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 § 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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dezelah [US 20220181148] in view of Madhiwala [US 20230140367].
Claim 1: Dezelah teaches a method for depositing silicon nitride [title], wherein the method comprise placing the substrate on a susceptor in a reaction chamber [Fig. 3; 0075]; wherein the substrate comprises a trench [Fig. 2]; and introducing a silicon precursor into the reaction space [0006]; exposing the substrate to nitrogen containing gas to purge excess silicon precursor and by products [0030; 0038]. Dezelah further teaches the substrate is moved between sections, wherein there may be provided at least two section of a half reaction can take place and then moved to second half reaction zone to form the silicon nitride on the substrate and that this sequence may be repeated [0031]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the cycle of supplying the silicon precursor and purging step for a second time since the prior art teaches such technique can be desired. Dezelah also teaches exposing the substrate to reactive species generated by a plasma from nitrogen containing gas [0006]; and purging the substrate after supplying the plasma [0027]. However, Dezelah does not explicitly teach providing a first pulse of silicon precursor, purge and a second pulse of silicon precursor and purge. Madhiwala is provided.
Madhiwala teaches a method of depositing a silicon containing film [abstract], wherein the silicon precursor may be provided in multiple shorter pulses such as 2 to 30 pulses [0122] and purging may be provide after two silicon precursors [0122]. Madhiwala further teaches that these subcycles may be repeated two or more times [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two pulses of silicon precursor would lie within the teaching of two precursors pulses that do not react with each other and supplying the purge thereafter two pulses of silicon since Madhiwala teaches these deposition process schemes are operable and already known in the art.
Claim 2: Dezelah teaches the nitrogen-containing gas is provided continuously [0047].
Claims 3-4: Dezelah teaches introducing a hydrogen gas prior to the plasma step [0048] and can be provided continuously [0046].
Claim 5: Dezelah teaches the steps can be repeated a number of times to reach a desired thickness and coverage [0031]. Madhiwala teaches it is also known and operable to provide a process with continuous plasma [0076], wherein the plasma may be hydrogen gas plasma [0058]. Although Madhiwala does not explicitly teach introducing the plasma before step b, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from a finite number of order in which the plasma, such as before step b, after step b, or at the same time as step b.
Claim 6: Dezelah teaches the silicon precursor can have a formula comprising SiH.sub.3X, wherein X is iodine or bromine [0007] such as SiH3l [0039].
Claim 7: Dezelah teaches the temperature may be between 200-400 degrees C [0058], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 8: Dezelah teaches the pressure can be from 10-25 Torr [0060], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 9: Dezelah teaches the RF power can be from 50-1000 W [0054], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 10: Dezelah teaches the silicon nitride layer can have a step coverage greater than 98%, where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 11: although Dezelah does not explicitly teach the conformality ratio of thickness as claimed in claim 11, Dezelah does teaches it is desirable for the SiN to be deposited conformally on high aspect ratios to avoid voids [0024]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the conformality ratio of thickness in order to provide a conformal film on high aspect ratio structures without voids.
Claims 12 and 14: Dezelah teaches the silicon precursor may be provided between 0.01-0.05 seconds [0040], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claims 13, 15 and 17: Dezelah teaches the purging times may range from 0.2 to 10 seconds [0043], where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (See MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 16: Dezelah teaches the duration for nitrogen plasma may range from 0.01 to 5 seconds [0052].
Claim 18: Dezelah teaches a substrate processing apparatus to perform claim 1 [Fig. 3; 0084].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12494361 in view of Dezelah and Medhiwala. The related patent does not appear to teach the substrate comprises a trench. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a substrate with a trench for depositing silicon nitride since Dezelah teaches such substrate is suitable for depositing silicon nitride layers. Dezelah does not explicitly teach providing a first pulse of silicon precursor, purge and a second pulse of silicon precursor and purge. Madhiwala is provided.
Madhiwala teaches a method of depositing a silicon containing film [abstract], wherein the silicon precursor may be provided in multiple shorter pulses such as 2 to 30 pulses [0122] and purging may be provide after two silicon precursors [0122]. Madhiwala further teaches that these subcycles may be repeated two or more times [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two pulses of silicon precursor would lie within the teaching of two precursors pulses that do not react with each other and supplying the purge thereafter two pulses of silicon since Madhiwala teaches these deposition process schemes are operable and already known in the art.
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/610654 in view of Dezelah and Medhiwala. The related patent application does not appear to teach the substrate comprises a trench. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a substrate with a trench for depositing silicon nitride since Dezelah teaches such substrate is suitable for depositing silicon nitride layers. Dezelah does not explicitly teach providing a first pulse of silicon precursor, purge and a second pulse of silicon precursor and purge. Madhiwala is provided.
Madhiwala teaches a method of depositing a silicon containing film [abstract], wherein the silicon precursor may be provided in multiple shorter pulses such as 2 to 30 pulses [0122] and purging may be provide after two silicon precursors [0122]. Madhiwala further teaches that these subcycles may be repeated two or more times [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two pulses of silicon precursor would lie within the teaching of two precursors pulses that do not react with each other and supplying the purge thereafter two pulses of silicon since Madhiwala teaches these deposition process schemes are operable and already known in the art.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights