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
Claims 1-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 14 JUL 2026.
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.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US ‘757 (U.S. PGPub 2006/0130757.
Claim 12 – US ‘757 teaches a method of depositing a thin film (PG 0009, PECVD system; All element references Figure 1 unless otherwise noted), the method comprising steps of:
a) placing a substrate (substrate 135, PG 0009) on a substrate support (substrate holder 130, PG 0009) in a reaction chamber (processing chamber 110, PG 0009), wherein the reaction chamber is defined in part by a chamber wall (chamber wall 112, PG 0032);
b) introducing gases to the reaction chamber through a showerhead (showerhead assembly 120, PG 0009; see also PG 0015 and 0039-0040, showerhead introduces process gases); and
c) providing a plasma to the reaction chamber to form a thin film (remote plasma system 165, PG 0016 and 0018; additionally, PG 0022 discloses upper electrode 140 and RF source 146 as a capacitively coupled plasma source; upper electrode 140 is in the chamber);
wherein a temperature of the chamber wall is configured to be controlled between 00°C and about 500°C (PG 0045, temperature control system which controls the chamber wall temperature); and
wherein a temperature of the showerhead is configured to be controlled between 0°C and about 500°C (PG 0045, temperature control system which controls the showerhead temperature).
US ‘757, while disclosing separate temperature ranges for the chamber wall and the showerhead which each encompass the claimed temperature control ranges for these elements, does not disclose a single embodiment with both claimed temperature ranges. However, given the disclosure of both ranges in close conjunction with each other, Examiner holds that modifying the broad disclosure of US ‘757 by performing the simultaneous selection of chamber wall temperature and showerhead temperature to be within the claimed ranges for these elements is held as prima facie obvious, since the claimed temperature ranges are subranges of the taught temperature ranges and therefore within the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art in possession of the reference document without undue experimentation.
Claim 13 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein the gases comprise a precursor (PG 0041, e.g. a silicon-containing precursor), an oxygen- containing gas (PG 0042, oxygen-containing gases disclosed), and an inert gas (PG 0041, inert gas may be included with precursor; PG 0042, inert gas may be included with oxygen-containing gas).
Claim 14 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the precursor comprises at least one of: octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (OMCTS), tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane (TMCTS), or dimethyldimethoxysilane (DM-DMOS) (PG 0041, listed compounds expressly named).
Claim 15 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 13, wherein the oxygen-containing gas comprises at least one of: O2, O3, N2O, or NxOy (PG 0042; NO is equivalent to N1O1 and reads on NxOy; other listed compounds expressly named).
Claim 16 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 12, further comprising step (d) removing the substrate from the reaction chamber (PG 0023, transferring a substrate into and out of a chamber is expressly disclosed; choosing to remove the substrate at the end of a processing cycle is held as prima facie obvious).
Claim 17 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 16, further comprising step (f) introducing a cleaning gas to the reaction chamber (PG 0010, remote plasma system 165 can be used for chamber cleaning; plasma requires the presence of at least one gas to operate; therefore, a cleaning gas is necessarily present in the reaction chamber in this mode).
Claim 18 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 17, wherein the steps (a) to (d) are repeated N times before the step (f) (the instant specification puts no limits on N, therefore, any selection of repetitions, including zero repetitions, reads on the claim).
Claim 19 – US ‘757 renders obvious the method of claim 12 but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a thickness of the thin film is at least 500 nm. PG 0036 discloses controlling the chamber in accordance with a process recipe. Selection of any particular thickness of film deposition in the process recipe based on the intended use of the film is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of unexpected results derived from the selection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 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 571-272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights