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
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, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by Awnish Gupta et al (WO 2021/025874, here after Gupta).
Claim 1 is rejected. Gupta teaches a method for processing substrates, the
method comprising: depositing a precursor on a substrate [0027]; and
exposing the pyrolyzed film to a first plasma to form a deposited film [fig. 9]. and
pyrolyzing a deposition precursor [0028] on a surface of a substrate to form a pyrolyzed
film.
Claim 2 is rejected as Gupta teaches the pyrolyzing is performed by heating the
substrate to a temperature sufficient to cause pyrolysis of the deposition precursor
[0028]; and
exposing the surface of the substrate to the deposition precursor [0029].
Claim 3 is rejected as Gupta teaches the pyrolyzing and the exposing of the
pyrolyzed film are performed in a process chamber having a chamber pressure of 12
Torr [0051, 0064].
Claim 6 is rejected as Gupta teaches the deposition precursor is
bis(tertiarybutylamino)silane [0045].
Claim 7 is rejected as Gupta teaches exposing the pyrolyzed film to a second
plasma (reactant gas, N2/NH3 or O2) [fig. 9].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahiro
Oka et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2013/0084714, here after Oka). Awnish Gupta et al
(WO 2021/025874, here after Gupta) is sued as evidence for inherency.
Claim 5 is rejected. Oka teaches a method for processing substrates, the method
comprising:
setting a temperature of a heatable pedestal holding a substrate to a first
temperature [0053, 2 in fig. 1];
exposing the substrate to a deposition precursor;
stopping exposure of the deposition precursor; and after stopping exposure of
the deposition precursor, exposing the substrate to a first plasma (reactant plasma) to
form a deposited film [fig. 2]. Oka teaches formation of films at low temperature which in
fact inert gas plasma treatment causes decomposition of precures (at lower temperature
than heating in high temperature, see 0028 of Gupta) therefore precursor having a
pyrolysis temperature that is less than the substrate temperature while the pedestal is
heated to the first temperature in a plasma-free environment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric A.
Hudson et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0268141, here after Hudson).
Claim 10 is rejected. Hudson teaches a method of processing a substrate, the
method comprising:
(a) introducing a deposition precursor to a process chamber housing (vacuum
chamber) the substrate [fig. 4A, 0101];
(b) introducing a plasma to the process chamber, which in fact the plasma being
generated from igniting a reactant to form a reactant plasma ambient in the process
chamber; and
(c) while the reactant plasma ambient is in the process chamber, introducing the
deposition precursor to the process chamber to form at least a partial film on the
substrate [0087, without steps of purging, repeating steps a, and c], and(d) repeating a-c to fill (at least partial filling to reach desire thickness) a feature on substrate with the layers of the partial film.
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.
Claims 4, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awnish Gupta et al (WO 2021/025874, here after Gupta), further in view of Takahiro
Oka et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2013/0084714, here after Oka).
Claim 4 is rejected. Gupta teaches exposing the pyrolyzed film to the first plasma
comprises exposing the pyrolyzed film to an inert gas (carrier gas) plasma and oxygen-
containing, or nitrogen containing plasma [fig. 9], but dos not teach exposing the
pyrolyzed film to the first plasma comprises exposing the pyrolyzed film to an inert gas,
and then exposing the pyrolyzed film to an oxygen-containing or nitrogen-containing
plasma. However, exposing the film to inert gas plasma helps to decompose
(pyrolyzing) it further prior to exposing to reactant plasma (oxygen or nitrogen
containing plasma) as Oka teaches[abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
processing a substrate as Gupta teaches, where exposing the film is first to inert plasma
and then adding reactant gas plasma, because it helps further decomposing the
precursor film.
Claim 7 is rejected as Gupta teaches exposing the pyrolyzed film to a second
plasma (reactant gas, N2/NH3 or O2) [fig. 9], and Oka also teaches exposing the
pyrolyzed film to a second plasma (reactant gas, N2/NH3 or O2) [fig. 2, 0032].
Claim 8 is rejected as Oka teaches the inert(first) plasma (which in fact is
generated by igniting an inert gas) and the deposited film is densified [0024].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Gupta does not teach pyrolyzing a deposition precursor on a surface of a substrate to form a pyrolyzed film. The examiner disagrees, as fig. 9, and 0027-0028 teaches thermal ALD in high temperature will cause chemical precursor pyrolysis (for example 959 A in fig. 9) which is after the precursor adsorb on substrate surface(957A), and after that exposure to plasma happens [fig. 9].
The applicant argument regrading claim 5 is not persuasive, in simple way Oka is related to low temperature process and using plasma to decompose precursor; therefore, substrate temperature must be less than precursor pyrolyzing temperature (also look at fig. 2 of Oka).
The applicant argument regarding claim 10 is not persuasive as steps a-c repeated to achieve desirable thickness on sidewalls, the gas at least partially filled.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights