DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 26, 2026 and July 24, 2026 have been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the amendment filed on June 26, 2026, claims 1 – 10, 12 – 20 are pending. Claims 1 has been amended and claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 15 – 16 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Restriction/Elections
Claims 15 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 31, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 10, 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 10 and 17:
The claims recite “… the protective layer and/or the second layer each have a dielectric constant greater than 3.” The combination of “protective layer or the second layer” and “each have a dielectric constant” is unclear because the latter clause requires the word “each” indicates that all preceding items must have the described characteristic, but the conjunction “or” indicates that only one of the protective layer/second layer is required to have the described characteristic, rendering unclear whether the scope of the claim allows for only one such layers to have the required characteristic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7 – 14, 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alptekin et al. US 2016/0013184 A1 (hereinafter “Alptekin”) in view of Sims et al. US 20200066987 A1 (hereinafter “Sims”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19:
Alptekin is directed to methods and structures to suppress finfet heating (Abstract; [0002]). As exemplified in Fig. 9, Alptekin discloses a method of depositing a semiconductor structure onto a substrate comprising:
forming a graphene layer onto the substrate (Fig. 2, Fig. 3; [0003] – [0004], [0019], [0027]);
depositing a protective layer of e.g. silicon nitride [meeting claim 3] directly onto the graphene layer (Fig. 4; [0027]); and
depositing a shallow trench isolation layer [second layer] onto at least a portion of the protective layer and graphene film, wherein the shallow trench isolation layer is formed from e.g. silicon oxide [different materials, meeting claim 9] ([0024], [0027]).
The protective layer and shallow trench isolation is deposited by a conformal vapor deposition method such as chemical vapor deposition ([0022], [0024]).
Alptekin does not expressly teach that the protective layer is deposited using a pulsed plasma deposition process.
Sims is directed to methods and apparatus for forming encapsulation bilayers over chalcogenide [2-dimensional layer] materials (Abstract). Sims discloses that their method comprises:
providing a substrate having an ovonic threshold switching (OTS) material and or phase change material, wherein the OTS material and/or phase change material, which both include an exposed chalcogenide material ([0071]; Fig. 2A);
directly depositing a first barrier layer/silicon nitride layer [protective layer, having a dielectric constant of 7.51 ] onto the exposed chalcogenide material by pulsed plasma PECVD ([0058], [0074], [0077], [0079] – [0080], [0147] – [0150]; Fig. 2B); and
directly depositing onto the first barrier layer/silicon nitride layer a second encapsulating layer/ silicon nitride layer by a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition method (PEALD) ([0058], [0074], [0077], [0079] – [0080], [0147] – [0150]; Fig. 2B).
Sims discloses that depositing the silicon nitride protective layer by a pulsed plasma PECVD or by a PEALD process results in a denser and higher quality film compared to thermal CVD methods ([0103] – [0106]).
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 Alptekin by depositing the protective film by a pulsed plasma PECVD process because Sims teaches that such protective films are denser and thus more of an encapsulation layer.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 14, 20:
Alptekin does not expressly teach that prior to the step of depositing a protective layer, depositing a protective layer onto a second substrate in the first deposition chamber, removing the second substrate from the first deposition chamber, and providing the first substrate in the first deposition chamber.
Sims discloses that their method may be practiced over a multitude of substrates within a multi-station processing tool ([0164]). One or more stations may be configured to perform PP-PECVD [relating to the creation of a protective layer] or PEALD [of a recited second layer], or both. Sims further discloses steps of loading and unloading chambers with different substrate wafers with a robot ([0179], [0182]). Sims therefore suggests complete processing and unloading of a given substrate by the method of a previously entered substrate [second substrate] and then loading of a new substrate requiring processing [first substrate] in an apparatus that performs all the steps of the method.
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 Alptekin in view of Sims to further comprise, prior to the step of depositing a protective layer on an ultimate [first] substrate, depositing a protective layer onto a penultimate [second] substrate in the first deposition chamber, removing the penultimate substrate from the first deposition chamber, and providing the ultimate [first] substrate in the first deposition chamber in order to maintain workflow throughput of multiple substrates as suggested by Sims.
Likewise regarding claim 13 in the case where the first deposition chamber is the second deposition chamber [meeting claim 20], 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 Suzuki to further comprise, prior to the step of depositing a second layer on an ultimate [first] substrate, depositing a protective layer onto an antepenultimate [third] substrate in the first deposition chamber, removing the antepenultimate substrate from the first deposition chamber, providing the penultimate substrate and subsequent removal of the penultimate substrate, and providing the ultimate [first] substrate in the first deposition chamber in order to maintain workflow throughput of multiple substrates as suggested by Sims.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alptekin in view of Sims as applied to claims 1 – 5, 7 – 14, 17 – 20 above, and further in view of Fukazawa et al. US 20140017414 A1 (hereinafter “Fukazawa”).
Regarding claim 6:
Alptekin in view of Sims does not expressly teach depositing a protective layer directly onto the substrate in a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition process comprises using a low energy plasma.
Fukazawa is directed to a method of forming conformal films of aluminum oxide with substrates having a patterned underlying layer by plasma enhanced ALD. The conformal aluminum oxide serves to encase underlying films of e.g. amorphous carbon, silicon oxide, silicon nitride, photoresist or silicon ([0017]). Fukazawa further discloses the deposition precursors may be selected from precursors following Al(CxHy)2(OCzHa), Al(CxHy) (OCzHa)2, and Al(CxHy)2(NCzHa), wherein x, y, z, and a are integers ([0018]); in contrast, the precursors of Sims are halogenated ([0057]). Fukazawa further discloses setting reactor conditions such as temperature, coreactants such as oxygen gas, argon gas, and plasma power settings (e.g. 30 to 100W) [related to low energy plasma] ([0016], [0018] – [0020], [0031] – [0038]) are set in order to minimize damage to underlying layers ([0040]).
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 Sims by forming an aluminum oxide layer directly on the graphene by atomic layer deposition because Fukazawa teaches that such a procedure and film are known dielectrics that can encapsulate underlying patterned material with minimal damage.
Furthermore, 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 Sims in view of Fukazawa to deposit using a low energy plasma2 as a matter of routine experimentation in order to successfully deposit an aluminum oxide film while minimizing damage to the underlying patterns. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Varadarajan et al. US20220399230 A1
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
1 As evidenced by EESemi.com. “Properties of SiO2 and Si3N4 at 300K” (2004). Archived version retrieved from web.archive.org for https://eesemi.com/sio2si3n4.htm.
2 “Low energy” is defined in the instant specification as plasma that is applied at a power of 100W or less as defined on page 8 line 30 to page 9 line 10 of the instant specification
Prosecution Insights