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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 2 are pending and presented for examination.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katagiri (JP 3045945, reference is made to the provided English translation) in view of Mao et al. (“Correspondence Relation Between [N-H]/[Si-H] Ratio and Their Optical Loss Properties in Silicon Nitride Thin Films”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Katagiri teaches a process for forming a silicon nitride film (abstract) comprising: supplying silane, ammonia and nitrogen into a reaction chamber (abstract) in which a semiconductor substrate (0001) is installed and forming a silicon nitride film on a surface of the semiconductor substrate by plasma accelerated chemical vapor deposition (abstract). Katagiri fails to teach a supply rate ratio setting step of setting the supply flow rate ratio so that a sum of a concentration of the N-H bond multiplied by the binding energy ratio and a concentration of the SiH bond is minimized and supplying the silane and ammonia at the supply ratio that is set. Katagiri further fails to teach the ratio determined using Fourier transform IR.
However, Mao teaches forming silicon nitride films with precursors including nitrogen and silane (abstract). Mao further teaches using FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy) to analyze the silicon nitride film when various flow ratios of the silicon and nitrogen precursors are used and selecting a flow ratio that can minimize the sum of the Si-H and N-H bonds (see Results and Discussion section, and note that the binding energy ratio does not fluctuate based on conditions, see 0020 of Applicant’s specification), thereby the flow rate is also selected to minimize the sum of the concentration of N-H bond multiplied by the binding energy ratio and a concentration of the Si-H bond. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Katagiri’s process by analyzing the silicon nitride film by FTIR and the setting the supply flow ratio of silane and ammonia (a nitrogen precursor) to minimize the claimed sum as disclosed by Mao. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Mao teaches that Si-H and N-H bonds negatively effect the qualities of the silicon nitride film (see Introduction section).
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 2 are pending.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
July 21, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights