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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Sims does not teach a protective layer. However, the claim language is broad. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a specific type of protective layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Though Sims et al. does not explicitly teach the second layer on the dielectric material as a protective layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that each layer as the process is repeated in the Sims et al. figures forms a protective function as broadly claimed as it covers the substrate.
As to claims 7-8, the applicant argues that the secondary references do not teach simultaneous deposition and plasma treatment. However, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims et al. (US 9865455 B1)
As to claim 1, Sims et al. teaches a method for processing substrates (abstract), the method comprising: providing a substrate having a dielectric material deposited thereon (Fig 5, initial layer 520 or 530); depositing a protective layer on the dielectric material in a plasma-free environment (Si reactant in Fig 1, 4 as the process is repeated); and after depositing the protective layer, exposing the substrate to a first plasma (plasma steps in Fig 1,4) to deposit a first silicon nitride while converting at least a portion of the protective layer to second silicon nitride (col 10 et seq, col 12 lines 30-50, col 13 lines 19-21). Though Sims et al. does not explicitly teach the second layer on the dielectric material as a protective layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that each layer as the process is repeated in the Sims et al. figures forms a protective function as broadly claimed as it covers the substrate.
As to claims 2-3, the silicon precusor is thermally decomposed at a sufficient temperature in col 13 lines 30-45.
As to claim 4, initially a silicon-containing precursor is introduced in a vapor phase to a wafer, and a carrier gas, such as argon, continues to flow (see column 10, lines 59-63 and Figures 1, 4).
As to claim 5, the first plasma is created using nitrogen containing gases in col. 12, lines 30-32 and figure 4.
As to claim 6, the films are deposited by decomposing Si precursors and exposing the deposited precursor to a plasma to form the layer (col 11 lines 7-22 and figure 4).
As to claim 7, the precursor is diisopropylaminosilane or bis(tertiarybutylamino)silane in col 11 lines 56-57.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sims et al. in view of Rao et al. (US 2022/0037144 A1) and Fields et al. (US 2021/0384029 A1)
As to claim 8, Sims et al. teaches depositing a protective layer as discussed above where the silicon containing precursor is deposited/decomposed on the surface and a nitrogen containing plasma converts the silicon deposit to silicon nitride (col 13 lines 30-45, col 11, col 10 lines 59-63 and Figures 1, 4). Though there is an initial film when the silicon is deposited due to repetition of cycles, Sims et al. does not teach that this is silicon oxynitride. Sims et al. also does not teach repeating the silicon precursor pulse before the nitrogen plasma.
Rao et al. teaches that it is common in semiconductor applications to have a film of silicon oxynitride on the substrate before silicon nitride deposition in para 0075. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sims et al. to include an initial silicon oxynitride film as taught by Rao et al. as it is common when the film is used in a semiconductor.
Fields et al. is in the same field of endeavor of Sims et al. and deposits a protective layer by depositing a silicon containing precursor (410 in Fig 4) then another silicon containing precursor (430 in Fig 3) where the silicon precursor is thermally decomposed (para 0102) and the deposition is then repeated to form a silicon nitride film in para 0051, 0102 where the two silicon precursors are used to adjust the hydrophobicity of the substrate in paras 0027-0028. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sims et al. to include a second pulse of silicon precursor in its process as taught by Fields et al. in order to adjust the hydrophobicity of the substrate.
As to claim 9, the precursor is diisopropylaminosilane or bis(tertiarybutylamino)silane in Sims et al. col 11 lines 56-57.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights