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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “consisting essential of nitrogen” is grammatically improper. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim will be examined as if the text was “consisting essentially of”, in line with the claim interpretation below.
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." This interpretation at present affects Claims 3, 4, 12-17 by virtue of Claim 12, and 18-20 by virtue of Claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Under the claim interpretation discussed above, Claim 3 requires a gas comprising nitrogen and hydrogen; Claim 4, only requiring a gas comprising nitrogen, fails to include all the limitations of Claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shero ‘628 (U.S. PGPub 2022/0254628).
Claim 1 – Shero ‘628 teaches a method for forming an amorphous boron nitride layer (PG 0020, PG 0070), the method comprising:
seating a non-planar substrate within a reaction chamber (PG 0035, PG 0025 for non-planar substrates); and
depositing an amorphous boron nitride layer on the non-planar substrate by performing one or more deposition cycles of a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process (PG 0031, PG 0034), wherein a unit deposition cycle of the PEALD process comprises:
contacting the non-planar substrate with a vapor phase reactant comprising a boron precursor (PG 0040); and
contacting the non-planar substrate with one or more reactive species generated from a plasma produced from a gas selected from the group consisting of hydrogen (H2), alkyl-hydrazine derivates, and mixtures thereof (PG 0047, substituted hydrazine which is an alkyl-hydrazine derivate; PG 0053, hydrogen may be included; PG 0054, plasma may be generated),
wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited conformally with a step coverage greater than 90% (PG 0060).
Claim 2 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the boron precursor comprises boron triiodide (BI3) (PG 0043).
Claim 7 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a dielectric constant of less than 4 (PG 0071).
Claim 8 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a dielectric constant of less than 3 (PG 0071).
Claim 9 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a composition ratio of boron to nitrogen of 1:1 or greater (PG 0071).
Claim 10 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a wet etch rate ratio (WERR) of less than 0.2 (PG 0067).
Claim 11 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more reactive species are generated by a direct plasma (PG 0054, in-situ plasma).
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.
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(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shero ‘628.
Claim 5 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest the limitation further comprising heating the non-planar substrate to a deposition temperature between 150 °C and 350 °C. The claimed temperature range is not identically disclosed, but PG 0037 discloses multiple temperature ranges which overlap the claimed temperature range. Selection of a suitable deposition temperature commensurate with the claim in view of the broad guidance provided in Shero ‘628 is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection.
Claim 6 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest the limitation wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited at a growth rate per cycle (GPC) between 0.2 nm/cycle and 0.4 nm/cycle. The claimed GPC is not identically disclosed, but PG 0058 discloses a GPC of greater than 0.2 nanometers per cycle which overlap the claimed GPC range. Selection of a suitable GPC commensurate with the claim in view of the overlapping GPC range provided in Shero ‘628 is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results accruing from the selection.
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shero ‘628, and further in view of Blanquart ‘996 (U.S. PGPub 2022/0076996).
Claim 3 – Shero ‘628 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plasma is produced from a gas consisting essentially of nitrogen (N2) and hydrogen (H2). Shero ‘628 does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the nitrogen reactive species are generated from a gas consisting essentially of nitrogen and hydrogen. Blanquart ‘996 discloses cyclical plasma-enhanced deposition processes (PG 0085) for depositing boron nitride (PG 0064) and discloses that co-reactants may consist of nitrogen gas (PG 0080) and that known plasma ignition gases for the process include nitrogen and/or hydrogen (PG 0118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Shero ‘628 to use a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen as the source for nitrogen reactive species as disclosed by Blanquart ‘996, as both references seek to deposit boron nitride by plasma enhanced cyclical processes and Blanquart ‘996 discloses alternative materials to those disclosed in Shero ‘628 which are suitable for the same purpose.
Claim 4 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996 renders obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the plasma is produced from a gas consisting essentially of nitrogen (N2) (Blanquart ‘996 PG 0118, nitrogen disclosed independently).
Claim 12 – Shero ‘628 teaches a method for forming an amorphous boron nitride layer (PG 0020, PG 0070), the method comprising:
seating a substrate within a reaction chamber (PG 0035); and
depositing an amorphous boron nitride layer on the substrate by performing one or more deposition cycles of a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process (PG 0031, PG 0034), wherein a unit deposition cycle of the PEALD process comprises:
contacting the substrate with a vapor phase reactant comprising a boron triiodide (BI3) precursor (PG 0043); and
contacting the substrate with nitrogen reactive species (PG 0047, substituted hydrazine as nitrogen precursor).
Shero ‘628 does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the nitrogen reactive species are generated from a gas consisting essentially of nitrogen (N2). Blanquart ‘996 discloses cyclical plasma-enhanced deposition processes (PG 0085) for depositing boron nitride (PG 0064) and discloses that co-reactants may consist of nitrogen gas (PG 0080) and that known plasma ignition gases for the process include nitrogen and/or hydrogen (PG 0118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Shero ‘628 to use a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen as the source for nitrogen reactive species as disclosed by Blanquart ‘996, as both references seek to deposit boron nitride by plasma enhanced cyclical processes and Blanquart ‘996 discloses alternative materials to those disclosed in Shero ‘628 which are suitable for the same purpose.
Claim 13 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein the substrate comprises a non-planar substrate including a number of high aspect ratio features having an aspect ratio greater than 20:1 (Shero ‘628 PG 0025).
Claim 14 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited conformally over the non-planar substrate with a step coverage greater than 90% (Shero ‘628 PG 0060).
Claim 15 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a dielectric constant of less than 3 (Shero ‘628 PG 0071).
Claim 16 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996 renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a wet etch rate ratio (WERR) of less than 0.2 (Shero ‘628 PG 0067).
Claim 17 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996 renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein a plasma power is between 100 W and 800 W (Shero ‘628 PG 0054, e.g. 500 W).
Claim 18 – Shero ‘628 teaches a method forming an amorphous boron nitride layer (PG 0020, PG 0070), the method comprising:
seating a substrate within a reaction chamber (PG 0035); and
depositing an amorphous boron nitride layer on the substrate by performing one or more deposition cycles of a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process (PG 0031, PG 0034), wherein a unit deposition cycle of the PEALD process comprises:
contacting the substrate with a vapor phase reactant comprising boron triiodide (BI3) (PG 0043); and
contacting the substrate with one or more reactive species generated from a plasma produced from a gas containing nitrogen (N2), and hydrogen (H2) (PG 0047, substituted hydrazine).
Shero ‘628 does not fairly teach or suggest wherein the nitrogen reactive species are generated from a gas consisting essentially of nitrogen and hydrogen. Blanquart ‘996 discloses cyclical plasma-enhanced deposition processes (PG 0085) for depositing boron nitride (PG 0064) and discloses that co-reactants may consist of nitrogen gas (PG 0080) and that known plasma ignition gases for the process include nitrogen and/or hydrogen (PG 0118). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Shero ‘628 to use a mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen as the source for nitrogen reactive species as disclosed by Blanquart ‘996, as both references seek to deposit boron nitride by plasma enhanced cyclical processes and Blanquart ‘996 discloses alternative materials to those disclosed in Shero ‘628 which are suitable for the same purpose.
Claim 19 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996 renders obvious the method of claim 18, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a composition ratio of boron to nitrogen of 1:1, or greater (Shero ‘628 PG 0066, stoichiometric composition is 1:1).
Claim 20 – Shero ‘628 / Blanquart ‘996 renders obvious the method of claim 18, wherein the amorphous boron nitride layer is deposited with a wet etch rate ratio (WERR) of less than 0.2 (Shero ‘628 PG 0067).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712