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 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 4-5,9-15 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.
The term “substantially free” in claims 4 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially free” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since, there is no definition or guide line in the specification of the term and one of ordinary skill would not have the meets and bound of the term.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 2023/0317458) in view of Koshizawa et al (US 2022/0020599) .
Regarding claim 1, Wu et al disclose a plasma process using a process system 200 [0034], wherein the process comprising deposition process 302 and an etching process 304 (Figure 3); flowing or supplying deposition precursor gas [0041] and flowing or supplying etching gas [0042].
Wu et al may not disclose the flow rate ratio of deposition precursor gas to the etchant gas in the claimed range.
However, without showing any criticality of such flow rate ratio of the precursor gases, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have optimize such for predictable results.
Wu et al also may not disclose a plasma to the processing volume of the deposition and etching gas precursors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Koshizawa et al disclose deposition and etching operation sequentially on a substrate ([0064],[0065], Figure 4); wherein a plasma is generated from the deposition and etching precursors [0006],[0007]; and the etchant mixture may include a fluorine-containing precursor. A flow-rate ratio of the fluorine-containing precursor to the oxygen-containing precursor to the chlorine-containing precursor may be greater than or about 1:5:10 [0009].
Koshizawa et al disclose that plasma with capacitively-coupled plasma formable between the faceplate and the electrode may be produced at increased plasma power to increase plasma density within the space, and increase plasma effluent production to increase etching of substrate materials within the processing region [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Koshizawa et al's teaching of using plasma of into the teaching of Wu et al for increasing plasma density within the space, and increase plasma effluent production to increase etching of substrate materials within the processing region as suggested by Koshizawa et al.
Regarding claim 3, Wu et al teach above that deposition and etching supplying/flowing are sequentially performed because the deposition and the etching steps are repeated one or more times ([0007], Claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Wu et al disclose the etchant gas comprises molybdenum hexafluoride (MoF.sub.6) [0042] and so, the etchant composition is free of hydrogen gas.
Regarding claim 5, Wu et al disclose above that no hydrogen gas being used as the etching gas and therefore, the flow rate ratio would be less or nothing.
Regarding claim 6, Wu et al disclose that the processing chamber 202 is configured for direct plasma processing. In those embodiments, the showerhead 218 may be electrically coupled to a first power supply 231, such as an RF power supply, which supplies power to form and maintain a capacitively coupled plasma using processing gases flowed into the processing region 221 through the showerhead 218 [0033].
Regarding claims 7-8, without showing any criticality of such flow rate ratio of the precursor gases, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have optimize such for predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Wu et al disclose a plasma process using a process system 200 [0034], wherein the process comprising deposition process 302 and an etching process 304 (Figure 3); flowing or supplying deposition precursor gas [0041] and flowing or supplying etching gas [0042]. Wu et al disclose the etchant gas comprises molybdenum hexafluoride (MoF.sub.6) [0042] and so, the etchant composition is free of hydrogen gas.
Wu et al may not disclose a plasma to the processing volume of the deposition and etching gas precursors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Koshizawa et al disclose deposition and etching operation sequentially on a substrate ([0064],[0065], Figure 4); wherein a plasma is generated from the deposition and etching precursors [0006],[0007]; and the etchant mixture may include a fluorine-containing precursor. A flow-rate ratio of the fluorine-containing precursor to the oxygen-containing precursor to the chlorine-containing precursor may be greater than or about 1:5:10 [0009].
Koshizawa et al disclose that plasma with capacitively-coupled plasma formable between the faceplate and the electrode may be produced at increased plasma power to increase plasma density within the space, and increase plasma effluent production to increase etching of substrate materials within the processing region [0051].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Koshizawa et al's teaching of using plasma of into the teaching of Wu et al for increasing plasma density within the space, and increase plasma effluent production to increase etching of substrate materials within the processing region as suggested by Koshizawa et al.
Regarding claim 16, Koshizawa et al disclose the energizing a plasma in the processing volume 120, a potential difference may be established between the plasma and the first electrode 108. The electronic controllers 134, 140 may then be used to adjust the flow properties of the ground paths represented by the two tuning circuits 128 and 136. A set point may be delivered to the first tuning circuit 128 and the second tuning circuit 136 to provide independent control of deposition rate and of plasma density uniformity from center to edge. In embodiments where the electronic controllers may both be variable capacitors, the electronic sensors may adjust the variable capacitors to maximize deposition rate and minimize thickness non-uniformity independently [0036]; and the sensors may be provided with control software that determines an adjustment to each respective electronic controller 134, 140 to minimize deviation from the set point [0038]; and aforesaid controlled software easily reads on the claimed “non-transistory computer-readable medium storing instructions” that cause or control the deposition/etching operation.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Koshizawa et al disclose that deposition and etching may performed simultaneously [0073].
Regarding claim 13, Koshizawa et al disclose that a capacitively couple RF power to the process gases to maintain the plasma within the processing region 201 [0042].
Regarding claim 13, Koshizawa et al disclose that deposition precursor gas comprises silane [0006] and providing hydrogen -containing precursor [0073].
Regarding claims 12,15 and 20, without showing any criticality of such flow rate ratio of the precursor gases, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have optimize such for predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jewell et al (US 2024/0145550; provided with the IDS dated 12/5/2025).
Regarding claim 9, Jewell et al disclose a process comprising depositing a layer by flowing deposition precursor and the deposition process may include any suitable deposition technique, such as epitaxial (Epi) deposition, chemical vapor deposition (CVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), or physical vapor deposition (PVD), by flowing a deposition gas in a processing chamber [0045]; and aforesaid atomic layer deposition (ALD) obviously include a plasma to deposit one or more layers.
Jewell et al disclose an etching process by flowing an etching gas in the processing chamber to remove one or more layers [0054].
Jewell et al disclose that the etching gas used in the etch process in block 430 includes an etchant gas and a carrier gas. The etchant gas may include halogen-containing gas, such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) or HF [0056]; so, the etching composition is substantially free of hydrogen gas as required in the instant claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, Jewell et al disclose that the deposition gas used in the first deposition process includes a silicon-containing precursor, a germanium containing precursor, and a dopant source. The silicon-containing precursor may include silane (SiH.sub.4) [0047]; and the etching gas used in the etch process in block 430 includes an etchant gas and a carrier gas. The etchant gas may include halogen-containing gas, such as hydrogen chloride (HCl) [0056].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMIM AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1457. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH (8-5:30pm).
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
SHAMIM AHMED
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1713
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights