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 § 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.
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) 1-13, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang ‘411 (U.S. PGPub 2002/0066411).
Claim 1 – Chiang ‘411 discloses a method for depositing a film on a substrate in a chamber, comprising the steps of providing a substrate in the chamber; performing one or more cycles of an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process; adjusting a temperature of the substrate to a first temperature; introducing a first reactant gas into the chamber; adjusting a temperature of the substrate to a second temperature; and introducing a second reactant gas into the chamber (see paragraph [0030] and claim 1). Claim 1 differs from Chiang ‘411 in that a first temperature is below a pyrolysis temperature of the precursor; and during at least a portion of (b ), the substrate is at a second temperature above the pyrolysis temperature. However, the different features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0030]: the first temperature can be chosen to be a lower level such that decomposition or desorption of the adsorbed first reactant does not occur, and the second temperature can be chosen to be of a higher level such that comparably greater deposition rate and film purity can be achieved). Accordingly, claim 1 would have been obvious over Chiang ‘411.
The additional feature of claim 2 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0037]: a purge gas can be used in conjunction to speed evacuation/removal of any excess second reactant, wherein a pressure in the chamber is controlled)
The additional feature of claim 3 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0037]; express disclosure of transition back to the first temperature).
The additional feature of claim 4 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0037]; any particular duration of purge step in the absence of unexpected results derived therefrom is held to be prima facie obvious, as the length of time of the purge step is necessarily related to the degree of excess material removed from the chamber).
The additional feature of claim 5 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see claims 16, 19, 22: a pressure in the chamber is controlled, wherein a low pressure is less than 1 torr and a high pressure is between about 3 and 10 torr; selection of a value of 5-10 torr is prima facie obvious).
The additional feature of claim 6 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see claims 16, 22: a pressure in the chamber is controlled, wherein a low pressure is less than 1 torr; selection of e.g. less than 0.1 Torr is prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection).
The additional feature of claim 7 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (selections of particular pressures for particular steps, in the absence of unexpected results derived therefrom, are held as prima facie obvious).
The additional feature of claim 8 is identical to the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0035]: the purge gas comprising an inert gas (e.g., Ar, H2, He)).
The additional feature of claim 9 is identical to the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0035]: the purge gas comprising an inert gas (e.g. H2)).
The additional feature of claim 10 is identical to the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see claim 6: the second temperature is between about 200°C and 600°C).
The additional feature of claim 11 would be easily derived from the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see claims 4, 6: the first temperature is between about -40°C and 300°C, and the second temperature is between about 200°C and 600°C).
The additional feature of claim 12 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0019]: a plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition).
The additional feature of claim 13 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0019]: a plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition; selection of a particular plasma power is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection).
The additional feature of claim 18 is identical to the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0015]: the ALD process forms a conformal film).
The additional feature of claim 20 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see paragraph [0007]: the substrate comprises features; selection of a particular aspect ratio of said features is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of any unexpected results derived from the selection).
The additional feature of claim 21 is merely a variation of the disclosure of Chiang ‘411 (see claim 16: increasing a temperature of the substrate and having a heat transferring gas between a pedestal and the substrate).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang ‘411 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukuzawa ‘559 (U.S. PGPub 2017/0342559).
Claims 14-17 – Chiang ‘411 does not disclose a particular film to be deposited and therefore does not disclose particular precursors. Fukuzawa ‘559 is drawn to a PEALD process (PG 0055) and discloses the desirable formation of e.g. SiCON films (PG 0043). 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 Chiang ‘411 to deposit films containing silicon, carbon, oxygen, and/or nitrogen as suggested by Fukuzawa ‘559, and in particular to use precursors suggested therein as they are known to be suitable for PEALD processes. Fukuzawa ‘559 PG 0036-0037 discuss silicon-based precursors; PG 0038-0039 discuss carbon-based precursors; PG 0045 discusses oxygen and nitrogen precursors.
Claim 19– Chiang ‘411 does not disclose a particular film to be deposited and therefore does not disclose particular precursors. Fukuzawa ‘559 is drawn to a PEALD process (PG 0055) and discloses the desirable formation of e.g. SiCN films (PG 0043). 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 Chiang ‘411 to deposit films containing silicon, carbon, and nitrogen as suggested by Fukuzawa ‘559, and in particular to use precursors suggested therein as they are known to be suitable for PEALD processes. Fukuzawa ‘559 PG 0036-0037 discuss silicon-based precursors; PG 0038-0039 discuss carbon-based precursors; PG 0045 discusses nitrogen precursors. Controlling the PEALD process to produce e.g. a carbon-doped silicon nitride film is held as prima facie obvious.
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
Prosecution Insights