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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/25 has been entered.
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, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thimothee J. V. Blanquart et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0182613, here after Blanquart).
Claim 1 is rejected. Blanquart teaches a method for processing substrates, the method comprising:
pyrolyzing a deposition precursor on a surface of a substrate to form a pyrolyzed film comprising a decomposed silicon-containing precursor [0013, 0088]; and
exposing the pyrolyzed film to a first plasma to form a deposited film [0014-0015].
Claim 2 is rejected as the pyrolyzing is performed by heating the
substrate to a temperature sufficient to cause pyrolysis of the deposition precursor; and exposing the surface of the substrate to the deposition precursor [0013-0015, 0088].
Claim 3 is rejected as Blanquart teaches pyrolyzing and the exposing of the
pyrolyzed film are performed in a process chamber having a chamber pressure of about 10 Torr [0063].
Claim 8 is rejected as Blanquart teaches first plasma(reactant) is generated by igniting an inert gas (as inert gas flow with reactant gas) [0038, 0113] which in fact the deposited film is densified.
Claim 10 is rejected. Blanquart teaches a method of processing a substrate, the method comprising:
(a) introducing a deposition precursor (silicon halide) to a process chamber housing the substrate;
(b) pyrolyzing the deposition precursor on a surface of the substrate to form a pyrolyzed
film comprising a decomposed silicon-containing precursor;
(c) introducing a plasma to the process chamber, the plasma being generated from
igniting a reactant to form a reactant plasma ambient in the process chamber; and
(d) while the reactant plasma ambient is in the process chamber, exposing the
pyrolyzed film to the reactant plasma to form at least a partial film on the substrate [0013-0015, 0088].
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.
Claim 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thimothee J. V. Blanquart et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0182613, here after Blanquart), further in view of Takahiro Oka et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2013/0084714, here after Oka).
Claim 4 is rejected. Blanquart teaches a purging step with inert gas prior to
exposing the pyrolyzed film to reactive plasma (nitrogen containing plasma for making silicon nitride) [0034, 0053, 0036], but does not teach the inert gas is an inert gas plasma. Oka teaches a method of depositing a film by adsorbing and decomposition of precursor on substrate and exposing to reactive plasma, and further teaches prior to exposing to reactive plasma exposing to inert plasma to decompose the precursor[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 Blanquart where a plasma is also igniting during purge time, because it further helps decomposition of the precursor on substrate.
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason claim 4 is rejected which in fact comprising exposing the pyrolyzed film to a second plasma (inert plasma) [see claim 5 rejections above].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thimothee J. V. Blanquart et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2018/0182613, here after Blanquart), further in view of Awnish Gupta et al (WO 2021/025874, here after Gupta).
Claim 5 is rejected. Blanquart teaches a method for processing substrates, the method comprising:
setting a temperature of a substrate to a first temperature;
exposing the substrate to a deposition precursor having a pyrolysis temperature that is less than the substrate temperature while substrate is heated to the first temperature in a plasma-free environment;
stopping exposure of the deposition precursor; and
after stopping exposure of the deposition precursor, exposing the substrate to a first plasma to form a deposited film [0013-0015, 0088]. Blanquart does not teach heating the substrate with a heatable pedestal holding the substrate (in ALD chamber). Gupta teaches a method of a film comprising silicon (silicon nitride) [abstract] where the silicon precursor is decomposed and pyrolysis [0028], and further teaches the substrate is heated by heatable pedestal holding the substrate [0097, fig. 11] in an ALD chamber. 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 Blanquart where a substrate is heated by a heatable pedestal as Gupta, because it is suitable way to heat substrate in ALD chamber.
Claim 6 is rejected. Balnquart teachs the precursor is a silane compound [0067] but not bis(tertiarybutylamino)silane. Gupta teaches a method of a film comprising silicon (silicon nitride) [abstract] where the silicon precursor is decomposed and pyrolysis [0028], and further teaches the silicon precursor is a silane compound such as bis(tertiarybutylamino)silane [0045]. 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 Blanquart where the precursor is bis(tertiarybutylamino)silane, because it is suitable silane compound as silicon precursor to decompose by heat for making silicon nitride films.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/22/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blanquart. Blanquart teaches decomposition of precursor, therefore the substrate temperature should be higher than the pyrolyzing temperature.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argument regarding Gupta does not teach pyrolyzing is not persuasive, Gupta clearly teaches heating precursor at high temperature results in pyrolyzing and decomposition [0029]. Regarding the applicant argument in paragraph 0045, Gupta teaches decomposition by heat or plasma and 0045 is related the decomposition by plasma. However, to make the rejection more clear and stronger the examiner replaced Gupta with Blanquart reference (see claim rejection above) which teaches decomposition of precursor following by reaction with reactant plasma.
The applicant argument regarding claim 10 is not persuasive as Blanquart also teaches the new limitations of claim 10(see claim rejection above).
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