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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 17 March 2024 and 10 July 2025. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
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 17 and 18 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.
Claim 17 drawn to a plasma enhanced chemical deposition (PECVD) apparatus for deposition silicon nitride onto a semiconductor substrate by PECVD depends from and includes all limitations of the parent base claim 1 drawn to a method of depositing silicon nitride onto a semiconductor substrate by plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition (PECVD).
The manner in which the claim is written makes unclear the required structural elements of the apparatus as many recitations in the body of the instant claim 17 are reintroduced from the method of use claim 1.
It’s unclear if and what structure of the apparatus is required to position the front surface of the semiconductor substrate on a support substate from claim 1.
Additionally, is the substrate of claim 1 the same substrate of claim 17? Is the support substrate of claim 1 is the same support substrate of claim 17? If so, claim 17 should clearly and concisely include the limitations present in the parent claim 1, rewritten as an independent claim to clearly recite the required structure of the apparatus with or without functional language. It is noted that the recitation directed towards a “substrate” (distinct from the supporting substrate) and “stack of silicon nitride layers” are not disclosed as being part of the structural scope of the apparatus itself. It’s unclear as to the structural metes and bounds of the substrate support.
Claim 18 includes and does not cure the deficiencies of claim 17.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0068648) in view of Chaung et al. (U.S. Patent 6,774,059).
Referring to Claim 15, Falk teaches in Fig. 1F (resultant structure), a structure comprising: a semiconductor substrate (100) having a front surface (106) and a rear surface (108), in which the front surface comprises a central region and an edge region surrounding the central region; one or more structures (104) formed on the central region of the front surface (106) of the semiconductor substrate (100); and a stress compensation layer (112; silicon nitride; par. 23-28) deposited onto the rear surface (108) of the semiconductor substrate (100).
Falk does not explicitly state wherein the stress compensation layer (112) is a stack of silicon nitride layers (112), wherein the stack of silicon nitride layers (112) comprises at least four layers of silicon nitride which alternate between tensile layers which are subject to a tensile stress and compressive layers which are subject to a compressive stress.
Chuang teaches in Fig. 3 and 4 forming a stress compensation layer as a stack of silicon nitride layers (14, 16, 18, 20 or 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32), wherein the stack of silicon nitride layers (14, 16, 18, 20 or 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32) comprises at least four layers of silicon nitride which alternate between tensile layers (16, 20 or 24, 28, 32) which are subject to a tensile stress and compressive layers (14, 18 or 22, 26, 30) which are subject to a compressive stress (Col. 4, Line 53 to Col. 5, Line 36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize the stack structure as taught by Chuang for the stress compensation layer of Falk in order to provide control the stress-induced issues with resistance to cracking among other benefits (Col. 6, Line 55 to Col. 7, Line 22).
Referring to Claim 16, Falk as modified by Chuang teaches the stack of silicon nitride layers onto the rear surface (108) of the semiconductor substrate (100). It is noted that Chuang forms the stack of silicon nitride layers by PECVD replacing the convention one step process with a multistep process (Col. 4, Lines 4-37).
The entire body of the claim is directed towards the process of forming the stack of silicon nitride layers. It is well settled that “product by process” limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Pilkington 162 USPQ 145, 147; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. The applicant must show that different methods of manufacturing produce articles having inherently different characteristics, Ex parte Skinner 2 USPQ 2d 1788.
It is noted that “a support substrate” and “chamber” are all part of an apparatus used during manufacturing and not comprised by the resultant claimed structure itself.
As such, the language only requires the stack of silicon nitride layers on the rear surface of the substrate, already present in claim 15, which does not distinguish the invention from Falk in view of Chuang, who teaches the structure as claimed.
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 (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 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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaung et al. (U.S. Patent 6,774,059).
As insofar as Claim 17 is definite, Chuang teaches the required structure of a plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition (PECVD) apparatus capable of the intended use of “depositing silicon nitride onto a semiconductor substrate by PECVD,” the apparatus comprising: a chamber; a substrate support disposed within the chamber capable of the intended use of “supporting a substrate, wherein the substrate support only contacts an edge region of the substrate” depending on the shape of an unspecified substrate and its positional alignment within the apparatus; at least one gas inlet for introducing a gas or gas mixture into the chamber (claims 8, 17 and 23); a plasma device for generating and sustaining a plasma in the chamber; and a controller configured to control the apparatus to deposit a stack of silicon nitride layers onto the semiconductor substrate by PECVD in accordance with claim 1, wherein the stack of silicon nitride layers comprises at least four layers of silicon nitride which alternate between tensile layers which are subject to a tensile stress and compressive layers which are subject to a compressive stress (see Fig. 3 and 4) (Col. 3, Line 39 to Col. 4, Line 3; Col. 4, Line 53 to Col. 5, Line 40).
The claim recites “for supporting a substrate, wherein the substrate support only contacts an edge region of the substrate.” The claim does not describe the substrate with any specificity that imparts any particular inherent structure for the support substrate and merely describes an intended use of the support substrate. The language does not account for how one places some undefined structure of a substrate on the support substrate. The substrate and stack of silicon nitride layers are not part of the scope of the apparatus and the claim does not define the support substrate with enough structural specificity to distinguish from the prior art.
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
As insofar as Claim 18 is definite, Chuang further teaches wherein the plasma device comprises at least one power supply device configured to supply a RF power signal to the at least one gas inlet (Col. 3, Lines 39-61; Col. 6, Lines 13-23; Col. 7, Lines 12-22).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yau et al. (U.S. Patent 4,837,185).
As insofar as Claim 17 is definite, Yau teaches in Fig. 1 and 2 the required structure of a plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition (PECVD) apparatus capable of the intended use of “depositing silicon nitride onto a semiconductor substrate by PECVD,” the apparatus comprising: a chamber (2); a substrate support (1) disposed within the chamber (2) capable of the intended use of “supporting a substrate, wherein the substrate support only contacts an edge region of the substrate” depending on the shape of an unspecified substrate and its positional alignment within the apparatus (“The substrate is positioned either horizontally or vertically depending on the type of chamber used and the type of holder used to hold the wafers or substrates”; Col. 3, Lines 26-43); at least one gas inlet for introducing a gas or gas mixture into the chamber (2); a plasma device (5) for generating and sustaining a plasma in the chamber (2); and a controller (Fig. 2) configured to control the apparatus capable to deposit a stack of silicon nitride layers onto the semiconductor substrate by PECVD in accordance with claim 1, wherein the stack of silicon nitride layers comprises at least four layers of silicon nitride which alternate between tensile layers which are subject to a tensile stress and compressive layers which are subject to a compressive stress (Col. 2, Lines 11-20; Col. 5, Lines 22-41).
The claim recites “for supporting a substrate, wherein the substrate support only contacts an edge region of the substrate.” The claim does not describe the substrate with any specificity that imparts any particular inherent structure for the support substrate and merely describes an intended use of the support substrate. The language does not account for how one places some undefined structure of a substrate on the support substrate. The substrate and stack of silicon nitride layers are not part of the scope of the apparatus and the claim does not define the support substrate with enough structural specificity to distinguish from the prior art.
The Examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
As insofar as Claim 18 is definite, Yau further teaches wherein the plasma device comprises at least one power supply device configured to supply a RF power signal to the at least one gas inlet (Col. 3, Lines 39-61; Col. 6, Lines 13-23; Col. 7, Lines 12-22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method of depositing silicon nitride onto a semiconductor substrate by plasma enhanced chemical vapour deposition (PECVD), the method comprising: positioning the front surface of the semiconductor substrate on a substrate support in a chamber, wherein the substrate support only contacts the edge region of the front surface of the semiconductor substrate in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claims 2-14 include the limitations of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishikawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0114319) teaches a PECVD apparatus (par. 45) in Fig. 3 and 4 for example, having a chamber (30); and substrate support (22) capable of making contact only on the edges of a front surface of a substrate (40); gas inlet (31); plasma device; and controller (par. 67).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights