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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected. Claim 1 is amended and claims 2-12 are newly added. Claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11 and 12 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the method as claimed can be practiced by hand with an operator performing the process as opposed to a computer.
Inventions I and III are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process, for example, to supply gases other than a Mo-based gas, a B2H6 or PH3 gas, or Ar gas. Alternatively, the method can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus, such as one that does not have a controller, where the process is performed by a user.
Inventions II and III are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design and mode of operation, where invention II is a computer program for controlling a process and invention III is an apparatus for carrying out the process capable of performing other operations than those described by invention II. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11 and 12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Degai, US 2017/0092503 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Degai teaches a method of processing a substrate (a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device by forming a film on a substrate, abstract), comprising:
(a) supplying a first gas including a Mo-based gas to the substrate (supplying a precursor gas to the substrate, abstract, where the precursor gas can be a molybdenum gas as an alternative to a titanium gas, 0019, 0127-0129 and Fig. 4);
(b) supplying a second gas including B2H6 gas or PH3 gas to the substrate (supplying a compound containing an electron withdrawing group to the substrate, abstract, where the compound can be BCl3 or diborane, 0019, 0124, 0127, and Fig. 4);
(c) supplying a third gas including a reaction gas to the substrate (supplying a reaction gas to the substrate, abstract and Fig. 4);
(d) supplying Ar gas to the substrate (where an inert gas is supplied continuously, Fig. 4, and where the inert gas can be Ar gas in addition to N2 gas, 0131); and
(e) forming a film on the substrate by performing (a), (b), and (c) a predetermined number of times to be started in this order while performing (d) (where the process of forming the film is repeated, 0087 and Fig. 4, and where the precursor is provided first, the catalyst or electron withdrawing gas is provided second, and the reactant gas is provided third, Fig. 4).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu, US 2019/0112707 A1 (provided on the IDS of 6/3/2024).
Regarding claims 2-4, Degai teaches the process of claim 1. They further teach evacuating the chamber by the vacuum pump to remove excess gas after the metal precursor supplying step, after the electron withdrawing gas step, and after the reaction gas step (0068, 0077, 0085, and Fig. 4). They teach maintaining the N2 gas supply (inert gas supply, which can include argon) into the chamber to act as a purge gas and enhance the effect of removing the precursor gas remaining in the chamber (0068, 0077, 0085, and Fig. 4).
They do not teach increasing the flow rate of the Ar gas supplied during purging.
Liu teaches an ALD method that includes pulsing a first reactant vapor into a reactor assembly and supplying an inactive gas to a first inactive gas line at a first flow rate (abstract). They teach that the reactor assembly is purged by supplying the inactive gas to the first inactive gas line at a second flow rate higher than the first flow rate (abstract). They teach that by significantly increasing the inactive gas flow rate during purging of the reactor assembly it is possible to increase throughput and reduce processing times, where the increased flowrate causes an increase in pressure which can result in a faster purge process (0043). They teach purging with an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon (0019).
From the teachings of Liu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Degai to have increased the flow rate of the argon purge gas during a period between (b) and (c) compared to when (b) is performed and during a period after (c) is stopped compared to when (c) is performed because Liu teaches that increasing the flow rate of an inactive gas, such as argon, during purging results in a faster purge process which improves throughput and reduces processing times such that it will be expected to more efficiently purge the reactor during the purge steps. Therefore, in the process of Degai in view of Liu the flow ate of the Ar gas supplied during a period between (b) and (c) is larger than a flow rate of the Ar gas supplied during a period in which (b) is being performed and the flow rate of the Ar gas supplied during a period after (c) is stopped will be larger than a flow rate of the Ar gas supplied during a period in which (c) is being performed because it will be increased during the purge steps to more efficiently purge the chamber.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paranjpe, US 7,393,561 B2 (provided on the IDS of 6/3/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Degai teaches the process of claim 1. They further teach evacuating the chamber by the vacuum pump to remove excess gas after the metal precursor supplying step, after the electron withdrawing gas step, and after the reaction gas step (0068, 0077, 0085, and Fig. 4). They teach maintaining the N2 gas supply (inert gas supply, which can include argon) into the chamber to act as a purge gas and enhance the effect of removing the precursor gas remaining in the chamber (0068, 0077, 0085, and Fig. 4). They teach that the inert gas acts as a carrier gas and purge gas, where the inert gas can be argon in addition to nitrogen (0037 and 0131).
They do not teach increasing the flow rate of the Ar gas supplied during purging.
Paranjpe teaches a method of increasing ALP (atomic layer processing) throughput by continuously modulating gas flow in a reactor to achieve layer by layer growth on a wafer (abstract and Col. 1, lines 37-58). They teach that a first reactant is introduced with a percentage of a carrier gas and after a first time interval, the first reactant flow is reduced while the carrier gas flow is increased so as to maintain an approximately constant total gas flow (abstract). They teach that when the first reactant flow reaches a minimal predetermined amount, a second reactant flow is initiated and increased while the carrier gas flow is decreased so as to continue a constant total gas flow (abstract). They teach that repeated rapid cycling of flow components such as flow controllers and valves between the off state and the on state can result in pressure bursts in the chamber and increased particle generation/release in the flow components adversely impacting particle performance of the process (Col. 4, lines 5-13). They teach that increasing the carrier gas flow during the transition from one reactant to another can compensate for the drop in pressure to provide a more constant total flow rate so as to improve the ALP protocol (Col. 8, lines 3-51). They teach that the smooth flow modulation of the invention eliminates, or at least minimizes pressure bursts that cause particle contamination (Col. 9, lines 7-22). Therefore, Paranjpe teaches that pressure bursts resulting from on/off flow cause particle contamination and a method of preventing such contamination is to use smooth flow modulation of the gases, where the flow of a reactant gas is reduced as a flow of the carrier gas is increased so as to provide a more constant pressure.
From the teachings of Paranjpe, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Degai to have gradually reduced the flow rate of the diborane gas and gradually increased a flow rate of the inert gas (argon) while transitioning from (b) to the purge process because Paranjpe teaches that using smooth flow modulation of increasing the flow rate of a carrier gas while reducing the flow rate of a reactant gas to keep the pressure more constant is beneficial in preventing particle contamination due to pressure bursts, where Degai teaches using argon as an inert gas, such that it will be expected to provide a smooth transition and prevent contamination of the substrate. Therefore, in at least part of a period in which (b) is being performed while (d) is being performed, a flow rate of the supplied Ar gas is increased, i.e., it is increased while the diborane gas is being decreased in a transition to the purge step.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee, US 2011/0222207 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Degai teaches the process of claim 1. They further teach evacuating the chamber by the vacuum pump to remove excess gas after the metal precursor supplying step, after the electron withdrawing gas step, and after the reaction gas step (0068, 0077, 0085, and Fig. 4). They teach maintaining the N2 gas supply (inert gas supply, which can include argon) into the chamber to act as a purge gas and enhance the effect of removing the precursor gas remaining in the chamber (0068, 0077, 0085, and Fig. 4). They teach that the inert gas acts as a carrier gas and purge gas, where the inert gas can be argon in addition to nitrogen (0037 and 0131).
They do not teach the features of claim 6.
Lee teaches a method of forming a dielectric layer structure by ALD (abstract and 0002). They teach forming the film by providing a metal precursor as a source gas, purging and pumping the chamber to remove a remaining source gas therein and remove any metal precursor physisorbed on the precursor thin film, repeatedly providing the precursor and purging and pumping out the chamber, providing an oxidant, purging and pumping out the chamber, and repeating the process (abstract, 0049, 0053, 0054, and Fig. 1). They teach that the purge gas is provided to remove the precursor in the chamber not chemisorbed on the top surface of the substrate, where the flow of purge gas is stopped and the chamber is pumped out in a high degree vacuum so that the physisorbed metal precursor may be removed (0049). They also teach providing the purge gas while pumping and then stopping the purge gas while continuing to pump after providing the oxidant (0053 and Fig. 1).
From the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Degai to have performed the purging process between (b) and (c) by supplying the purge gas (Ar) and then stopping the purge gas while continuing to pump out the chamber because Lee teaches that such a process successfully removes excess precursor or reactant gas from a chamber while also removing the gas that is physisorbed on the surface so as to provide an ALD process.
Regarding claim 7, Degai in view of Lee suggests the process of claim 6. Degai teaches that the chamber includes an APC valve 243 as a pressure controller part configured to control the internal pressure of the process chamber and a vacuum pump 246 as a vacuum exhaust device (0038 and Fig. 1). They teach that the APC valve is configured to regulate the internal pressure of the chamber by opening or closing the APC valve while operating the vacuum pump (0038 and Fig. 1). They teach that during the gas removal step (purging), the process chamber is evacuated by the vacuum pump while opening the APC valve (0068, 0077, and 0085).
As noted above, Lee teaches pumping the purge gas out and continuing to pump out the chamber to reach a high degree of vacuum (0049).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have kept the opening degree of the APC constant during d2 because Degai teaches using a valve to control the pressure in the chamber with a vacuum pump, where the APC valve is opening during purging to evacuate the chamber using the pump and Lee suggests continuing to pump out the chamber when the purge gas it stopped to remove physisorbed precursor or reactant such that by keeping the valve open or constant during d2 it will be expected to successfully pump out the chamber for providing a high degree of vacuum and removing physisorbed materials and further because there is no suggestion of changing the valve or the pumping degree during the pump and purge step or during the step of pumping while the gas is not flowed.
Regarding claim 8, Degai in view of Lee suggests the process of claim 7. As noted above, it is suggested to maintain the opening degree of the APC valve constant while the supply of the purge gas (Ar) is stopped so as to provide a high degree of vacuum.
Degai teaches that the APC valve is adjusted to set the internal pressure of the process chamber at a pressure which falls within a range of 1 to 1,000 Pa during the step of supplying the precursor, to 0.01 to 70,000 Pa during the step of supplying the electron withdrawing precursor, and to 1 to 70,000 Pa during the step of supplying the reactant (0062, 0072, 0080).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pressure of the substrate to be lower in d2 than in any of (a), (b), or (c) because no gases are flowing in d2 and the purpose is to provide a high degree of vacuum to remove any gases from the chamber including physisorbed materials, whereas during the step or supplying the gases a specific pressure is desired to allow the gases to react on the surface as opposed to just being sucked out of the chamber such that it will be expected to provide suitable pressures for the ALD process and the purge/pump process.
Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai in view of Lee as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ku, US 2011/0177677 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Degai in view of Lee suggests he process of claim 7. Degai teaches that the APC valve is adjusted to set the internal pressure of the process chamber at a pressure which falls within a range of 1 to 1,000 Pa during the step of supplying the precursor, to 0.01 to 70,000 Pa during the step of supplying the electron withdrawing precursor, and to 1 to 70,000 Pa during the step of supplying the reactant (0062, 0072, 0080).
They do not specifically teach that the pressure during d2 is lower than any of (a), (b), or (c).
Ku teaches a method of thin film epitaxial growth using ALD (abstract). They teach supplying the first deposition precursor and a second deposition precursor into a chamber while a vacuum pump is closed and removing the precursors by flowing a purge gas while pumping and then stopping the purge gas while continuing to pump (abstract and 0007). They teach that the base pressure of the chamber is reached during the pumping while the purge gas is stopped (0007). They teach that the base pressure is in the range of 1x10-10 Torr to 1x103 Torr, i.e., about 1.3x10-8 Pa to 13,332 Pa (0018). Since they teach that the pump is closed when the precursors are provided and open when pumping when no gases are provided so as to reach base pressure, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pressure during the step of providing the precursors will be higher than the step of pumping with no gases present because gases will be supplied to the chamber without removal vs. removing the gases from the chamber without adding gases to the chamber.
From the teachings of Ku, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set the pressure in the space during d2 to be lower than the pressure in any of (a), (b), or (c) because Ku suggests pumping to base pressure during step d2 without supplying any gases, whereas during supply gases the chamber is isolated from the pump, suggesting that during a step of pumping it is desirable to have a lower pressure than when the precursors are supplied. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have pumped the chamber down to about 1.3x10-8 Pa to 13,332 Pa during d2 because Ku indicates that it is desirable to pump down to base pressure during such a step such that it will be expected to provide a suitable pressure for evacuating the chamber. Therefore, the pressure during d2 will overlap a range in which it is lower than the pressure during steps (a), (b), and (c). According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winkler, US 2019/0368038 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Degai teaches the process of claim 1. Degai teaches that the APC valve is adjusted to set the internal pressure of the process chamber at a pressure which falls within a range of 1 to 1,000 Pa during the step of supplying the precursor, to 0.01 to 70,000 Pa during the step of supplying the electron withdrawing precursor, and to 1 to 70,000 Pa during the step of supplying the reactant (0062, 0072, 0080).
They do not teach the features of claim 9.
Winkler teaches a method of controlling an ALD device that comprises a reaction chamber, an exhaust line that transfers gas out of the reaction chamber, and a valve along the exhaust line (0009). They teach that the method determines flow conductance settings for the valve based on the dose state of the device and the desired pressure (0009). They teach that many ALD processes seek to maintain a relatively constant overall flow rate and/or uniform pressure in the reaction chamber during dosing and purging in order to avoid pressure fluctuations and attendant contamination issues, e.g., spalling (0026). They teach that many ALD recipes use a constant overall gas load or flow rate to provide the constant pressure (0026). They teach using open loop control to indirectly control the pressure within the reaction chamber during dosing states and purging states (0029). They teach that during an ALD process, the control system can select a desired set pressure for the chamber for both dosing and purging states, given the gas loads provided by a recipe for those dose and purge states (0034). They teach that conductance settings for the valve can be set based on the dosing and purge states so as to provide a constant pressure to minimize pressure fluctuations and contamination issues (0034-0035).
From the teachings of Winkler, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Degai to have used the control system of Winkler so as to provide a constant pressure during purging and dosing of the precursor, electron withdrawing group compound, and the reactant because Winkler teaches that it is desirable to provide a constant pressure so as to minimize fluctuations and contamination issues, where Degai provides pressures that overlap a range where they can all be the same, such that it will be expected to provide the deposition process as desired while minimizing contamination. Therefore, a pressure in the space where the substrate is present during (b) and the pressure of the space between (b) and (c) are maintained to be constant.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, Applicant’s arguments are considered persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been modified as indicated above.
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 CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights