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 .
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 01/14/26 is
acknowledged. Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR
1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, and Group III, there being no
allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed
on 01/14/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not support the carbon-containing inhibitor comprises (all kind of) hydrocarbons.
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, 6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph Abel et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0013616, here after Abel).
Claim 1 is rejected. Abel teaches a method of forming an oxide film on a
substrate [0013], the method comprising:
performing a plurality of oxide film deposition cycles, at least one oxide film
deposition cycle of the plurality of oxide film deposition cycles comprising
exposing the substrate to an oxide-film precursor to adsorb the oxide-film
precursor to the substrate,
exposing the substrate to an oxygen-containing gas,
reacting the oxide-film precursor and the oxygen-containing gas, and
exposing the substrate to a carbon-containing inhibitor [0015-0016, 0076, fig. 4, 0055]. Abel teaches the carbon-containing inhibitor comprises alcohol (hydrocarbon, based on 0056 of the invention specification) [0076].
Claim 2 is rejected. Abel teaches the method comprises an atomic layer
deposition process [0055].
Claim 3 is rejected as Abel teaches a subsequent oxide film deposition cycle
of the plurality of oxide film deposition cycles that is performed after the at least one
oxide film deposition cycle omits exposing the substrate to the carbon-containing
inhibitor [fig. 4].
Claim 6 is rejected as Abel teaches the substrate comprises a stack of
alternating layers of a first material and a second material, wherein a gap is formed in
the stack of alternating layers of materials, and wherein the oxide film is deposited in the
gap [fig. 2a, 2b, 0045].
Claim 8 is rejected as Abel teaches the gap comprises a reentrant
structure [0024].
Claim 10 is rejected as Abel teaches the oxide film comprises a silicon oxide
Film [0074].
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 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Abel et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0013616, here after Abel), further in
view of lan John Curtin et al (WO 2021/173886, here after Curtin).
Claim 4 is rejected. Abel teaches formation of the oxide with ALD which in fact
comprising reacting the oxide-film precursor and the oxygen-containing gas, for
formation of NAND devices [0074], but does not teach forming a plasma. Curtin teaches
high aspect ratio gaps disposed in multi-layer stack comprising pairs of layers of
alternating materials for making NAND device [0021], and depositing oxide in the gap
with ALD or PEALD [0058, fig. 4]. 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
forming an oxide film on a substrate that Abel teaches, where the oxide in the gap forms
by PEALD, because it is suitable method for depositing oxide in gap and form NAND
device. Deposition by PEALD comprises forming a plasma comprising the oxygen-
containing gas [0058].
Claim 5 is rejected as Able teaches comprising reacting plasma with carbon-
containing inhibitor deposited in a prior oxide film deposition cycle of the plurality of
oxide film deposition cycles [fig. 4].
Claim 7 is rejected. Abel teaches the limitation of claim 6 and teaches the gap
comprises high aspect ratio [0084], for formation of NAND devices [0074], but does not
teach aspect ratio within a range of 40:1 to 100:1. Curtin teaches high aspect ratio gaps
disposed in multi-layer stack comprising pairs of layers of alternating materials for
making NAND device [0021], and teaches the gap has high aspect ratio and about 50-
100nm width, with a depth of about 4-8 microns [0035], which give aspect ratio of 80:1.
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 forming an oxide film on a substrate that Abel
teaches, where feature in substrate has aspect ratio of 80:1, because this high aspect
ratio feature usable for making NAND devices.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph Abel et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0013616, here after Abel), further in view of Wontae Noh et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0119939, here after Noh).
Claim 9 is rejected. Abel teaches the inhibitor is alcohol, or amine [0076], but
does not teach inhibitor is alkanes, alkenes, or alkynes. Noh teaches a method of gap-filling and using inhibitors such as alcohol, amines or alkanes, alkenes, alkynes [0018, 0019, 0022]. 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 forming an oxide film on a substrate that Abel teaches, where the inhibitor is alkanes, alkenes, or alkynes, because it is suitable for selectively deposition and gap fill tranches.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Abel does not teach exposing the substrate to a carbon containing hydrocarbon. The examiner disagrees, Able in paragraph 0076 clearly teaches using inhibitor as fluorine plasma as well as methanol and ethanol, which are hydrocarbon based on 0056 of the invention specification.
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). The applicant argument that Curtin does not teach exposing the substrate to carbon containing inhibitor is not persuasive, as Able teaches this limitation. Albe teaches exposing substrate to carbon containing inhibitor and deposition oxide film via ALD, where PEALD deposition of oxide film of Curtin substitute for ALD deposition of Albe and meet limitation of claim 4. The applicant argues Curtin teaches away of plasma PEALD; the examiner disagrees as Curtin teaches benefit of using PEALD as reducing deposition temperature [0045].
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