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 Interpretation
Conformality is a ratio (which may be represented as a percentage) of the average thickness of a layer deposited on the sidewalls of a feature to the average thickness of the same deposited layer on the field, or upper surface, of the substrate.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Padhi (US 20080153311).
Regarding Claims 1-2, Padhi teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions (memories containing associated control software, [0048]), that, when executed by a controller of a processing chamber (control unit, [0048]), cause the processing chamber to perform the operations of: perform a deposition cycle comprising: introduce a hydrocarbon source into a processing chamber ([0049]); introduce a plasma initiating gas into the processing chamber ([0049]); generate a plasma in the processing chamber at a temperature of greater than 600C (temperature between about 600C and about 800C will improve density of the deposited film, [0054]); form an amorphous carbon layer on a substrate ([0059]); and purge the processing chamber (particles are flushed out, [0075]).
Regarding Claim 3, Padhi teaches wherein the plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition process is conducted at a deposition rate of greater than 200 nm/hr (2000 Angstroms/min, [0057]).
Regarding Claim 6, Padhi teaches wherein the substrate includes a substrate surface having at least one feature thereon, the at least one feature extending a feature depth from the substrate surface to a bottom surface, the at least one feature having a width defined by a first sidewall and a second sidewall ([0072]).
Regarding Claim 10, Padhi teaches the claimed hydrocarbon source ([0052-0053]).
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, Padhi teaches the claimed plasma initiating gas ([0049]).
Regarding Claim 12, Padhi teaches the hydrocarbon compound to plasma-initiating gas flow ratio is from 1:100 to 100:1 ([0057]).
Regarding Claims 14-15, Padhi teaches the claimed purge gas ([0076]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi (US 20080153311).
Regarding Claim 4, Padhi teaches the process is commercially viable ([0068]). Padhi does not explicitly teach repeating the deposition cycle from 2 to 50 times; however, a repeatable process is an expected feature of a commercial production process. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to repeat the process of Padhi any number of times, including times within the claimed range, as suggested by the reference in order to commercially produce multiple coated units of the product.
Regarding Claim 16, Padhi teaches a conformality on the order of about 20-30% ([0072]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The prior art range of “about 30%” overlaps or is close to the claimed range of “greater than 30%”. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the conformality of Padhi to be any of the suggested values, including those within the claimed range, because Padhi teaches they are all achievable with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Padhi with a conformality as suggested by the reference.
Claim(s) 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padhi (US 20080153311) in view of Lu (US 20150294978).
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, Padhi does not explicitly teach the feature is a memory hole or alternating layers of oxide and nitride materials; however, Lu teaches suitable substrate features for amorphous carbon gap fill wherein the substrate includes a stack of a plurality of alternating layers of an oxide material and a nitride material and wherein the feature comprises a memory hole ([0078-0080]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the substrate of Padhi to include a structure as taught in Lu, because it is a known feature for amorphous carbon gap fill and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Padhi with a structure as taught in Lu.
Regarding Claims 7-8, Lu teaches the memory openings having a high aspect ratio ([0027-0029]). Lu teaches 50 nm diameter openings ([0035, 0039]). Lu teaches the etched layers may be 6 to 100 nm thick and any suitable number of layers may be formed ([0148]), i.e. encompassing aspect ratios and feature depths in the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the number of layers of the combined references to be any suitable number, including those encompassing the claimed aspect ratios and feature depths, as suggested by Lu, because Lu teaches any suitable number of layers is acceptable for the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of the combined references with any number of layers as taught in Lu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights