DETAILED ACTION
After the Restriction Requirement filed on September 1, 2026, claims 1 – 19 are pending. Claims 20 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 19 in the reply filed on September 1, 2019 is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 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 claim 15:
Claim 15 requires that the pressure within the reaction chamber during the pretreatment step is “between greater than 3000 Pa and 4000 Pa…” it is unclear what range is being claimed as it is unclear if the claim requires a range between greater than 3000 Pa and greater than 4000 Pa, a value greater than the range of 3000 Pa and 4000Pa , or if the intention is to require a pressure within the values of 3000 Pa to 4000 Pa.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda et al. US 2021/0225643 A1 (hereinafter “Kuroda”).
Regarding claims 1, 15:
Kuroda is directed to methods and systems for pretreating a surface prior to depositing silicon nitride on the surface (Abstract; [0001]). Kuroda discloses a process of forming a silicon nitride layer on the surface of the substrate comprising (Fig. 1):
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber ([0009]; [0038]; Claim 1);
bringing the reaction chamber to a desired temperature and pressure, wherein the pressure may be any value between 0.1 to about 50 Torr (13 – 6666 Pa; [0040], [0043]);
afterwards, pretreating the surface of the substrate within the reaction chamber, wherein the pretreating comprises exposing the substrate to activated species formed from one or more provided gases comprising nitrogen and hydrogen in order to form N––H and N––H2 bonds on to the surface of the substrate ([0038], [0049]; Claim 1); and
afterwards, depositing silicon nitride onto the pretreated substrate surface ([0050]; Claim 1).
Kuroda does not expressly teach an embodiment of their method wherein the pressure of the reaction chamber during the step of performing pretreatment is greater than or equal to 3000 Pa.
However, Kuroda does expressly teach an overlapping range.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 18:
Kuroda discloses that silicon nitride can be deposited with a cyclic deposition method such as atomic layer deposition ([0009], [0032] – [0034]). Kuroda discloses that the cyclical deposition process comprises ([0050]):
pulse exposing the substrate to a [silicon] precursor such as SiI4 , silane, disilane, ect [meeting claims 8, 9] and then ceasing flow of the precursor [meeting claim 18] ([0043], [0050], [0052]);
exposing the substrate coated with the precursor to a nitrogen reactant ([0050]);
pulsing a plasma power for creating activated species from reactants, such as the nitrogen reactant ([0005], [0054], [0075] – [0081], [0088] – [0094]); and
repeating the steps of the process n times until a suitable thickness is achieved [greater than 1].
Regarding claim 6, 10, 12, 13:
Kuroda discloses that the activated species for forming silicon nitride may derived from one or more of N2, H2, NH3 and/or N2H4 and that such gases can be continuously supplied during formation of the SiN film ([0009]). In examples, Kuroda discloses that N2 and H2 is supplied continuously during pretreatment ([0068], [0074]). Additionally, Kuroda discloses that the nitrogen and hydrogen reactant gas(es) can be combined with inert gases such as argon and helium ([0009]).
Regarding claim 7:
Kuroda discloses that the substrate to be pretreated may be e.g. silicon or silicon oxide ([0041], [0068], [0074]).
Regarding claim 11:
Kuroda discloses that the amount of hydrogen can range between 0.3% volumetric to 100% volumetric relative to an amount of nitrogen ([0046]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14:
Kuroda discloses that the power of the plasma during pretreatment may be e.g. 600 W ([0068]).
Regarding claim 16, 17:
Kuroda discloses that the temperature of the chamber during the full process – including the pretreatment step – may be between about e.g. 200°C and about 500°C ([0040]). In an example, Kuroda discloses that the temperature may be e.g. 450 °C and tha the treatment time may be 150 seconds ([0074]).
Claims 4, 5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda as applied to claims 1 – 3, 6 – 18 above, and further in view of Ruoho et al. US 20240379347 A1 (hereinafter “Ruoho”).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 4, 5, 19:
Kuroda discloses a desire to reduce damage to a substrate surface that may occur during a pretreatment process while still achieving lower incubation and high throughput ([0048]).
Kuroda does not expressly teach an embodiment of their method wherein a pressure within the reaction chamber during the step of performing a pretreatment is greater than a pressure within the reaction chamber during the step of depositing the silicon nitride.
Ruoho is directed to methods and systems for selectively depositing a material comprising silicon and nitrogen onto a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface. Ruoho discloses that prior to the deposition of such films, the substrate may be pretreated with a pretreatment agent, which in Ruoho’s case would be a chlorine pretreatment ([0007], [0061]). Ruoho further discloses that the chamber pressure during pretreatment and the chamber pressure during deposition may be independently set, and that the pressure in the reaction space may be higher, lower, or the same as the pressure in the reaction space during the deposition step ([0083]) as required to optimize deposition processes. Ruoho discloses that higher pressure can improve properties by e.g. increasing the propbability for surface reactions to occur on active sites of a surface, including substrate surfaces ([0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ruoho by selecting a pretreatment pressure that is greater than the pressure during deposition (including where the pretreatment pressure is 150% more than deposition pressure and the specific ranges recited in claim 19) as a matter of routine experimentation in order to obtain optimized surface group interactions. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 4, 5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda as applied to claims 1 – 3, 6 – 18 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. US 2024/0203706 A1 (hereinafter “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 4, 5, 19:
Kuroda discloses a desire to reduce damage to a substrate surface that may occur during a pretreatment process while still achieving lower incubation and high throughput ([0048]).
Kuroda does not expressly teach an embodiment of their method wherein a pressure within the reaction chamber during the step of performing a pretreatment is greater than a pressure within the reaction chamber during the step of depositing the silicon nitride.
In analogous art, Zhao is directed to methods of depositing films by atomic layer deposition (Abstract). Zhao discloses that prior to a deposition cycle and after a cycle of deposition (which Zhao also treats as a substrate), the substrate surface may be activated [pretreated] in a plasma treatment step ([0008], [0015], [0019], [0053]). Kuroda further discloses adjusting the source power for the plasma treatment can be adjusted to provide sufficient ion energy to cause surface modification, but also to prevent substantial sputtering ([0030]). The ion energy however can also be reduced by increasing chamber pressure or increasing RF frequency.
In view of the prior art as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ruoho by selecting a pretreatment pressure that is greater than the pressure during deposition (including where the pretreatment pressure is 150% more than deposition pressure and the specific ranges recited in claim 19) as a matter of routine experimentation in view of Kuroda’s desire to control the amount of damage during a pretreatment process, and Zhao’s teaching that the amount of potential energy that can damage substrates can also be controlled by process pressure. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights