126]) a predetermined number of times ([0096]), the process including:
(a) supplying a first gas (TiCl4; [0090, 101]) containing the first element and a halogen element (chlorine) to the substrate;
(b) supplying a second gas (NH3; [0093, 103]) containing the second element to the substrate;
(c) supplying a third gas (SiH4) containing a third element (silicon) and having a reducing character to the substrate ([0104] describes silane as reducing gas); and
(d) supplying a fourth gas (SiH4) containing a fourth element and having a reducing character to the substrate (silane fits that recitation),
wherein (a) and (d) are performed consecutively ([0091]), and (b) and (c) are performed consecutively ([0104]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the film does not contain at least one selected from the group of the third element and the fourth element ([0053, 62, 67, 118-119] says TiN film does not contain silicon atom).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein between (b) and (c), a state, in which at least one selected from the group of the second gas and the third gas exists in a space where the substrate exists, is maintained ([0104] teaches that NH3 stops at the same time that SiH4 starts to flow).
Regarding Claim 5, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein between (b) and (c), a space where the substrate exists is not purged ([104], especially see the fourth embodiment).
Regarding Claim 6, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein between (b) and (c), a space where the substrate exists is not vacuum-exhausted in a state where a gas is not supplied to the substrate ([104, 105, 109]).
Regarding Claim 7, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein (c) is started after a start of (b) ([104, 105]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 7, wherein (c) is started simultaneously with an end of (b) ([104]).
Regarding Claim 12 and 13, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the third gas ([0104] SiH4 after NH3) or a fourth gas (claim 13: [0091] SiH4 after TiCl4) is a modifying gas that increases a proportion of crystal grains oriented in a predetermined crystal plane in the film ([0091, 104] describe a process that would increase the crystal grains as claimed because it has the same parameters as the method of the applicant’s claimed invention).
Regarding Claim 14, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first element is a metal element (titanium), and the film is a metal element-containing film (TiN).
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the third and fourth elements are a Group XIII element, a Group XIV element, or a Group XV element ([0091, 117] teaches silicon, which is a Group XIV element).
Regarding Claim 17, Ogawa-269 teaches the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of Claim 1 (see essentially the rejection of claim 1).
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, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knapp-681 (US 20100151681) in view of Ashihara-496 (US # 20180190496).
Regarding Claim 2, although Knapp-681 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the third gas has a higher decomposition temperature than the fourth gas.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Ashihara-496 is in the same or analogous field (TiN cyclic formation method with a reducing agent supplied in gas form), and it teaches method of Claim 1, wherein the third gas has a higher decomposition temperature than the fourth gas ([0033, 37] teaches four alternatives for a reducing agent with different decomposition temperatures: an H-containing gas (which has relatively high thermal stability) and others such as an NH.sub.3 gas, a diborane (B.sub.2H.sub.6) gas, a silane (SiH.sub.4) gas).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the second silane pulse of Knapp-681 with the H2 reducing gas suggested by Ashihara-496 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Ashihara-496 would be to employ a method of Claim 1, wherein the third gas has a higher decomposition temperature than the fourth gas. The rationale for this obvious modification is the simple substitution of one known reducing gas for another drawn from a single listed group offered for a single role (MPEP 2143(I)(B); MPEP 2144.06, art-recognized equivalence), with the predictable result that the reducing function at the NH3 step is retained. Knapp-681 supplies an independent reason to prefer a non-silicon reducing gas at that position: the stated object of the FIG. 6C investigation was silicon incorporation, and FIG. 6C achieved none ([0045]), so nothing in the FIG. 6C sequence depends on the second reducing pulse being a silicon source. It is noted for the record that Knapp-681 presents the relationship between silane exposure and film resistivity as a tunable advantage rather than as a drawback ([0064] states the causal relationship; [0066-67] describe the resulting range as advantageous), so no reason to substitute is drawn from that passage. The claimed decomposition-temperature relationship is not a further modification; it is the natural consequence of the substitution, and a physical property of a combination that the art suggests for its own reasons does not defeat obviousness (MPEP 2112(II); In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The claim does not require the third element to be a Group XIII, XIV or XV element (that is claim 15, which is not rejected on this combination).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights