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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-19, in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/29/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13, 15-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 20220090258 by Saiki et al., hereinafter Saiki.
Claim 1: Saiki discloses a method of processing a substrate, comprising: forming a film on the substrate by performing a first cycle a predetermined number of times, the first cycle including performing: (a) supplying a first processing gas to the substrate; and (b) supplying a second processing gas to the substrate (Figure 6 and 7 and accompanying text),
wherein (a) includes sequentially performing: (a-1) opening a first storage filled with the first processing gas and supplying the first processing gas discharged from the first storage to the substrate via a first supply port; (a-2) exhausting a processing space in which the substrate is processed while stopping the supply of the first processing gas to the substrate; and (a-3) opening a second storage filled with the first processing gas and supplying the first processing gas discharged from the second storage to the substrate via a second supply port different from the first supply port (Figure 7-8 and accompanying text, see 0030 related to exhausting).
Claim 2: Saiki discloses (a-1) and (a-3), the first processing gas is supplied to the substrate while the processing space is exhausted (see 0030 related to exhausting).
Claim 4: Saiki discloses performing: (a-1′) after performing (a-3), opening the first storage filled with the first processing gas and supplying the first processing gas discharged from the first storage to the substrate via the first supply port (see Figure 7-8 and accompanying text).
Claim 5: Saiki discloses further includes performing: (a-4) after performing (a-3) and before performing (a-1′), exhausting the processing space while stopping the supply of the first processing gas to the substrate (see 0030 related to exhausting).
Claim 6: Saiki discloses a second cycle is performed two or more times, the second cycle including sequentially performing (a-1), (a-2), and (a-3) (see Figure 6 and 7 and accompanying text).
Claim 8: Saiki discloses wherein in (a-2), the processing space is exhausted while an inert gas is supplied to the processing space (see 0026, 0029, related to carrier gas supply source, 0024 related to N2, 0070 “inert gas (for example, the N.sub.2 gas serving as the carrier gas”).
Claim 9: Saiki discloses the film is formed by performing the first cycle two or more times (0071, “the cycle of the film-forming process is repeatedly performed a plurality of times.”).
Claim 10: Saiki discloses the discharge of the first processing gas from the first storage is stopped while the first processing gas remains in the first storage (0059, “The release of the source gas from the first tank 95A is instantaneously terminated, and after the release, the accumulation amount of the source gas in the first tank 95A becomes almost zero”, where almost zero includes some residual gas).
Claim 11: Saiki discloses after the discharge of the first processing gas is stopped in (a-1), during a period in which at least one selected from the group of (a-2) and (a-3) is performed, filling the first storage with the first processing gas without discharging the first processing gas from the first storage (see Figure 7 and accompanying text, 0064 related to accumulation and release).
Claim 13: Saiki discloses the first storage and the first supply port are connected via a first pipe, and the second storage and the second supply port are connected via a second pipe that is independent from the first pipe (Figure 1 and accompanying text).
Claim 15-16: Saiki discloses e.g. hexachlorodisilane gas (0034)
Claim 18: Saiki discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising the method of claim 1 (0053).
Claim 19: Saiki discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform a process comprising: forming a film on a substrate by performing a first cycle a predetermined number of times, the first cycle including performing: (a) supplying a first processing gas to the substrate; and (b) supplying a second processing gas to the substrate, wherein (a) includes sequentially performing: (a-1) opening a first storage filled with the first processing gas and supplying the first processing gas discharged from the first storage to the substrate via a first supply port; (a-2) exhausting a processing space in which the substrate is processed while stopping the supply of the first processing gas to the substrate; and (a-3) opening a second storage filled with the first processing gas and supplying the first processing gas discharged from the second storage to the substrate via a second supply port different from the first supply port (see 0045, “the controller 41 configured to control operations of components constituting the substrate processing apparatus”, 0046, 0051 “storing the program described above and by installing the program onto the general-purpose computer using the external memory 412 “ and “[t]he memory 41c or the external memory 412 may be embodied by a non-transitory computer readable recording medium.”)
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki
Claim 3: Saiki discloses all that is taught above and discloses the exhaust valve installed within the exhaust path; however, fails to disclose the exhausted in (a-1) and (a-3) is set to be larger than an opening degree of the exhaust valve while the processing space is being exhausted in (b). However, Saiki discloses “by adjusting an opening degree of the valve 67, it is possible to adjust a pressure such as an inner pressure of the process chamber 2.” (0030) and therefore it would have been obvious to have adjusted the valve opening degree to directly affecting the chamber pressure and adjusting it during the process would have been obvious as predictable (i.e. directly affect the pressure).
Claim 12: Saiki discloses all that is taught above and discloses alternatively supplying from a first and second storage tank; however, fails to explicitly disclose the period between the supplies to be greater than the supply period. However, Saiki discloses the release from each tank may be performed at a desired timing (0064) to provide the vapor gas to the chamber and therefore disclose that the timing is a result effective variable, directly affecting the supply and it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum pulsing durations and timing through routine experimentation to provide the precursor gas to the chamber.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki taken with US Patent Application Publication 20140295667 by Kaga et al. hereinafter Kaga.
Saiki discloses all that is taught above and discloses the exhaust valve installed within the exhaust path with an opening degree. Additionally, Kaga discloses the opening degree of the exhaust valve will be a result effective variable, directly affecting the exhaust amount (0076, stating “ by increasing the degree of opening of the valve, an exhaust amount may also be increased”) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum opening degree to directly affecting the time and amount of exhausting.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki taken with US Patent Application Publication 20240191351 by Pierreux et al. hereinafter Pierreux.
Saiki discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to discloses a supply amount of the first processing gas in (a-1) of the second cycle on a (k+1)-th time is different from a supply amount of the first processing gas in (a-1) of the second cycle on a k-th time. However, Pierreux discloses adjusting the precursor dose in each cycle so as to control the precursor utilization and waste (0175, 0080 regarding silane precursors). Therefore, taking the references collectively, adjusting the precursor dose in a subsequent deposition cycle would have been obvious to reap the benefits of controlling the precursor utilization and reducing waste.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saiki taken with US Patent Application Publication 20200258736 by Okuda et al., hereinafter Okuda.
Claim 14: Saiki discloses all that is taught above; however fails to disclose the claimed supply port arrangement. However, Okuda, also in the art of forming a film using a cycle and first and second storage parts discloses supplying from the periphery of the substrate towards the plane of a substrate an one supplying towards the center and one supplying in a direction different from a direction facing a center of the substrate (0005, Figure 2, abstract) and discloses such can provide controllability of the uniformity (abstract). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Saiki to include the supply ports and first and second precursor supply lines as claimed to reap the benefit of controlling the uniformity of the film.
Claim 17: Saiki fails to disclose the modifying gas; however, Okuda discloses continuously supplying inert gas to the chamber (Figure 4 and accompanying text) and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the inert gas supply as such is known and suitable in the art for vapor deposition. Here, the broadly drafted claim encompasses nitrogen as a modifying gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights