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 .
The amendment filed 6/22/26 has been considered and entered. Claim 9 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the response filed 6/22/26, the 35 USC 112 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding claim 8, the claim is confusing as to how the formation of SixNy would prevent the formation of SixNy? Is this the prevention of another Si?N? layer? Is this prevention of the same SixNy layer? Clarification is requested.
Regarding clam 21, the claims is unclear and confusing as to how exposing a silicon precursor layer with hydrogen would produce a SixNy layer as the other components are recited as “optional” as well as if Ar or He were chosen, no nitrogen would be present and therefore formation of SixNy is questioned. Clarification is requested.
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.
Claims 1,2,5-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (2008/0242116) in combination with Sharma et al. (2020/0286725).
Clark (2008/0242116) teaches a method of forming strained silicon nitride films and device containing such films. Clark (2008/0242116) teaches exposing the substrate to a gas including s silicon precursor, exposing the substrate to a gas containing a nitrogen precursor activated by a plasma source at a first level of power configured to react with the silicon precursor (claimed first silicon nitride (SixNy) layer) and exposing the substrate to a gas containing a nitrogen precursor activated by the plasma source at a second level of power and configured to react with the silicon precursor reacted with the first nitrogen source to provide a strained silicon nitride film (claimed first treated silicon nitride (SixNy) layer) (abstract and [0009]). Clark (2008/0242116) teaches repeating the steps a number of times which would meet the claimed second SiNy layer and teaches using PEALD ([0003],[0010] and [0019]). Clark (2008/0242116) teaches using ammonia (NH3) and (N2) in the first and second plasma steps [0022]. Clark (2008/0242116) teaches a PEALD process and exposes substrate to silicon precursor, exposing the silicon precursor to a plasma mixture including NH3, N2 and Ar and/or He and a second plasma including N2 and Ar and/or He or a first plasma of N2 and Ar and/or He and a second plasma including NH3, N2 and Ar and/or He.
Clark (2008/0242116) fails to teach the specific atomic percentage of ammonia in the plasma to be 0.1 atomic% to 25 atomic percent.
Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) teaches forming a silicon-based film including SiN whereby a reactive species generated by a plasma from nitrogen whereby the plasma includes 25 atomic % nitrogen or less. The nitrogen plasma can also include hydrogen (H2) and/or nitrogen (N2) as well as ammonia (NH3) [0046],[0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clark (2008/0242116) process to include using a nitrogen plasma having 25 atomic percent or less of ammonia as evidenced by Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) with the expectation f producing the desired SiN film.
Regarding claim 2, the substrate for depositing the SiN film thereon includes Si, Ge or SiGe [0023].
Regarding claim 5, the pressure in the process chamber is from 0.1 Torr to 100 Torr which fully encompasses the claimed 0.1-20 Torr [0037].
Regarding claim 6, the substrate temperature control for the process includes from room temperature to approximately 350C-550C or from 150-C to 350C which encompasses most of the claimed temperature of 100C-600C [0035].
Regarding claim 7, Clark (2008/0242116) fails to teach the claimed thickness, however, Clark (2008/0242116) uses a PEALD process which forms atomic layers and hence would be suggestive of forming within the claimed range of 0 angstroms to 15 angstroms.
Regarding claim 8, the claim inherently meets the “preventing formation of the one or more” as Clark (2008/0242116) teaches forming SiN on the same substrate materials of Si, Ge or SiGe by similar process PEALD and hence would possess the same characteristics of “prevention”.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Clark (2008/0242116) teaches using N2 and NH3 and combination thereof [0039] as well as including inert gas such as argon (Ar) [0054],[0069].
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Clark (2008/0242116) teaches using in addition to the gases a dilution gas including helium (He) [0069].
Regarding claim 14, Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) teaches forming a silicon-based film including SiN whereby a reactive species generated by a plasma from nitrogen whereby the plasma includes 25 atomic % nitrogen or less. The nitrogen plasma can also include hydrogen (H2) and/or nitrogen (N2) as well as ammonia (NH3) [0046],[0095].
Regarding claims 15-20, Clark (2008/0242116) teaches a PEALD process and exposes substrate to silicon precursor, exposing the silicon precursor to a plasma mixture including NH3, N2 and Ar and/or He and a second plasma including N2 and Ar and/or He or a first plasma of N2 and Ar and/or He and a second plasma including NH3, N2 and Ar and/or He.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (2008/0242116) in combination with Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) further in combination with either Alokozai et al. (9,605,342) or Swaminathan et al. (8,956,983).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Clark (2008/0242116) in combination with Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) are incorporated here.
Clark (2008/0242116) in combination with Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) teaches remote plasma [0003],[0016],[0044]; ICP [0041] or microwave [0042],[0044] as the plasma generation sources but fails to teach the first plasma, second plasma and the plasma for PEALD are all independently generated.
Alokozai et al. (9,605,342) teaches a process gas management for inductively coupled plasma deposition reactor whereby using a ICP system (104) may include a plurality of independent ICP coils and associated power supplies capable of independently varying the plasma density with the plasma zones (col. 11, lines 4-11).
Swaminathan et al. (8,956,983) teaches plasma activated atomic layer deposition whereby in certain embodiments, RF power may include independently controlled high-frequency RF power and low-frequency RF power generated by RF power sources which may be operated independently of one another (col. 14, lines 20-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Clark (2008/0242116) in combination with Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) SiN PEALD process to include independently controlling the first plasma, second plasma and the plasma of the PEALD process as evidenced by Alokozai et al. (9,605,342) or Swaminathan et al. (8,956,983) with the expectation of more control of the process in forming SiN layers.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,8-12,14,15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,281 in combination with Sharma et al. (2020/0286725). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in the instant application the claims recite forming SixNy films and using NH3 and N2 while 11,626,281 teaches forming reactive species and using NH* radicals and N* radicals but both formed SiN films by forming a precursor layer and treating with a first and second plasma to form the SiN films and repeating. Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) teaches forming a silicon-based film including SiN whereby a reactive species generated by a plasma from nitrogen whereby the plasma includes 25 atomic % nitrogen or less. The nitrogen plasma can also include hydrogen (H2) and/or nitrogen (N2) as well as ammonia (NH3) [0046],[0095].
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that claim 8 is not confusing but argues that the SixNy prevent formation of “non-stoichiometric nitridation layer”, however, the claim does not refer to the SixNy as being “non-stoichiometric”. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argued Clark (2008/0242116) fails to tecah the plasma to include a range from 0.1 atomic % to 25 atomic % of ammonia or nitrogen.
Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) teaches this as detailed above.
Applicant argued the nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,8-12,14,15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,626,281 should be withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims.
The Examiner disagrees. Sharma et al. (2020/0286725) teaches the claimed atomic percentage of nitrogen precursor.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights