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 Group I, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on July 01, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 01, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is not clear if precoating has to be performed. Parent claim 1 requires a step of forming a precoated film however claim 11 only requires forming the precoated film after a number of substrates being modified exceeds a predetermined number. Therefore, it is not clear if forming the precoated film is required and it is not clear when it is required to form the precoated film since a “predetermined number” is not defined by the 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakanishi et al (U.S. Patent # 10,017,853) in view of Kameshima et al (U.S. Patent # 7,897,205).
In the case of claim 1, Nakanishi teaches a method for modifying a film formed on a substrate by hydrogen plasma treating a silicon nitride film (Abstract). The method of Nakanishi comprised a step of preparing the substrate by placing the substrate in the form of a wafer on a mounting table in the form of a susceptor 2 in a processing chamber 1 (Column 6 Lines 30-54 and Figure 4) followed by forming the silicon nitride on the substrate/wafer. After forming the silicon nitride film, the film was irradiated with a hydrogen-containing plasma formed from microwave plasma. (Column 5 Line 33 through Column 6 Line 17)
Nakanishi does not teach that prior to preparing the substrate a precoated film was formed on a surface of the processing chamber by microwave plasma using a precoating gas. However, as was discussed previously, the apparatus of Nakanishi was a microwave plasma chemical vapor deposition apparatus used for forming silicon nitride films.
Kameshima teaches method for forming a film comprising silicon and nitrogen on a substrate/wafer (Abstract and Column 4 Lines 17-22) using microwave plasma (Column 8 Lines 22-32). Kameshima teaches that prior to forming the film on the substrate/wafer the interior surfaces of the film forming chamber were pre-coated with a precoat film of silicon nitride using microwave plasma generated from a precoating gas/silane gas (Column 7 line 39 through Column 8 Line 21). Kameshima teaches that by pre-coating the interior surfaces of the film forming chamber with a film to be deposited onto a substrate the amount of film material deposited on the interior surfaces of the chamber during film formation on the substrate was reduced (Column 1 Lines 37-65).
Based on the teachings of Kameshima, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have precoated the interior surfaces of the processing chamber of Nakanishi with a silicon nitride/precoat film using a microwave plasma generated from a precoating gas in order reduce the amount of silicon nitride formed on the interior surfaces of the chamber during film formation on the substrate/wafer.
Though Nakanishi teaches having used microwaves to form the hydrogen plasma and Kameshima teaches having used microwave plasma to precoat the chamber neither reference teaches that the microwave power used to form the hydrogen plasma was lower than the power used in precoating. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Nakanishi that microwave power was a relevant process parameter affecting the ion energy of the hydrogen plasma used to modify the silicon nitride film (Column 10 Lines 21-48).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an optimal value for the microwave power of the hydrogen plasma of Nakanishi in view of Kameshima through routine experimentation because the microwave power affected the ion energy of the formed hydrogen plasma.
As for claims 2 and 5, as was discussed previously, the film formed on the substrate of Nakanishi in view of Kameshima was silicon nitride.
As for claim 3, Kameshima teaches that the precoated film was formed by exposing a silicon raw gas in the form of a inorganic silicon gas and a reactive gas in the form of nitrogen to microwave plasma (Column 7 Line 39 through Column 8 Line 12).
As for claim 4, as was discussed previously the precoated film of Nakanishi in view of Kameshima was silicon nitride.
As for claim 6, through Kameshima teaches that the first power used in precoating as 2000 W (Column 7 Lines 51-59) neither reference teaches that the second power used to form the hydrogen plasma was 100 to 4000 W. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined an optimal second power for the microwave used to form the hydrogen plasma through routine experimentation.
As for claim 7, Nakanishi teaches that the hydrogen-containing gas used to form the hydrogen plasma comprised hydrogen mixed with an inert gas (Column 5 Lines 9-15).
As for claim 8, neither Nakanishi nor Kameshima teach that the precoated film was formed at a pressure of 6 to 133 Pa. However, as was discussed previously, determining optimal values for relevant processes parameters would have been obvious. Furthermore, Kameshima teaches that the internal pressure of the chamber during pre-coating was a relevant process parameter (Column 7 Lines 39-50).
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determine an optimal processing chamber pressure during the formation of the precoated film of Nakanishi in view of Kameshima through routine experimentation in order to maintain a microwave plasma in order to deposit the silicon nitride precoated film.
As for claim 9, Nakanishi teaches that the modifying using hydrogen plasma was conducted at a processing pressure of 10 to 100 Pa (Column 10 Lines 37-43), which was within the claimed range of 2 to 133 Pa.
As for claim 10, Nakanishi teaches that the silicon nitride film formed on the substrate was formed by plasma CVD (Column 5 Lines 43-49).
As for claim 11, Kameshima teaches that after a predetermined number of films have been formed on a plurality of substrates the interior of the processing chamber was cleaned and the pre-coat was reapplied (Column 8 Lines 33-44).
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 11 have been rejected. Claims 12 has been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights