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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a lateral wall delimiting laterally the reaction chamber from the exterior of the reaction chamber”; applicant is advised that this limitation does not exclude a wall that has additional structures or features and instead said claimed “later wall delimiting laterally the reaction chamber from the exterior of the reaction chamber” can include additional features such as depicted in regards to Fig. 1 of ‘921 and it is arbitrary where the lateral wall begins and ends as currently recited.
PNG
media_image1.png
966
1361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukazawa et al. (US PG Pub 2018/0119283; hereafter ‘283) in view of Sakyama et al. (US PG Pub 2017/0076921; hereafter ‘921) and Marakhtanov et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0020574; hereafter ‘574).
Claim 1: ‘283 is directed towards a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) method using capacitively coupled electrodes (see title), the method comprising:
supplying a substrate having an exposed surface in a plasma reactor (¶ 22),
performing a plurality of atomic layer deposition (ALD) cycles on the exposed surface of the substrate (see Figs. 2-5 and ¶s 10-13 & 32), each cycle comprising:
an injection into the reaction chamber of a precursor based on a first species (see Figs. 2-5 & ¶s 10-13 & 32); and
a plasma treatment of the exposed surface of the substrate by a plasma (see Figs. 2-5 & ¶s 10-13 & 32).
‘283 does not teach using a PEALD apparatus with the specific configuration as claimed or that the plasma is generated by capacitive coupling between the plate and the lateral wall by applying a RF power.
‘921 is directed towards a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) method and apparatus (see title, abstract, and ¶s 4, 25, & 31) comprising:
a supply of a substrate having an exposed surface in a plasma reactor (see abstract, Fig. 1, & ¶ 32), the plasma reactor comprising a reaction chamber delimited from an exterior of the reaction chamber by walls and an electrically conductive plate located in the reaction chamber, said electrically conductive plate having an upper face whereon the substrate is disposed (see Fig. 1 & ¶ 32), said walls comprising a lateral wall delimiting laterally the reaction chamber from the exterior of the reaction chamber, which is at least partly non-parallel with the upper face of the plate and being electrically conductive (see 156, Fig. 1 and ¶ 37), wherein plasma is generated by capacitive coupling between the plate and the lateral wall (see Figs. 1 & 3 and ¶s 32-39 & 54-57) by applying a RF power to the upper electrode (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the apparatus as disclosed in ‘921 during the process of ‘283 because it is an art recognized PEALD apparatus which would have predictably performed the desired coating process.
The combination teaches generating the plasma by applying RF power to the top electrode/wall and not the lower electrode/substrate plate.
However, ‘574 which is directed towards RF capacitively coupled plasma sources (title), teaches that the RF power can be connected to either the lower or upper electrode (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘574 into the combination and generate the plasma by applying RF power to the lower electrode/substrate plate instead of the upper electrode/wall because it is an art recognized alternative which would have predictably would have generated the desired plasma.
Claim 2: ‘283 discloses that the plurality of deposition cycles comprises an injection into the reaction chamber of a precursor based on a second species (see Fig. 3).
Claim 3: The plasma treatment is performed simultaneously with at least one injection into the reaction chamber of a precursor or following at least one injection onto the reaction chamber of a precursor (see Fig. 5).
Claim 4: The RF power is 100 to 5000W for a 300 mm (Table 2, ‘283) and can be converted to W/cm2 (0.1415-7.074 W/cm2) for other wafers such as 20 cm (¶ 63) – i.e. the RF power can be 44.45-2222 W.
The pressure in the reaction chamber is 1-10 mTorr (¶ 28).
‘283 does not teach that the plasma treatment duration is 1 minute or greater.
However, the plasma treatment time is a result effective variable based on the degree of completion desired and it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables.
Although the taught range of 44.45-2222 W is not explicitly the claimed range of less than or equal to 80W, it does overlap the claimed range. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have incorporated a value within the claimed range since 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).
Claim 5: ‘283 discloses the pressure in the reaction is 1-10 mTorr (¶ 28).
‘283 does not teach that the RF polarization power is greater than or equal to 50W or plasma treatment duration is 1 minute or greater.
However, the RF polarization power and plasma treatment time are a result effective variable based on the degree of completion desired and it is prima facie obvious to optimize result effective variables.
Claim 6: When the plasma is generated, the plasma treatment comprises injection into the reaction chamber of a rare gas (see Figs. 2-5 and ¶ 24, ‘283).
Claim 7: The plasma treatment is performed after the injection of the first species (Figs. 2-5) and the first species is based on a metal (¶ 32, ‘283).
Claim 8: The plasma treatment is free from dihydrogen injection (¶ 33).
Claim 9: The metal is Al – the electronegativity 1.61 (¶ 32).
Claim 10: The first species comprises the metal and alkyl, amine, oxygenated, halogenated ligands (¶ 32).
Claim 11: The supply of the first species can be performed simultaneously with plasma treatment (the first species can be continuously supplied during the process, abstract).
If however, ‘283 does not necessarily teach simultaneously, it would have been obvious to perform the steps simultaneously because generally, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence. In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
Claim 12: The first species is based on a metal and the second species comprises O, N, or S (¶s 32-33, ‘283).
Claim 13: The plasma treatment is performed simultaneously with the injection of the precursor based on the second species includes O2, N2, or NH3 (see Fig. 2 and ¶ 33, ‘283).
Claim 14: The plasma treatment is performed after with the injection of the precursor based on the second species includes O2 or NH3 (see Fig. 2 and ¶ 33, ‘283).
Claim 15: The plate is configured to be adjusted in height in the reaction chamber and the method comprises an adjustment of the height of the plate prior to the plasma treatment (see ¶ 22).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 & 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 16, & 17 of copending Application No. 18/866416 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are permutations and combinations of the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the amendments have overcome the ODP rejection over clams 1, 11, 16, & 17 of copending Application No. 18/866,416; the Office does not find this argument convincing because copending claim 16 is directed towards a method of performing plasma enhanced deposition in a reactor according to claim 1 which recites the same structure as currently recited.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘921 does not disclose a reaction chamber as claimed; the Office does not find this argument convincing because as discussed above, the reaction chamber taught in Fig. 1 of ‘921 reads on the claimed structure because the walls discussed are part of the entire chamber and delimit the chamber and the claimed structure does not exclude the structure of ‘921.
In regards to applicant’s argument that the lateral wall and the plate of the combination using the structure of ‘921 would not generate plasma as claimed; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the lateral walls of ‘921 include the section that generates plasma as disclosed by ‘921 and applicant has not provided evidence that a plasma would not be generated or that the plasma generated would have different properties than the argued structure. The examiner asserts that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). MPEP 2145(I).
In regards to applicant’s argument that the lateral wall of ‘921 is insulated from the upper electrode by dielectric material 158 (see Fig. 1, ‘921) and thus would not generate plasma at the lateral wall; the Office does not find this argument convincing because the lateral wall of ‘921 can be termed to include 156, 158, & 102 wherein plasma is generated at a portion of the lateral wall and applicant is advised that the claim as recited do not require that the lateral walls be a continuous structure or material.
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 reduction in ion bombardment, reduction of damage) 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).
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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights