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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuda US 2013/0171838.
Re claim 1, Okuda teaches a substrate processing apparatus (fig1) comprising:
a process chamber (201, fig1, [73]) in which a substrate (200, fig1, [73]) is processed;
a precursor gas supply system (232a, 241a and 243a, fig1, [136]) configured to supply a precursor gas to the substrate (source containing silicon, [136, 147]);
a reaction gas supply system (232b, 241b and 243b, fig1, [163]) configured to supply a reaction gas to the substrate (nitrogen containing gas, [163, 171]);
a modifying gas supply system (232d, 241d and 243d, fig1, [154]) configured to supply a modifying gas (hydrogen gas, [154, 177]) to the substrate; and
a controller (121, fig1, [117) configured to be capable of controlling the precursor gas supply system (232a, 241a and 243a, fig1, [136]), the reaction gas supply system (232b, 241b and 243b, fig1, [163]), and the modifying gas supply system (232d, 241d and 243d, fig1, [154]) so as to perform a process (fig5) including:
(a) supplying the precursor gas from the precursor gas supply system to the substrate (step 1a, fig5, [135]), with a pressure in the processing chamber set to be a first pressure (10-1000Pa, [138]), a temperature of the substrate set to be a first temperature (300-550 oC, [138]), a supply flow rate of the precursor gas set to be a first supply flow rate (100-2000sccm, [138]), and a supply time of the precursor gas set to be a first supply time (1-120 seconds, [138]);
(b) supplying the reaction gas from the reaction gas (step 4a, fig5, [161]) supply system to the substrate, with the pressure in the processing chamber set to be a second pressure (10-1000Pa, [166]), a supply flow rate of the reaction gas set to be a second supply flow rate (1000-10000sccm, [166]), and a supply time of the reaction gas set to be a second supply time (1-120 seconds, [166]); and
(c) supplying the modifying gas from the modifying gas supply system (232d, 241d and 243d, fig1, [154]) to the substrate (Step 6a, fig5, [176]).
Re claim 2, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein in (a), the first pressure is set to be 1Pa or higher and 2,666 Pa or lower (10-1000Pa, [138]), the temperature is set to be 0oC or higher and 700oC or lower (300-550 oC, [138]), the first supply flow rate is set to be 1sccm or higher and 6,000 sccm or lower (100-2000sccm, [138]), and the first supply time is set to be 1 second or longer and 10 seconds or shorter (1-120 seconds, [138]), and in (b), the second pressure is set to be 1 Pa or higher and 500 Pa or lower (10-1000Pa, [166]), the second supply flow rate is set to be 100 sccm or higher and 10,000 sccm or lower (1000-10000 Sccm, [166]), and the second supply time is set to be 1 second or longer and 180 seconds or shorter (1-120 seconds, [166]).
Regarding the language “the first supply time is set to be 1 second or longer and 10 seconds or shorter" the Examiner notes this language constitutes functional language and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Okuda teaches the apparatus with the same structure of the claimed device and manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Re claim 3, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the precursor gas is an aminosilane precursor gas (4DMAS, [147]), an inorganic halosilane precursor gas (MCS, [147]), or a halogen-group-free inorganic silane precursor gas (MS, [147]).
Re claim 4, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the aminosilane precursor gas is tetrakisdimethylaminosilane gas (4DMAS, [147]), trisdimethylaminosilane gas, bisdimethylaminosilane gas, bisdiethylaminosilane gas, bis-tertiary-butyl aminosilane gas, diisopropylaminosilane gas, or hexamethyldisilazane gas.
Re claim 5, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the inorganic halosilane precursor gas is gas (MCS, [147]), trichlorosilane gas, tetrachlorosilane gas, hexachlorodisilane gas, or octachlorotrisilane gas.
Re claim 6, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 3, wherein the halogen-group-free inorganic silane precursor gas is monosilane gas (MS, [147]), disilane gas, or trisilane gas.
Re claim 7, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reaction gas is diazene gas ([171]) or hydrazine gas ([171]).
Re claim 8, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the modifying gas is hydrogen gas ([177]).
Re claim 12, Okuda teaches a non-transitory computer-readable ([438]) recording medium storing a program ([438]) that causes the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 (fig1) to perform a process (fig5).
Re claim 13, Okuda teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium ([438]) storing a program ([438]) that causes, by a computer ([438]), a substrate processing apparatus (fig1) to perform a process a predetermined number of times (fig5), the process including:
supplying a precursor gas (source containing silicon, [136, 147]) from a precursor gas supply system (232a, 241a and 243a, fig1, [136]) to the substrate (200, fig1, [73]), with a pressure in a processing chamber set to be a first pressure (10-1000Pa, [138]), a temperature of the substrate set to be a first temperature (300-550 oC, [138]), a supply flow rate of the precursor gas set to be a first supply flow rate (100-2000sccm, [138]), and a first supply time of the precursor gas set to be a first supply time (1-120 seconds, [138]);
supplying a reaction gas (nitrogen containing gas, [163, 171]) from a reaction gas supply system (232b, 241b and 243b, fig1, [163]) to the substrate, with the pressure in the processing chamber set to be a second pressure (10-1000Pa, [166]), a supply flow rate of the reaction gas set to be a second supply flow rate (1000-10000sccm, [166]), and a supply time of the reaction gas set to be a second supply time (1-120 seconds, [166]); and
supplying a modifying gas (hydrogen gas, [154, 177]) from a modifying gas supply system (232d, 241d and 243d, fig1, [154]) to the substrate.
Re claim 14, Okuda teaches a method of processing a substrate (200, fig1 and 5, [73]), comprising:
forming a predetermined film (silicon nitride, [125]) on the substrate by performing, in the substrate processing apparatus of claim 1 (fig1), a process a predetermined number of times (fig5), the process including: supplying a precursor gas (source containing silicon, [136, 147]) to the substrate; supplying a reaction gas (nitrogen containing gas, [163, 171]) to the substrate; and supplying a modifying gas (hydrogen gas, [154, 177]) to the substrate.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda US 2013/0171838 in view of Ito US 2012/0315394.
Re claim 11, Okuda teaches the substrate processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein in (a), the first pressure is set to be 665 Pa or higher and 1,333 Pa or lower (931Pa, [244]), the first temperature is set to be 40oC or higher and 500oC or lower (300-550 oC, [138]), and the first supply time is set to be 1 second or longer and 3 seconds or shorter (1-120 seconds, [138]), and wherein in (b), the second supply flow rate is set to be 1,000 sccm or higher and 2,000 sccm or lower (1000-10000 sccm, [166]), and the second supply time is set to be 1 second or longer and 60 seconds or shorter (1-120 seconds, [166]).
Okuda does not explicitly show the first supply flow rate is set to be 2000 sccm or higher and 3,000 sccm or lower.
Ito teaches the first supply flow rate of a silicon source DCS set to 100 sccm to 3,000 sccm ([94]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Okuda and Ito to change the flow controller for the silicon source to 100 sccm to 3,000 sccm with increased range to improve film uniformity and forming rate (Ito, [37, 95]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding arguments about all the claims applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 XIAOMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-8pm, 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, Christine S Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/XIAOMING LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights