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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Method for forming a silicon film on a substrate by simultaneously supplying a silane-based gas and a termination gas
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 1-6 and 8-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a surface” in l. 3. Since there is a previous recitation of “a surface” in l. 2 it is unclear whether applicants intended to refer to the same surface or to a different surface. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “the surface.” Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-9 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the preparing the surface" in l. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0263105 to Hasebe, et al. (hereinafter “Hasebe”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2007/0074652 to Dutartre, et al. (“Dutartre”).
Regarding claim 1, Hasebe teaches a film forming method for forming a silicon film on a surface (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-13, and entire reference which teach a method of forming a Si film (4) on the surface of a substrate (1)), the film forming method comprising:
Forming a silicon film on a surface during a certain period, wherein the forming the silicon film simultaneously supplies a silane-based gas and a termination gas to the surface during at least a part of the certain period (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0040]-[0074] which teach a step (2) of forming an amorphous silicon film (4) on a seed layer (3) formed on a substrate (1) by supplying silane gas (SiH4) for a predetermined duration).
Hasebe does not explicitly teach supplying silane with a termination gas which includes an element having an electronegativity lower than an electronegativity of hydrogen, and the forming the silicon film includes terminating a dangling bond of silicon in the silicon film with the element. However, in Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0056]-[0079] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Dutartre teaches an analogous method of depositing a Si-based film on a substrate using a silane-based gas such as SiH4. In ¶¶0064]-[0069] Dutartre specifically teaches the desirability of continuously passivating the surface during Si film growth in order to make the surface less sensitive to impurities and/or to make surface diffusion occur more slowly. In ¶[0031] and ¶[0066] Dutartre specifically teaches that the surface may be passivated by supplying silane in combination with a termination gas such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) during Si film growth in step (2). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize a termination gas such as HCl which includes an element (Cl) having an electronegativity lower than hydrogen and passivates Si dangling bonds during Si film growth with the motivation for doing so being to make the surface less sensitive to impurities and/or to make surface diffusion occur more slowly such that a higher quality Si thin film can be formed.
Regarding claim 2, Hasebe does not teach that the termination gas is a hydrogen halide gas. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in ¶¶0064]-[0069] Dutartre specifically teaches the desirability of continuously passivating the surface during Si film growth in order to make the surface less sensitive to impurities and/or to make surface diffusion occur more slowly with ¶[0031] and ¶[0066] specifically teaching that the surface may be passivated by supplying silane in combination with a termination gas such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) during Si film growth in step (2). Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would utilize a termination gas comprised of a hydrogen halide such as HCl during Si film growth in step (2) with the motivation for doing so being to make the surface less sensitive to impurities and/or to make surface diffusion occur more slowly such that a higher quality Si thin film can be formed.
Regarding claim 4, Hasebe teaches that the silane-based gas is a disilane gas (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0065]-[0066] which teach the use of Si2H4 or Si2H6 as the silane-containing precursor).
Regarding claim 6, Hasebe teaches forming a seed layer on the substrate by supplying an aminosilane-based gas to the substrate before the forming the silicon film on the surface formed by a surface of the seed layer (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0040]-[0074] which teach a step (1) of forming a seed layer (2) on the substrate (1) by supplying an aminosilane-based gas to the substrate before forming the Si film (4)).
Regarding claim 8, Hasebe teaches preparing the surface on which the silicon film is to be formed, wherein the surface is formed by a surface of a substrate or is formed by a surface of a seed layer formed on the substrate (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0040]-[0074] which teach that the surface is prepared by forming a seed layer (3) in step (1) prior to film growth in step (2)).
Regarding claim 9, Hasebe teaches that the preparing the surface is performed at a first temperature, and the forming the silicon film are performed at the first temperature (see Figs. 1-2 and ¶¶[0040]-[0074] which teach that forming the amorphous silicon film (4) in step (2) may involve preparing the surface by heating the substrate to a process temperature of 500 °C and performing film growth at this process temperature).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Dutartre and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2011/0061733 to Hurley, et al. (“Hurley”).
Regarding claim 3, Hasebe and Dutartre do not teach that the termination gas is a hydrogen fluoride gas. In at least ¶¶[0019]-[0032] and ¶¶[0047]-[0063] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Hurley teaches an analogous method of depositing a Si film by CVD from precursor gases which include silane, hydrogen, and halogen-containing gases such as HCl, HF, HBr, and HI in order to, inter alia, improve its electrical current generating capabilities, to reduce the number of defects, and/or minimize the effect of impurities. In this regard, HF is considered to be a known hydrogen halide which may be substituted in place of or in combination with HCl in the method of Hasebe and Dutartre to obtain the same or a similar effect. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize HF in place of or in combination with HCl as the termination gas in the method of Hasebe and Dutartre for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute known equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasebe in view of Dutartre and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2015/0372226 to Apodaca, et al. (“Apodaca”).
Regarding claim 5, Hasebe and Dutartre do not teach that the forming the silicon film supplies the silane-based gas to the surface without supplying the termination gas during a predetermined period within the certain period. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0011]-[0017] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Apodaca teaches an analogous method of depositing a higher quality Si layer which preferentially deposits on certain surfaces by simultaneously flowing a Si precursor with HCl as an etchant gas. However, this has the disadvantage of slowing down the deposition rate as Si atoms are simultaneously deposited and etched from the surface. In ¶[0016] Apodaca teaches that in order to reduce the overall processing time the time period during which a high quality layer is required by flowing both the Si precursor and HCl gas is limited to portions of the deposited structure which actually require a higher quality film . When a higher quality is not required the HCl flow is turned off so that a lower quality, but more rapid deposition rate is obtained. Thus, a PHOSITA prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to supply only the silane-based gas without supplying the HCl gas during predetermined time periods in the method of Hasabe and Dutartre in order to increase the growth rate during periods when a higher quality layer is not required and thereby reduce the overall deposition time.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed June 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ proposed amendment to the title has been reviewed, but is not accepted because the elected claims are directed to a method while the title further recites an apparatus. A proposed replacement title has been provided by the Examiner.
Applicants argue that Dutartre only teaches supplying HCl as a termination gas during a preparation step and not during the Si film growth step. Id. at pp. 2-3. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive as it is based on features which are not claimed. As amended, claim 1 merely forming a Si film during a certain period by supplying a silane-based gas and a termination gas to the surface during at least part of the certain period. There is no specific requirement that the deposited film have a certain thickness or that HCl be supplied continuously during the entirety of the film growth process. At least ¶[0031] and ¶[0066] of Dutartre specifically teach that the surface may be passivated by supplying silane in combination with a termination gas such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) during at least the onset of Si film growth in step (2). Thus, a PHOSITA would utilize a termination gas such as HCl during at least a portion of the Si film growth process in the method of Hasebe with the motivation for doing so being to make the surface less sensitive to impurities and/or to make surface diffusion occur more slowly such that a higher quality Si thin film can be formed. In this case, even if the termination gas is supplied for only a short period at the onset of film growth or the deposited film has a very limited thickness, this still reads upon the language of claim 1 as a Si film is formed by supplying a silane-based gas and a termination gas as claimed. Alternatively, reference is also made to the rejection of claim 3 in which Hurley teaches film growth by supplying both silane and a halide during the entirety of the film growth process to improve the properties of the deposited thin film.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights