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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-9, 14-19 in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-13, 20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
It is noted that the abstract begins with “The object of the present invention is to provide”. The examiner suggests its deletion.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
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 2, from which claims 2-9, 14-19 depend, the term “cold-wall type” is considered indefinite because the addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite.
In claim 3 lines 2-3, the terms “trench-shaped” and “hole-shaped” are considered indefinite because the addition of the word “shaped” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. The same issue applies to claims 4, 14.
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 Manasevit (4,661,176) in view of Nishimura et al. (WO 2022/054812).
Manasevit teaches a method of growing epitaxial silicon film on insulating substrates (title) by chemical vapor deposition using a vertical, cold-wall quartz reactor where the substrates are heated (col.5 line 61 – col.6 line 19). While the reference teaches silane (col.5 line 64), 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 Manasevit 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. Mannasevit teaches an inert atmosphere (col.4 lines 1-14). 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, Manasevit teaches a temperature of 450oC (col.4 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Manasevit teaches pyrolysis (col.5 lines 60-68) and Nishimura teaches cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura teaches cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 9, Manasevit teaches a temperature of 950-1075oC (col.6 lines 1-19).
Regarding claim 15, Manasevit teaches a temperature of 450oC (col.4 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 17, Manasevit teaches pyrolysis (col.5 lines 60-68) and Nishimura teaches cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura teaches cyclohexane (p.27 last 6 paragraphs).
Regarding claim 19, Manasevit teaches a temperature of 950-1075oC (col.6 lines 1-19).
Claims 3-4, 6, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manasevit (4,661,176) and Nishimura et al. (WO 2022/054812) and further in view of Raaijmakers et al. (WO 99/457167). While Manasevit teaches thickness uniformity (col.6 lines 1019)., the reference 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).
JP 2007-284639 teaches a method of forming a silicon film by using a higher-order silane compound (title) and has been cited as relevant art.
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 05/04/2026
Prosecution Insights