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
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 12, 2026.
Accordingly, the requirement is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-3, limitations “nitrogen/hydrogen” “nitrogen/helium”, “nitrogen/argon”, “nitrogen/ammonia”, “ammonia/helium”, “ammonia/argon” and “ammonia/nitrogen” are not written in a proper format for positively reciting mixtures of gases in claims. For the sake of clarify, Applicant is suggested to correct such claim limitations to properly recite the gas mixtures. Specifically, “nitrogen/ammonia”, and “ammonia/nitrogen” appear to be the same mixture, Applicant is suggested to remove one of limitations or further amend to specify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10, 13-14 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US20140141549) in view of Lei (US20170338109).
Regarding claim 1, Schmid teaches a method of producing an electronic component comprising moisture barrier layers for encapsulation of the component, wherein the component is inorganic light emitting diodes (LEDs) or organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) (abstract, pargraph 0003), wherein the barrier layer is formed by first barrier layers and second barrier layers being applied alternately one on top of another on a substrate (paragraph 0042), and the first and second barrier layers are silicon nitride (paragraph 0039) (multi-layered silicon nitride film). Schmid teaches the first barrier layers is formed on the substrate by plasma enhanced atomic layered deposition (PEALD) (paragraphs 0018 and 0043) and the second barrier layers are formed on the first barrier layers by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) (paragraphs 0043) (depositing on a least a portion of a surface of a substrate in a first silicon nitride film, a second silicon nitride film, and a third silicon nitride film, which together form the multi-layered silicon nitride film, in a sequence of deposition methods via alternating between PEALD and PECVD). Schmid teaches the first and second barrier layers alternately formed to create a total thickness of the barrier layer (paragraphs 0064, see figures 4 and 5), which reads on the limitation of the PEALD are repeated until a desired thickness of silicon nitride layer is obtained. It is known that PEALD and PECVD are performed on the substrate in a reactor, thus Schmid teaches placing the substrate into a first reactor. Schmid teaches the PEALD method of forming the first barrier layer (silicon nitride) comprising: feeding organometallic compound as a first precursor into the chamber to be adsorbed on the surface of the substrate (paragraphs 0012-0013, 0040), since the metal is silicon (paragraph 0039), the first precursor is silicon precursor (introducing into the reactor a silicon precursor compound under conditions sufficient to react on at least a portion of the surface to provide a chemisorbed layer); removing the silicon precursor that is not been adsorbed (purging the reactor); and feeding the second starting compound to the reactor with a plasma being simultaneously produced to react with the silicon precursor that has adsorbed a the surface to form a solid layer (paragraphs 0012-0013 and 0040), wherein the second starting compound is a nitrogen containing gas (paragraphs 0039-0040) (introducing a first plasma containing source into the reactor to react with at least a portion of the chemisorbed layer and providing at least one reactive site wherein the plasma is generated). Schmid teaches to feed both the silicon precursor and a second plasma containing source (nitrogen containing gas) to form silicon nitride, wherein plasma is generated (paragraphs 0010-0011 and 0039-0040).
Schmid does not explicitly teach the silicon precursor as claimed, the purging is done with the purge gas, and the claimed power density to generate the plasma. However, Lei teaches a method of deposing silicon nitride layer by PEALD or PECVD (abstract, paragraphs 0032 and 0033). Lei teaches the silicon precursor is
PNG
media_image1.png
126
160
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
86
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or
PNG
media_image3.png
102
234
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein R is independently selected from a hydrogen, a linear C1 to C10 alkyl group; a branched C3 to C10 alkyl group; a linear or branched C3 to C12 alkenyl group; a linear or branched C3 to C12 alkenyl group; a linear or branched C3 to C12 alkynyl group; a C4 to C10 cyclic alkyl group; and a C.6 to C10 aryl group (paragraphs 0012 and 0033), which is the same as the claimed silicon precursor. Lei further teaches the PEALD method for forming silicon nitride comprising steps of placing substrate into a reactor, introducing at least one silicon precursor compound selected from the chemical formula above, wherein at least a portion of the compound reacts under processing conditions sufficient to provide a chemisorbed layer; purging the reactor with a purge gas; d. introducing a plasma source comprising nitrogen into the reactor to react with at least a portion of the chemisorbed layer wherein the plasma is generated at a power density ranging from about 0.01 to about 1.5 W/cm2, which is the same as the claimed range. Lei further teaches energy applied to the precursor compound and nitrogen containing source by plasma generated with power density from about 0.01 to about 1.5 W/cm2 (paragraph 0040), which reads on the limitation of the power density generated for PECVD. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the silicon nitride with the PECVD and PEALD (such as same silicon precursor and plasma generating density) as suggested by Lei in the method of Schmid because Lei teaches such PEALD and PECVD is able to be performed at low temperature (which is desired by Schmid) and form a conformal, high quality silicon nitride (pargraph 0007).
Regarding claim 2, Lei teaches the first plasma containing source (nitrogen containing gas) is ammonia, hydrazine, monoalkylhydrazine, dialkylhydrazine etc (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 3, Lei teaches the second plasma containing source (nitrogen containing gas) is ammonia, hydrazine, monoalkylhydrazine, dialkylhydrazine etc (paragraphs 0036).
Regarding claim 4, Schmid teaches the first barrier layer (each of silicon nitride film formed by PEALD) has a thickness of (10 to 30nm (paragraph 0018), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. 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 5, Schmid teaches the second barrier layer (each of silicon nitride film formed by PECVD) has a thickness of 1 to 1000nm (paragraph 0019), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. 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 6, Lei teaches the silicon precursor comprises trisilylamine (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 7, Lei teaches the silicon precursor comprises bis(disilylamino)silane (paragraphs 0053 and 0022).
Regarding claim 8, Lei teaches the silicon precursor comprises tris(ethylsilly)amine (paragraph 0022).
Regarding claim 9, Schmid teaches substrate is held at the temperature of less than 120 ºC (paragraphs 0011 and 0013), which overlaps with the claimed range. Lei teaches the substate is held at temperature ranging between 20 to 500ºC, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. 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 10, Schmid teaches substrate is held at the temperature of less than 120 ºC (paragraphs 0011 and 0013), which overlaps with the claimed range. Lei teaches the substate is held at temperature ranging between 20 to 500ºC, which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. 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 13, Schmid teaches the number and thickness of the barrier layer controls the level of moisture and/oxygen diffusion though the layer (paragraph 0020) and can be have a total thickness of 100nm in one embodiment (pargraph 0064), which is inside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the thickness of the total thickness of the barrier layer to yield the desired level of moisture and/oxygen transmission. 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.
Regarding claim 14, Schmid teaches the number and thickness of the barrier layer controls the level of moisture and/oxygen diffusion though the layer (paragraph 0020) and can be have a total thickness of 100nm in one embodiment (pargraph 0064), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. 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. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the thickness of the total thickness of the barrier layer to yield the desired level of moisture and/oxygen transmission. 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.
Regarding claim 22, Lei teaches the PEALD and PECVD are conducted in different deposition chambers (pargraph 0033).
Regarding claim 23, Lei teaches the first plasma is generated directly in the reactor (paragraph 0040) (in situ).
Regarding claim 24, Lei teaches the first plasm is generated remotely (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 25, Lei teaches the plasma can be generated directly and remotely (paragraph 0040), thus, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the two plasma generating methods, directly and remotely, to generate the plasma. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements, each of which is taught be the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to forma third technique which is to be used for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US20140141549) in view of Lei (US20170338109) as applied to claims 1-10, 13-14 and 22-25 above, and further in view of Savas (US9831466).
Regarding claim 11, Schmid in view of Lei teaches all limitations, including the multi-layered silicon nitride film has a water vapor barrier functionality (low water vapor transmission rate), but not the specific water vapor transmission rate. However, Savas teaches a method of forming multi-layered structures on polymeric or other materials that provide protect underlayer layers (including OLED device) from exposure to oxygen and water vapor, wherein the multi-layer is silicon nitride (abstract). Savas teaches to achieve a useful lifetime in air, an OLED displace must be encapsulated such that the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) is less than 10-7g/m2-day (column 2 lines 40-50, column 3 line 65 to column 4 line 3). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize WVTR the barrier layer to yield the protection for the OLED to achieve the desired extended lifetime (column 3 line 65 to column 4 line 3). 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.
Regarding claim 12, Schmid in view of Lei teaches all limitations, including the multi-layered silicon nitride film has a water vapor barrier functionality (low water vapor transmission rate), but not the specific water vapor transmission rate. However, Savas teaches a method of forming multi-layered structures on polymeric or other materials that provide protect underlayer layers (including OLED device) from exposure to oxygen and water vapor, wherein the multi-layer is silicon nitride (abstract). Savas teaches to achieve a useful lifetime in air, an OLED displace must be encapsulated such that the water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) is less than 10-7g/m2-day (column 2 lines 40-50, column 3 line 65 to column 4 line 3). Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize WVTR the barrier layer to yield the protection for the OLED to achieve the desired extended lifetime (column 3 line 65 to column 4 line 3). 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid (US20140141549) in view of Lei (US20170338109) as applied to claims 1-10, 13-14 and 22-25 above, and further in view of Kuyel (US11087959).
Regarding claim 21, Schmid in view of Lei teaches all limitations of this claim, except the PEALD and PECVD are performed in the same deposition chamber. However, Kuyel teaches a method for performing PEALD and PECVID in a single hybrid design and without requiring any mechanical intervention (same chamber) (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same chamber for performing PEALD and PECVD as suggested by Kuyel in the method of Schmid in view of Lei because Kuyel teaches it allows a stack of PEALD and PECVD films to be deposited on the substrate as a part of the same recipe which is more efficient and economical than forming the stacks in two different chambers (column 4 lines 35-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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 at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights