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 1-21 are pending and presented for examination.
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, 9-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0302996) in view of Yamaoka et al. (“Low-Temperature Deposition of Amorphous Carbon Films for Surface Passivation of Carbon-Doped Silicon Oxide”).
I. Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-17, Reilly teaches a method of plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (abstract) comprising: providing a 300 mm semiconductor (0018) wafer (0046); supporting the wafer within a reactor chamber on a wafer support (0018); generating a plasma from acetylene gas, hydrogen gas and argon gas (0047) using an RF power supply at 13.56 Hz (0047) and at a power of 10-2000 W (0047, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness); and depositing an amorphous hydrogenated carbon film on the wafer (0047), wherein the deposition is conducted at a pressure of 1-15 Torr and a temperature of 100-650 ºC (note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Reilly further teaches that the hydrogen is flowed at a rate of 10-20,000 sccm (0047, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), the argon is flowed at a rate of 0-15,000 sccm (0047, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness), and the acetylene is flowed at a rate of 100-50,000 sccm (0047, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Reilly further teaches that the layer can be formed to a thickness of 1969 Angstroms (see Table 1, and note this is 196.9 nm) and a density up to 1.98 g/cc (0054, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Reilly fails to explicitly teach the amorphous carbon film having a leakage current and breakdown voltage as claimed and wherein the substrate is a silicon wafer.
However, Reilly does teach the substrate being a semiconductor substrate (0018). Further, Yamaoka teaches a similar process for depositing amorphous carbon films (abstract) on a silicon wafer substrate (Experimental Methods section) using a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition process (abstract) using an RF plasma at 13.56 MHz (see Experimental Methods section). Yamaoka further teaches that the process can be optimized to yield films having a leakage current of approximately 10-10 A/cm2 (abtract) and a breakdown voltage of higher than 10 MV/cm (Results and Discussion section). 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 Reilly’s process by using a silicon substrate and optimizing the conditions to provide the film having a breakdown voltage and low leakage currents as disclosed by Yamaoka. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide products with improved properties applicable as thin film transistors (see Yamaoka at Introduction section).
II. Regarding claim 5, Reilly in view of Yamaoka make obvious claim 1 (see above), and Reilly additionally teaches that the plasma can be generated using an RF driven showerhead (0021), but fails to teach in this case that the support is electrically grounded. However, Yamaoka makes clear that the substrate support should be grounded when the plasma is generated by an RF generator not coupled to the support (Experimental Methods section). 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 Reilly in view of Yamaoka’s process by electrically grounding the substrate support. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Yamaoka makes clear that grounding the support allows for deposition of amorphous carbon films in an RF generated plasma (see Experimental Methods section).
III. Regarding claims 18 and 21, Reilly in view of Yamaoka make obvious the process as claimed (see above), and Reilly additionally teaches an apparatus for practicing the process (Figure 1) comprising: a reactor chamber (Figure 1 and 0016); a gas inlet arranged to supply the gases used in the process to the reactor chamber (Figure 1 and 0021); a wafer support configured to support the wafer within the chamber (Figure 1 and 0018), wherein the support is arranged to be resistively heated to heat the wafer on the support (0018); a flow control unit for adjusting flow of gases into the chamber (0020); and an RF power supply coupled to the reactor chamber (0021). Therefore, Reilly in view of Yamaoka also make obvious claims 18 and 21.
IV. Regarding claim 19, Reilly in view of Yamaoka make obvious the apparatus of claim 18 (see above), including the wafer support arranged to be resistively heated (see above). Furthermore, Yamaoka teaches a similar apparatus for performing a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition of an amorphous carbon film (see above and Experimental Methods section) and wherein the wafer support is grounded (Experimental Methods section). 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 Reilly in view of Yamaoka’s apparatus by additionally having the wafer support grounded. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Yamaoka makes clear that grounding the support allows for deposition of amorphous carbon films in an RF generated plasma (see Experimental Methods section).
2. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly in view of Yamaoka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (WO 2023/196846).
Regarding claim 8, Reilly in view of Yamaoka make obvious claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach the method undertaken in a capacitively coupled reactor. However, Liang teaches a similar process for depositing amorphous carbon films (title) in a reactor (0148) and using an inert gas, such as argon (0151), and a carbon containing gas, such as acetylene (0150); wherein the reactor can be a capacitively coupled reactor (0153). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a capacitively coupled reactor for the reactor of Reilly in view of Yamaoka. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (note that Liang is performing the same plasma processing to deposit amorphous films using the same type of gases), and the predictable result of providing a method for forming an amorphous carbon film.
3. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly in view of Yamaoka as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0044926).
Regarding claim 20, Reilly in view of Yamaoka make obvious claim 18, but fail to teach the apparatus comprising a cooling mechanism associated with the wafer support to cool the wafer. However, Wang teaches an apparatus (see Figure 2A) for depositing an amorphous carbon film (0053) using plasma (abstract) from gases including acetylene and argon (0005). Additionally, Wang teaches a substrate support in the apparatus including a cooling mechanism for cooling a wafer on the support (Figure 3 and 0034). 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 Reilly in view of Yamaoka’s apparatus by including a cooling mechanism in the substrate support. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow greater control over the substrate temperature during the deposition process as during the deposition the substrate’s temperature will increase and a cooling mechanism will allow for stabilizing the temperature of the substrate.
Conclusion
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
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/
May 29, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights