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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-18 and 20 in the reply filed on 16 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 16 April 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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 1-16, 18, and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a different film quality from the primitive film.” The limitation is indefinite as vague, since it is not clear what is considered a “quality,” whether, for instance, it includes any property, including its duration of existence in time, its position in space, its composition, its color, its thickness, or whether “quality” is meant to refer to a specific set of unrecited properties. Examiner considers any difference at all, including its position in space or in time or any other property, to be included.
Claim 1 recites the combination of limitations “the predetermined number of times is set such that an absolute value or a gradient residual stress of the multilayer film after annealing the multilayer film is smaller than an allowable value.” The limitation is indefinite as vague, and it fails to adequately define meaningful boundaries for “allowable values” or for absolute values or gradient of residual stress which are compared to that allowable value, since for any value of a residual stress, one can assert a value that is greater and “allowable.” Also, the phrase “an absolute value or a gradient of residual stress” is ambiguous, since it is not clear whether “absolute value” modifies “residual stress” or whether it is a distinct value. Also, it is not clear how a gradient is assigned a value to be compared to “an allowable value.” In addition, it is not clear on what basis “the predetermined number of times is set.” Examiner considers that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation is that a cycle can be performed any number of times, including 0.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the predetermined number of times is set to be greater as the residual stress after the annealing increases and to be smaller as the residual stress decreases.” The limitation is indefinite, because it is not clear what the predetermined number of times is compared to to determine what is meant by “greater” or “smaller.” Moreover, it is not clear how this requirement is consistent with the require in Claim 1 that the predetermined number of times is set such that an absolute value of residual stress I smaller than an allowable value after annealing. Examiner interprets the limitation to mean that if annealing increases residual stress, it is necessarily smaller than an allowable value, since Claim 1 requires this constraint.
Claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are rejected as depending from rejected claims.
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) 1,3,6,8,10-11,13,14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagase et al. (JP 63-260052).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, JP’052 teaches a method of processing a substrate, comprising: forming a multilayer film with a predetermined thickness on the substrate by performing a cycle a predetermined number of times, the cycle including: (a) depositing a primitive film (e.g. polycrystalline silicon) by exposing the substrate to a precursor gas; and (b) exposing the substrate to a crystal growth inhibition gas or a predetermined gas that forms a film (e.g. amorphous silicon) with a different film quality from the primitive film (e.g. polycrystalline vs. amorphous), wherein the predetermined number of times is set such that an absolute value or a gradient of a residual stress of the multilayer film after annealing the multilayer film is smaller than an allowable value, automatically, since for whatever the absolute value or gradient a greater allowable value is inherent (p. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, the primitive film contains a group XIV element (silicon).
Regarding Claim 6, the predetermined gas includes a group XIV (silicon) and a constituent element of the primitive film (silicon) and a constituent element of the film with the different film quality from the primitive film (silicon).
Regarding Claim 8, in (b) a layer containing an element (Mo) other than an element (Si) constituting the primitive film is formed on a surface of the primitive film formed in an immediately preceding (a) (pp. 2,5).
Regarding Claim 11, the thickness of a layer (e.g. Mo layer 1) formed in (b) is less than the thickness of polycrystalline layer 2. (Fig. 1A)
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 1 requires that the predetermined number of times is set such that an absolute value or gradient of residual stress is smaller than an allowable value and JP’052 teaches the method. Therefore, Claim 13 is met.
Regarding Claim 14, JP’052 annealing takes place at 900 degrees and the multilayer film is modified to reduce residual stress as the predetermined number of times is at least 1 (p. 5).
Regarding Claim 18, JP’052 teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device (gate oxide film, p. 3) comprising the method of Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
Claim(s) 1-5,8, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 106949910).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Zhang et al. (CN’910) teach a method of processing a substrate, comprising: forming a multilayer film with a predetermined thickness on the substrate by performing a cycle a predetermined number of times, the cycle including: (a) depositing a primitive film by exposing the substrate to a precursor gas (LPCVD) [0025,0079]; and (b) exposing the substrate to a crystal growth inhibition gas (i.e. thermal oxidation, which implies either oxygen gas or water vapor at high temperature) or a predetermined gas (i.e. thermal oxidation implies oxygen gas or water vapor at high temperature) that forms a film with a different film quality (SiO2) from the primitive film (polycrystalline silicon), wherein the predetermined number of times is set such that an absolute value or a gradient of a residual stress of the multilayer film after annealing the multilayer film is smaller than an allowable value (inherent, and also [0077,0079]).
Regarding Claim 2, CN’910 teaches that a), a polycrystalline film is deposited as the primitive film, and wherein (b) is performed under a condition where the polycrystalline film that is deposited in a subsequent (a) forms new crystal grains [0079].
Regarding Claim 3, CN”910 teaches that the primitive film contains a group XIV element (silicon) (see citation in rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, CN’910 teaches exposing the substrate to the crystal growth inhibition gas (i.e. thermal oxidation), and depositing a subsequent primitive film in a subsequent (a) [0079]. Therefore, crystal nuclei are inherently provided at a predetermined density to the primitive film that is deposited.
Regarding Claim 8, CN’910 teaches that in (b), a layer containing an element (oxygen) other than an element (silicon) constituting the primitive film is formed on a surface of the primitive film formed in an immediately preceding (a) [0079].
Regarding Claim 11, CN’910 teaches that a thickness of the film or a layer formed in (b) is smaller than a thickness of the primitive film formed in an immediately preceding (a).
Regarding Claim 14, CN’910 teaches annealing the multilayer film at a temperature of 950 C [0077]. The multilayer film is inherently modified in (c) such that an absolute value of residual stress after the annealing decreases as some unrecited predetermined number (any number, since no number is recited) increases from 0); moreover, there is no requirement that the predetermined number is greater than 0.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knese et al. (US 2010/0164023) in view of Imai (JPH 07307347A).
Regarding Claim 17, Knese et al. (US’023) teaches a process for forming a cantilever, including steps of a) depositing a silicon oxide sacrificial layer on a single crystal substrate [0007,0025] and b) depositing a polycrystalline film containing a first element on the surface in such a manner that at least a portion of crystal grains are epitaxial on the crystal substrate [0007]; and c) processing the polycrystalline film into a cantilever while maintaining a stress gradient of the polycrystalline film within a predetermined range (fulfilled by performance of a) and b), since no specific range is recited and a range can be assigned which includes whatever stress gradient occurs).
US’023 fails to teach any specific deposition methods, including gas. However, epitaxial deposition methods (e.g. molecular beam epitaxy, CVD, UHV/ CVD) were well-known at the time of invention. For example, JPH’347 is analogous art, which teaches an analogous method for producing a cantilever structure with a polycrystalline layer and an epitaxial layer [0017], and suggests molecular beam epitaxy) and UV/CVD to deposit an epitaxial layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’023 by exposing a single crystal substrate including an oxide film formed on a surface of the single crystal substrate to a first element-containing gas, and depositing a polycrystalline film containing a first element on the surface in such a manner that at least a portion of crystal grains are epitaxial on the single crystal substrate, because gas deposition of epitaxial films was known at the time of invention, as JPH’347 also suggests. With regards to the limitation ” wherein (a) includes changing a partial pressure of the first element-containing gas,” the UHV/CVD and MBE processes imply such changes in partial pressure of a material which is vaporized.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 106949910) in view of Okumura et al. (JPH097912).
Regarding Claim 20, CN’910 fails to teach a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to perform a process comprising the method of Claim 1. It was well-known (even conventional) at the time of invention to control multi-cycle vapor deposition processes such as that described in Claim 1. For example, Okumura et al. (JP’912), published 10 January 1997, suggests computer control of an LPCVD process (p. 11). Thus, a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes, by a computer, a substrate processing apparatus to form a process comprising the method of Claim 1 would have been obvious, since a) given the semi-conducting manufacturing process of CN’910, programming a computer takes no more than the skill of a competent technician, b) such programs were conventional at the time of invention, and c) JP’912 suggests such programs for performing analogous processes and non-transitory computer-readable recording media, storing them.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Nagase et al. (JP 63-260052).
Regarding Claim 7, JP’052 fails to teach that a) and b) are performed at the same temperature. JP’052 teaches that a) is performed at 625 C and b) is performed at 525 C (p. 4). However, it would have been obvious to perform a) and b), both at the same temperature (e.g. 625 C) by choosing a single temperature which is above the decomposition temperature required in each of a) and b). Also, generally, differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical.
Regarding Claim 12, JP’052 fails to teach the recited ratio of thickness. However, JP’052 provides evidence that the ratio is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect film stress (p. 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of JP’052 by adjusting the thickness to within the recited range through routine optimization.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Zhang et al. (CN 106949910).
Regarding Claims 9 and 15, CN’910 fails to teach a specific concentration of oxygen. Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Zhang et al. (CN 106949910) in view of Knese et al. (US 2010/0164023).
Regarding Claim 16, CN’910 fails to teach that the substrate includes a sacrificial layer on the substrate before (a) is performed. US’023 is analogous art in the field of semiconductor manufacture, including the production of a cantilever [0078] and the deposition of polycrystalline silicon layers [0079]. Additionally, US’023 suggests first depositing a sacrificial silicon oxide layer and then removing the sacrificial layer after a polycrystalline layer is deposited thereon [0007,0026,0029 [0049]. Although US’023 only teaches a single sacrificial layer, it would have been obvious to deposit the sacrificial layer as two separate layers.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamanaka (US 20030013280) (oxide film on polycrystalline film by oxidation in O2 atmosphere
Ichinobe (US 4,069,067) (thermal oxidation of polycrystalline silicon film with O2 gas)
Ni et al. (US 2016/0090292) (deposit sacrificial silicon oxide layer by CVD)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights