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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-13 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 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. Note that the claims are no longer anticipated by the specific examples disclosed in Orihashi. However, as outlined below, Orihashi makes obvious the amended claims.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orihashi et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0221699).
I. Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 13, Orihashi teaches a thin film deposition process (abstract) comprising: repeatedly performing a first injection of DCS, dichlorosilane, into a chamber (first process gas, Figure 4); and a second injection of a non-halogen-based gas (claim 1), such as DS, disilane, into a chamber (second process gas, Figure 4) to form a silicon seed layer (see bottom of Figure 4). Orihashi teaches performing purging by injecting nitrogen into the chamber between the first injection and second injection and after the second injection (see inert gas, Figure 4), and that the number of repetitions is 10-50 times (0101). Orihashi further teaches forming an additional seed layer (comparable to a silicon film) over the seed layer by repeatedly performing the injection of DCS and DS that yields an amorphous state (see Figure 5 and 0077). Orihashi teaches a further injection of a purge gas into the chamber (Figure 5) and that an additional injection of hydrogen can be performed, wherein the hydrogen is included with the DCS or DS gas injection step (0178). Orihashi also teaches performing the process at a temperature in the range of 370-390 ºC (0097). Orihashi fails to explicitly teach an example where the non-halogen based gas is a compound of Formula 2.
However, Orihashi specifically teaches that the non-halogen based gas can additionally include a non-halogen gas, such as hexasilane (Si6H14), at paragraph 0103 which meets the limitations of Chemical Formula 2, where y is 6 and z is 0. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Orihashi’s specific example to include hexasilane with disilane, to thereby arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Orihashi explicitly teaches that the DS gas can be modified by the inclusion of hexasilane, and one could use this addition to tune/tailor the coating process.
II. Regarding claim 5, Orihashi teaches a thin film deposition process comprising: repeatedly performing injecting DCS into a chamber (see above), but fails to explicitly teach an example of performing a second injection of the gases as listed in claim 5. However, Orihashi does teach that during injecting DCS into the chamber a second gas, such as chlorosilane may also be injected (0102), which would meet the limitation of repeatedly performing the injection of a second gas of chemical Formula 2 wherein the compound is selected from the group as listed in claim 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Orihashi’s specific example to include an injection of chlorosilane in combination with DCS. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Orihashi teaches that addition of a second gas such as chlorosilane can tune/tailor the cleavage reaction during deposition (0102).
2. Claim(s) 8, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orihashi in view of Takagi et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0043719).
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 11, Orihashi teaches all the limitations of claims 7 and 10 (see above), including performing an injection of hydrogen (see above), and performing an injection of hydrogen and a purge after injection of the hydrogen (see above and Figures 4 and 5, wherein hydrogen can be injected with any of the process gases and the nitrogen is continuously injected as a purge gas). Orihashi fails to teach nitriding or oxidizing the silicon seed layer and/or the silicon thin film.
However, Takagi teaches a similar process for forming a silicon thin film by initially forming a seed layer and then forming a silicon layer over the seed layer (abstract). Takagi further teaches oxidizing the seed layer (0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Orihashi’s process by oxidizing Orihashi’s first and additional seed layers as disclosed by Takagi. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Takagi teaches that this allows for forming a film with uniform thickness (0071).
Conclusion
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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 S WALTERS JR/
August 28, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights