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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by HIROSE et al. (US 2014/0287598 A1).
Regarding claim 1, teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
630
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
781
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A film forming method (Fig. 10) for forming a film (oxide film, abstract, para [0007]) on a workpiece (substrate, see abstract, wafer 200, para [0029], Fig. 1), the method comprising:
a process (A) of providing the workpiece in a treatment container (process chamber, para [0007], 201, para [0029], Fig. 1);
a source gas supply process (B) (“a precursor gas supply system”, para [0007]) of supplying a source gas into the treatment container (“to supply a precursor gas”, para [0007], e.g. BTCSM, BDEAS , HCDS gas , para [0022]) to absorb the source gas onto the workpiece (“precursor gas, e.g. BDEAS gas …..adsorbed onto the wafer 200”, para [0220]), and
then purging an inside of the treatment container with a first purge gas (purge gas used to remove residual gas in “residual gas removal” step 2(b) in FIG. 10);
and a reaction gas supply process (C) of supplying a reaction gas (“ozone gas”, abstract, para [0007]), into the treatment container after the source gas supply process (B) (see FIG. 10, step 2b with ozone gas supply is after step 1b with precursor gas supply) to oxidize the source gas absorbed (ozone (O.sub.3) is oxidizing gas, para [0039]) on the workpiece, and
then purging the inside of the treatment container with a second purge gas (purge gas used to remove residual gas in “residual gas removal” step 2(c) in Fig. 10),
wherein the supply of the source gas in the source gas supply process (B) is one of:
a process (b1) of supplying a first catalyst gas (TEA gas in step 2(b) in FIG. 10) into the treatment container, then performing purging with a third purge gas (purge gas used in “purge” step after step 2c in Fig. 10) into the treatment container together with the source gas (see Fig. 10, step of “return to atmospheric pressure” after step of “purge” renders all gases are purged);
a process (b2) of supplying a first catalyst gas, and then supplying the source gas;
or a process (b3) of supplying only the source gas into the treatment container,
the supply of the reaction gas in the reaction gas supply process (C) is one of:
a process (c1) of supplying a second catalyst gas (TEA gas in step 2 (c));
a process (c2) of supplying a second catalyst gas into the treatment container before supplying the reaction gas, and then performing purging with a fourth purge gas;
or a process (c3) of supplying only the reaction gas into the treatment container,
the method does not comprise the reaction gas supply process (C) being the process (c3) when the source gas supply process (B) is the process (b3) (see above, process c(1) is used with process b(1) and therefore method does not comprise process c(3) used with process b(3)), and
the first catalyst gas and the second catalyst gas are a same or different types of non- aromatic amine gas (both first and second catalyst gas are TEA as per rejection above, refer to step 2(b) and step 2(c) in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the non- aromatic amine gas is at least one type selected from a group consisting of a pyrrolidine gas, a piperidine gas, a 1,1,3,3-tetramethylguanidine gas, a 1-methylpiperidine gas, and a gas of a derivative thereof (piperdine, para [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches ,wherein the source gas is a group 4 element gas of a periodic table having no halogen ligand and/or a silicon gas having no halogen ligand (BDEAS gas as a source gas, with formula Si[N(C.sub.2H.sub.5).sub.2].sub.2H.sub.2, para [0031], is a silicon gas with no halogen ligand).
Regarding claim 5, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 4 and further teaches, wherein the source gas is represented by a general formula A.sub.m-M-B.sub.(4-m) (where A and B are each independently any one type selected from a group consisting of an R.sup.1O group, an R.sup.2R.sup.3N group, a CpR.sup.4 group, a C.sub.qH.sub.2qN group (q=4 or 5), and a hydrogen atom; in addition, R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.3, and R.sup.4 are each independently a C.sub.rH.sub.2+1 group (r≥0); M is Ti, Zr, Hf, or Si; Cp is a cyclopentadienyl ligand; and 0≤m≤4) (BDEAS with chemical formula Si(N(C2H5)2)H2, see para [0031], where M=Si, A=H, B=N(C2H5) and m=2 meets the formula as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 5 and further teaches, wherein the source gas is at least one type of gas selected from a group consisting of Si(OMe).sub.4, Si(NMe.sub.2)(OMe).sub.3, Si(NMe.sub.2).sub.2(OMe).sub.2, Si(NMe.sub.2).sub.3(OMe), Si(NMe.sub.2)(OEt).sub.3, Si(NMe.sub.2).sub.2(OEt).sub.2, Si(NMe.sub.2).sub.3(OEt), Si(NEt.sub.2)(OMe).sub.3, Si(NEt.sub.2)(OEt).sub.3, SiH(NMe.sub.2).sub.3, SiH.sub.2(NEt.sub.2).sub.2, SiH.sub.2(NHt-Bu).sub.2, Si(pyrrolidine)(OMe).sub.3, Si(pyrrolidine).sub.2(OMe).sub.2, and Si(pyrrolidine).sub.3(OMe). (BDEAS gas with chemical formula Si[N(C.sub.2H.sub.5).sub.2].sub.2H.sub.2 ,see para [0031]] which falls within the group SiH.sub.2(NEt.sub.2).sub.2 wherein Et = C2H5).
Regarding claim 7, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the reaction gas is an oxidant gas having an oxygen atom (ozone (O.sub.3) has oxygen atom).
Regarding claim 9, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the supply of the source gas and/or the first catalyst gas in the source gas supply process is performed such that a pressure in the treatment container is in a range of 13 Pa or more and 40000 Pa or less, and the supply of the reaction gas and/or the second catalyst gas in the reaction gas supply process is performed such that the pressure in the treatment container is in a range of 13 Pa or more and 40000 Pa or less (“to set the internal pressure of the process chamber 201……… more specifically, for example, 1330 Pa”, see para [0130], which is within the range as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein a temperature in the treatment container in the source gas supply process and/or the reaction gas supply process is 200 degree C or lower(200 degrees C. or less, para [0220]).
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 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 teaches d 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 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROSE et al. (US 2014/0287598 A1).
Regarding claim 2, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach , wherein an acid dissociation constant pKa of the non-aromatic amine gas at 254C is in a range of 9.5 or more and 14 or less.
But HOROSE additionally teach,
acid dissociation constant (hereinafter, referred to as pKa) of 5 to 11 (para [0066])
However, it is to be noted here that the claimed range of 9.5 or more and 14 or less and the range of 5 to 11 taught by Horose overlaps each other. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges teaches d by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HIROSE et al. and further in view TAKAMATSU YUKICHIJP (JP 2006336062 A).
Regarding claim 8, HOROSE teaches the method of claim 7 but does not explicitly teach, wherein the oxidant gas is at least one type of gas selected from a group consisting of water, hydrogen peroxide water, formic acid, and aldehyde.
BUT TAKAMATUSU teaches,
oxidant gas supply may be such as oxygen, ozone, nitrogen oxide, and water.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute ozone with water as the oxidant gas, since the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another (water for ozone) to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). (Please see Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980)).
Ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use water instead of ozone for the purpose of reducing overall manufacturing cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Loke, can be reached on (571) 272-1657. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights