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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending and rejected. Claim 11 is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 1/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/13/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey, US 6,017,806.
Regarding claim 1, Harvey teaches a substrate processing method (a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, abstract), comprising:
preparing a substrate having an insulating film on a surface thereof (providing a partially fabricated semiconductor device having a Si/SiO2 interface, abstract, such that a substrate (Si) having an insulating film (SiO2) on the surface is prepared);
raising a temperature of the substrate from a first temperature to a second temperature higher than the first temperature (where the substrate is immersed in an ambient of deuterium or deuterium-containing gas at a temperature of about 400 to 450°C and then the temperature is raised to the dissociation temperature for the hydrogen-Si bond, generally about 525°C, Col. 2, lines 22-65 and Fig. 1); and
maintaining the substrate at the second temperature (where the temperature is raised above the dissociation temperature for the shortest time and the lowest temperature to cause all hydrogen and/or deuterium to silicon bonds to be broken, generally about 525°C for 15 minutes, Col. 2, lines 22-65 and Fig. 1),
wherein the raising of the temperature to the second temperature includes supplying either gas or both gases selected from a deuterium gas and a hydrogen gas to the substrate (where the process is done in a closed chamber having a deuterium ambient, Col. 3, lines 49-67, such that the raising of the temperature will be done in the chamber having deuterium gas supplied thereto), and
the maintaining of the substrate at the second temperature includes supplying a deuterium gas to the substrate (where the process is done in a closed chamber having a deuterium ambient, Col. 3, lines 49-67, such that the raising of the temperature will be done in the chamber having deuterium gas supplied thereto).
Regarding claim 2, Harvey teaches the process of claim 1. They teach that the process is done in a closed chamber having a deuterium ambient (Col. 3, lines 49-67), such that during the process of raising the temperature, deuterium will be continuously supplied to the substrate since the substrate is in a deuterium ambient.
Regarding claim 3, Harvey teaches the process of claim 2. They teach placing the device in an enclosed chamber having a deuterium ambient and raising the temperature to 425°C, holding for 60 minutes, and then increasing the temperature to 525°C (Col. 3, lines 49-67). Therefore, deuterium will be supplied to the chamber and then the temperature will be increased, such that deuterium will be continuously supplied to the substrate prior to the start of raising the temperature to the second temperature because it is present in the chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Harvey teaches the process of claim 1. They teach placing the device in an enclosed chamber having a deuterium ambient and raising the temperature to 425°C, holding for 60 minutes, and then increasing the temperature to 525°C and holding for 15 minutes (Col. 3, lines 49-67). Therefore, the deuterium gas will be continuously supplied throughout an entire period of the maintaining of the substrate at the second temperature because the maintaining is done in the chamber having the deuterium ambient.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Harvey teaches the process of claim 1. They further teach lowering the temperature to room temperature, where since the process is done in an enclosed chamber having a deuterium ambient, the cooling will also be done while continuously supplying deuterium to the substrate from the gas in the chamber during the cooling process (Col. 3, line 49 to Col. 4, line 7 and Fig. 1). They teach lowering the temperature from the dissociation temperature to a temperature of from 400 to about 450°C to about room temperature, where the first temperature was about 400 to 450°C (Col. 2, line 22 to Col. 3, line 5). Therefore, the cooling will be done from the second temperature to the first and then lower while continuously supplying deuterium to the substrate.
Regarding claim 7, Harvey teaches the process of claim 1. They teach that the gas is deuterium (Col. 2, lines 21-33).
Regarding claim 10, Harvey teaches the process of claim 1. They further teach that although the gate insulator material is referred to a silicon dioxide, the process may also apply to gate insulators that also contain or are comprised solely of nitrides, such as silicon nitride (Col. 3, lines 17-20, claims 1, and claim 3).
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.
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 1-7 and 10 are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey, US 6,017,806 in view of Lyding, US 5,872,387 and claims 8 and 9 are rejected over Harvey in view of Lyding.
Regarding claims 1-7 and 10, as discussed above Harvey provides the limitations of claims 1-7 and 10, where providing the deuterium ambient in the enclosed chamber is considered to provide supplying and continuously supplying deuterium to the substrate.
They do not specifically teach that the gas supply is actively supplied or flowed.
Lyding teaches processes for conditioning semiconductor devices with deuterium to improve operating characteristics and decrease depassivation which occurs during the course of device operation (abstract). They teach passivating the device with deuterium (Col. 2, lines 16-23). They teach that the semiconductor device includes a semiconductor layer including a Group III, IV, or V element or a mixture thereof and an insulative layer atop the semiconductor layer (Col. 2, lines 24-31). They teach that the device includes insulators 16 and 17 formed of materials such as an oxide and/or nitride of silicon on a substrate (Col. 4, lines 1-27 and Fig. 1), such that a substrate is prepared having an insulating film on a surface. They teach heating the device in the presence of a flowing, mixed or static deuterium-enriched ambient at one or more stages of fabrication, and/or after fabrication is completed (Col. 4, lines 44-67). They teach that the deuterium-enriched ambient will contain deuterium at a level above that which occurs in nature, such as 0.1% up to 100% by volume deuterium (Col. 4, lines 44-67). They teach that the deuterium-enriched ambient will contain one or more other gases such as hydrogen in combination with deuterium (Col. 4, lines 44-67). They teach annealing at a temperature of at least about 200°C up to the melting or decomposition temperature of other components of the device (Col. 4, lines 44-67).
From the teachings of Lyding, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously supplied the deuterium gas by flowing it to the enclosure so as to provide the deuterium ambient because Lyding teaches that device passivation in a deuterium annealing process can be done using a flowing, mixed or static deuterium-enriched ambient such that flowing or supplying the deuterium to the enclosure during the process of Harvey is expected to provide a suitable source of deuterium as opposed to the static provision of deuterium. Therefore, deuterium will be continuously supplied by active flowing of deuterium during the process of Harvey in view of Lyding.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Harvey teaches or Harvey in view of Lyding suggests the process of claim 1, where Harvey teaches supplying deuterium for the process. Harvey teaches that the deuterium gas can be provided as a deuterium-containing gas (Col. 2, lines 22-30).
They do not teach providing hydrogen gas when raising the temperature.
As discussed above, Lyding teaches passivating an insulating surface using a deuterium-containing environment. They teach providing deuterium to bond wot atoms such as Si (Col. 4, lines 28-43 and Col. 5, lines 7-40). They teach that the deuterium gas can be provided with other gases such as hydrogen (Col. 4, lines 44-67).
From the teachings of Lyding, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied hydrogen and deuterium gas for the annealing process because Lyding teaches that hydrogen can be included in the deuterium-rich ambient for providing Si-D bonds such that it will be expected to provide a suitable gas mixture for the annealing process. Therefore, the either gas or both gas will include hydrogen and deuterium and where since the process can comprise the listed features when the either gas or both gases is hydrogen it is not considered to prohibit the flow of deuterium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718