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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/023750. Amended claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 14 are noted.
The amendment dated 08/13/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendments to the abstract, title, and claims. In view of said amendments, the objection to the abstract, title, the previous 112 rejection, and the previous art rejections have been withdrawn.
Claims 10-13, 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1 line 5, from which claims 2-9, 14-19 depend, the phrase “wherein the silicon film is an amorphous silicon film or a polycrystalline silicon film” is confusing as to whether said phrase is further limiting. Aren’t all silicon films either amorphous or polycrystalline? The examiner questions whether any silicon film can be outside of amorphous or polycrystalline.
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.
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 1-2, 5, 7-9, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanori (JP 2005050841) (see English translation) in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2022/054812).
Hisanori teaches a process of forming a silicon film such as an amorphous silicon film or a polysilicon film on a substrate by a thermal CVD method using a cold wall type reaction vessel in which the substrate is heated on a susceptor (0002). The precursor can be silane based gas (0078). However, the reference fails to teach a cyclic silane compound.
Nishimura teaches a method of producing a polysilane compound (title) for producing a silicon film using a CVD method (p.2 first paragraph) wherein the compound can be a cyclic hydride silane compound such as cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs). It would have been obvious to use Nishimura’s precursor in the method of Hisanori with the expectation of success because Nishimura teaches of using cyclohexane as a precursor to produce a silicon film.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant requires an inert gas and a specific volume. Hisanori teaches an inert atmosphere (0035). To utilize the inert gas in the claimed volume would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 5, Hisanori teaches a temperature of 400-800oC (0056).
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura teaches decomposition (pp.21-22) and cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura teaches cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 9, Hisanori teaches a temperature of 400-800oC (0056).
Regarding claim 15, Hisanori teaches a temperature of 400-800oC (0056).
Regarding claim 17, Nishimura teaches decomposition (pp.21-22) and cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura teaches cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 19, Hisanori teaches a temperature of 400-800oC (0056).
Claims 3-4, 6, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanori (JP 2005050841) (see English translation) and Nishimura et al. (WO 2022/054812) and further in view of Raaijmakers et al. (WO 99/457167). The combination of Hisanori/Nishimura fails to teach the claimed distribution. To utilize the claimed distribution would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of unexpected results. In addition, the reference fails to teach a trench.
Raaijmakers teaches of depositing silicon with high step coverage (title) onto a substrate having deep trenches (abstract) by chemical vapor deposition (p.2 lines 30-34). It would have been obvious to utilize trenches in the combination with the expectation of success depending on the desired use of the final product because Raaijmakers teaches of using a substrate with deep trenches to deposit silicon.
With respect to the claimed distribution, it is noted that the reference teaches deep trenches having an aspect ratio as high as 40:1 (abstract). Given such a teaching, it would have been obvious to utilize the claimed distribution in the combination in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Raaijmakers teaches an aspect ratio of greater than about 2:1 (p.3 first paragraph) and as high as 40:1 (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Raaijmakers teaches a pressure of 100 Torr or greater (p.10 lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 14, the applicant requires a specific distribution. It is noted that Raaijmakers teaches deep trenches having an aspect ratio as high as 40:1 (abstract). Given such a teaching, it would have been obvious to utilize the claimed distribution in the combination in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 16, Raaijmakers teaches a pressure of 100 Torr or greater (p.10 lines 33-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Manasevit teaches a heteroepitaxial silicon film (p.10 2nd full paragraph) and that one would not have been motivated to improve the quality of the epitaxial film (p.10 last paragraph) now that the claim recites an amorphous and polycrystalline film (p.10 4th full paragraph).
The examiner agrees and notes the new ground of rejection.
Applicant next argues that Manasevit fails to teach the claimed distribution and trench (p.11) and that Raaijmakers fails to remedy the issue with claim 1.
The examiner agrees and notes the citation of Raaijmakers. With respect to claim 1, this issue has been addressed above.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
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 BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 09/11/2026
Prosecution Insights