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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 25 JUN 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 25 JUN 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.
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) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra ‘271 (US PGPub 2021/0348271).
Claim 1 – Mishra ‘271 teaches s cleaning method for a film-forming apparatus configured to form a film over a plurality of substrates housed in a process chamber (PG 0024), the cleaning method comprising:
(a) supplying a cleaning gas into the process chamber, thereby removing the film deposited in an interior of the process chamber (PG 0028);
(b) after (a), coating the interior of the process chamber with a molybdenum nitride film (PG 0045, passivation after etching to prevent memory effects during further molybdenum or molybdenum nitride deposition makes explicit the intent to perform further deposition after cleaning; PG 0026, e.g. molybdenum nitride deposited); and
(c) after (b), coating the interior of the process chamber with a molybdenum film (PG 0045, passivation after etching to prevent memory effects during further molybdenum or molybdenum nitride deposition makes explicit the intent to perform further deposition after cleaning; PG 0026, e.g. molybdenum nitride deposited).
Mishra ‘271 does not expressly teach or suggest an embodiment where deposited material comprising both compounds is present and deposited in the claimed order; therefore, Mishra ‘271 does not anticipate Claim 1. However, the combination of separate elements disclosed as capable of being present together (e.g. a material containing both compounds) and the selection of the order of their deposition (a binary choice) is held as prima facie obvious.
Claim 2 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, wherein (a) is performed after the molybdenum film is formed over the plurality of substrates in the process chamber (PG 0043, film deposition occurs on the substrates and the reaction tube walls, after which the chamber is cleaned; the wafer boat holds a plurality of substrates).
Claim 5 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein (c) is performed at a temperature that is higher than a temperature at which (b) is performed. It is well settled that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evidence is critical; see further MPEP 2144.05(II)A. There are only three possible temperature relationships between constant temperatures in steps b and c – b is higher than, equal to, or lower than c. Selecting a temperature relationship such that the desired depositions can occur is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence that the relationship is critical.
Claim 6 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, wherein (c) is performed at a temperature that is same as a temperature at which (b) is performed. It is well settled that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evidence is critical; see further MPEP 2144.05(II)A. There are only three possible temperature relationships between constant temperatures in steps b and c – b is higher than, equal to, or lower than c. Selecting a temperature relationship such that the desired depositions can occur is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence that the relationship is critical.
Claim 8 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, wherein the cleaning gas is a fluorine gas (PG 0037, e.g. fluorine among several alternatives).
Claim 9 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, wherein a first surface and a second surface are in the process chamber (PG 0042, boat containing wafers 320 and wafer boat holder 330) and(b) includes coating the first surface and the second surface with the molybdenum nitride film (the ALD gases permeate the chamber; therefore deposition happens throughout the chamber on exposed surfaces). Mishra ‘271 does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the second surface is maintained at a temperature that is lower than a temperature of the first surface. It is well settled that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evidence is critical; see further MPEP 2144.05(II)A. There are only three possible temperature relationships between constant temperatures in the cited locations – one is higher than, equal to, or lower than the other. Selecting a temperature relationship such that the desired depositions can occur is held as prima facie obvious in the absence of evidence that the relationship is critical.
Claim 10 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 9, wherein the first surface is a surface of a substrate holder configured to hold the plurality of substrates, and the second surface is a surface of a support configured to support the substrate holder (PG 0042, boat containing wafers 320 and wafer boat holder 330).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra ‘271 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zope ‘809 (US PGPub 2021/0407809).
Claim 3 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, wherein (b) includes supplying a molybdenum-containing gas and a second reactant alternately into the process chamber (PG 0039-0040; in an ALD process as contemplated by PG 0036, alternate supply is core to the process). The second reactant is not expressly suggested or disclosed as a nitrogen-containing gas; molybdenum nitride is an expressly stated desired reaction product. Zope ‘809 is drawn to ALD formation of molybdenum-containing films (Abstract, PG 0022). In films containing nitrogen, Zope ‘809 PG 0068 discloses ammonia as a nitrogen-containing gas that contributes nitrogen to the film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Mishra ‘271 to select ammonia as the second reactant in the process of Mishra ‘271 when molybdenum nitride deposition is performed, because Mishra ‘271 discloses ALD processes where molybdenum nitride is formed and Zope ‘809 discloses that ammonia is a known ALD reactant to incorporate nitrogen into molybdenum-containing films.
Claim 4 – Mishra ‘271 renders obvious the cleaning method according to claim 1, wherein (c) includes supplying a molybdenum-containing gas and a second reactant alternately into the process chamber (PG 0039-0040; in an ALD process as contemplated by PG 0036, alternate supply is core to the process). The second reactant is not expressly suggested or disclosed as a reducing gas; molybdenum is an expressly stated desired reaction product. Zope ‘809 is drawn to ALD formation of molybdenum-containing films (Abstract, PG 0022). In films containing nitrogen, Zope ‘809 PG 0068 discloses hydrogen as a reducing agent at PG 0022 and discloses at PG 0066-0068 that hydrogen can remove halides from the molybdenum source; it is noted that Mishra ‘271 contemplates molybdenum halides as source reactants (PG 0048). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of Mishra ‘271 to select hydrogen as the second reactant in the process of Mishra ‘271 when molybdenum deposition is performed, because Mishra ‘271 discloses ALD processes where molybdenum is formed from e.g. molybdenum halide precursors and Zope ‘809 discloses that hydrogen is a reducing agent that can remove halide ligands from molybdenum halide precursors when forming molybdenum-containing films.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 requires wherein (a), (b), and (c) are performed in a state in which no substrate is in the process chamber. This is a process where the depositions in steps (b) and (c) are intentional material rather than incidental and undesired deposition by-products as in Mishra ‘271; the concept of deliberately forming those layers after cleaning, in combination with the limitations of claim 1, would be clear of the prior art.
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