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
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) 1-5, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik (US 2019/0368035 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2008/0241381 A1).
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9:
Malik teaches a method for in-situ CVD/ALD interior process chamber coating to control contamination (abstract). The process includes:
(a) forming a protective film on a plurality of interior component of the process chamber such as amorphous silicon deposited from a silane [0021] (Fig. 2, step 204),
(b) dispose substrate in process chamber and process substrate [0022] (Fig. 2, steps 206,208), and
(c) remove substrate from chamber and remove protective film by a cleaning/etching process [0023] (Fig. 2, steps 210,212) using fluorine gas [0012].
Malik does not specifically state the substrate processing includes deposition of a nickel film.
However, Suzuki teaches a method for depositing a metal layer by vapor deposition [0019] wherein the precursor is Ni(CO)4 [0022] to deposit a nickel layer. The method further includes periodic cleaning of the chamber by a similar in-situ process to remove accumulated residue on the internal surfaces [0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Malik and process the substrate in the manner described by Suzuki including using a nickel precursor to deposit a nickel layer. Suzuki teaches that such deposition processes benefit from periodic cleaning of the chamber and Malik adds that such periodic cleaning benefits from a protective film on the interior surfaces of the chamber. The combination results in deposition of a first amorphous silicon layer, followed by a nickel layer, that inherently reacts at the interface to form nickel silicide, and complete removal during subsequent cleaning.
Claim 2:
Nickel silicide is the natural result of an amorphous silicon protective layer and a nickel deposition process.
Claim 5:
The removal of the protective film can occur after a plurality of operations are performed [Malik 0018].
Claim 10:
The controller [Malik 0017] for implementing the method and the apparatus including gas supplier 118 (Malik, Fig. 1).
Claim 11:
Both Malik and Suzuki already teach the desire to remove the layers built up on the interior of the process chamber. Using a generic detection monitor to monitor and confirm removal would have been obvious automation of a known process.
Claim(s) 6, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik (US 2019/0368035 A1) in view of Suzuki (US 2008/0241381 A1) in view of Kumakura (US 2022/0199371 A1).
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach coating with the nickel film in a state where there is no product substrate in the process chamber. However, Kumakura teaches a method for pre-coating a vapor deposition chamber where the precoating is a first film and a second film of different types [0065] such as a silicon and a metal [0072]. Both films are applied prior to introduction of the substrate (Fig. 2), where a dummy wafer is instead supplied [0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and apply a dual layer pre-coating comprising an amorphous silicon layer followed by a nickel layer. Kumakura states silicon layers and metal layers are suitable for the purpose of precoating the interior surfaces of a vapor deposition apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes a distinction between the protective film of Malik and the reaction layer of the instant invention that forms nickel silicide. The examiner maintains the position that the prior art combination renders this obvious by combining an amorphous silicon layer followed by exposure to nickel precursor at temperatures that cause formation of nickel silicide. In this way, the protective film of Malik is functioning in the same manner as Applicant’s description of a reaction layer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights