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
Claim 20 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/23/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “a” is missing before “first pattern” at line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 11, 13-14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuki et al. (US 2023/0295797).
Claim 1: Matsuki teaches a film deposition method (Abst.), comprising the steps of: supplying a first gas to a showerhead in a chamber (¶¶ 0027, 0030); generating plasma in the chamber by applying RF power to a susceptor having a substrate located thereon during a first time period (¶ 0034); applying a bias power to the showerhead during a second time period (which may be the same as the first time period) (¶ 0034); supplying a second gas and a precursor to chamber (¶¶ 0027, 0030); and depositing a film by applying the RF power (¶¶ 0046-0047).
Claim 2: Matsuki also teaches that the power and bias are turned on and off repeatedly throughout the process (Fig. 4).
Claim 5: Matsuki teaches supplying the RF power at a desired level (i.e. claimed above a predetermined threshold) (¶ 0034, e.g.).
Claim 11: Matsuki teaches that the susceptor comprises a heater on the susceptor (¶ 0024).
Claims 13, 14 and 16: Matsuki teaches a computer including a process which is programmed to run each of the process steps of claims 1, 2 and 5, as discussed above (¶ 0029).
Claim 19: Matsuki teaches that the bias power is supplied from a first generator (81) and the RF power is supplied from a second generator (84) (¶ 0034).
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2013/0005081).
Claims 1-2 and 12: Chen teaches a process of forming a passivation film (Abst.), comprising the steps of: applying a bias to a showerhead in a chamber (¶ 0032); generating plasma in the chamber by applying RF power to a substrate support (i.e. claimed susceptor) for a first period while a substrate is on the support (¶¶ 0032-0033); applying a bias power to the showerhead for a second time period (¶¶ 0032-0033); stopping the bias power to the showerhead (i.e. claimed blocking); supplying a second gas and a precursor to the chamber to form the passivation film (¶ 0033); and repeating the step of applying bias to the showerhead (¶ 0034).
Claim 3: Chen further teaches that the chamber is connected to a vacuum pump (¶ 0038) and that the chamber is set to a first pressure during the bias applying second time period and then adjusted to a lower pressure after the bias is blocked (¶¶ 0032-0033). While Chen does not expressly mention a valve, the use of a valve to adjust the pressure is implicit in the disclosure of Chen because on would be required to adjust the pressure using a pump.
Claim 5: Chen teaches use of a predetermined RF power frequency (see, e.g., ¶ 0033).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki.
Claim 4: Matsuki is silent regarding the ratio of the first gas and second gas. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the amount of each gas used is selected based on the desired stoichiometry of the film formed (see, e.g., ¶ 0033 which discusses the use of gases). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected less of the first gas than the second gas depending on the desired ratios.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in light of Matsuki.
Claims 13-16: Chen teaches each of the process steps of claims 13-17, as discussed above, but does not expressly recite a memory storing device and processor programmed to perform the method steps. Matsuki teaches a similar process of forming a film and explains that a computer is programmed to control each of the process steps (¶ 0029). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have utilized a computer with a memory and a processor to control the process of Chen with the predictable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 EST.
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) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
