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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wagatsuma et al (US 2020/0294798; hereafter Wagatsuma).
AS ANTICIPATED:
Claim 1: Wagatsuma teaches a substrate processing method (see, for example, abstract, [0005], Figures) comprising:
i) executing a cycle of i-i) supplying a nitrogen-containing gas (such as step S13) to a substrate having a recess (see, for example, [0016], [0114])
and i-ii) supplying a raw material gas including silicon and carbon (such as step S11) to the substrate (see, for example, [0014]), the cycle being executed one or more times to form a film including at least silicon, carbon, and nitrogen (see, for example, [0061], [0066-0068], claim 4, Fig 1-5).
and i-i) and i-ii) being performed in the order as mentioned (see, for example, Fig 1-5, and consider the disclosed sequence of S11-S13-S11-S13-S11-S13-S11-S13-S11-S13…, by designating the first instance of S13 as the starting point i-i) of the claimed cycle and the subsequent S11 as the claimed i-ii, the sequence would then look like S13-S11-S13-S11-S13-S11-S13-S11… or with respect to the claims: i-i), i-ii), i-i), i-ii), i-i), i-ii), i-i), i-ii)…).
and ii) exposing the substrate on which the film is formed in i) to plasma of a hydrogen-containing gas (S31) to modify the film (see, for example, [0030-35], Fig 2-3 ).
Alternatively, AS OBVIATED:
Refer to the rejection of claim 1 above. With respect to the claimed limitation of “i-i) and i-ii) being performed in the order as mentioned”, it is noted that per the teaching of Wagatsuma steps S11 and S13 are performed repeatedly to build up an SiCN film in an iterative manner (see, for example, [0014-0019]). So it would appear to be the summation of the combined stacks that is contributing to the design and optimization of overall properties, and not the particular order with respect to which of the two precursors is supplied first. Therefore, although Wagatsuma does not explicitly disclose an exemplary embodiment wherein the repetition is conducted and the nitrogen containing gas supersedes any Si-C raw gas implementation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated supplying the nitrogen containing gas before the Si-C raw material gas in the cyclic application since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new of unexpected results (In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946)).
Claim 2: Wagatsuma further teaches the set of i) and ii) is repeated one or more times (See, for example, Fig 3).
Claim 3: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein i) further includes, after executing the cycle of i-i) and i-ii) one or more times in the order as mentioned, i-iii) supplying an oxygen-containing gas to the substrate (such as Step S21) (see, for example, Fig 2-3, [0018-0020]).
Claim 4: Wagatsuma further teaches i) includes repeating a set of the cycle of executing the cycle of i-i) and i-ii) one or more times in the order as mentioned, and i-iii) one or more times. (See, for example, (see, for example, Fig 2-3, [0018-0024]).
Claim 6: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing gas is at least one selected from the group consisting of NH3, N2H2, N2H4, and an organic hydrazine compound (such as monomethylhydrazine) (See, for example, [0016]).
Claim 7: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein the oxygen-containing gas is at least one selected from the group consisting of H2O, H2O2, D2O, and alcohol (such as isopropanol) (See, for example, [0020]).
Claim 8: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein the raw material gas is at least one selected from the group consisting of 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane represented by C2H4Cl4Si2 (see, for example, [0014]).
Claims 9 and 12: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein ii) includes supplying an inert gas together with the hydrogen-containing gas to the substrate (See, for example, claim 11, such as H2 and Ar / N2).
Claim 11: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein the hydrogen-containing gas is a H2 gas (see, for example, [0031], claim 11).
Claim 13: Wagatsuma further teaches wherein the film is a SiCN film or a SiOCN film (see, for example, Fig 2-3, [0031-0035]).
Claim 14-16: Wagatsuma teaches wherein a number of times the cycle executed in i) relative to ii) is selected based on a composition ratio / etching resistance / dielectric constant of the film (see, for example, [0114-0118], examples; the film composition, etching resistance (film density), and dielectric constant are tailorable based on selected relative repetition of the various steps including S15, S31, S21, etc., Finite selection in exemplary embodiments occurred and resulted in finite values for composition ratio / etching resistance / dielectric constant thus the relative selection achieved the resulting composition ratio / etching resistance / dielectric constant of the film, meeting the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagatsuma as applied to claim 1 / 9 above, and further in view of Pore et al (US 20150162185; hereafter Pore).
Claims 5 and 10: Wagatsuma teaches the method of claim 1 / 9(above), and further teaches wherein the pressure in i) is on the order of 100 to 8000 Pa (see, for example, [0075], [0084]) and wherein i) includes supplying the inert gas (Ar) (such as at 100-6000 sccm) to the substrate together with the nitrogen-containing gas or the raw material gas (see, for example, [0071-0072], [0080-0081]). But Wagatsuma is silent as to an appropriate conditions of the hydrogen gas plasma process of ii), so it does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure in ii) is lower than the pressure in 1), nor wherein the flow rate of the inert gas in ii) is greater than the flow rate of the inert gas in i). Pore similarly teaches a substrate processing method involving the cyclic atomic layer deposition of nitrogen, silicon, and carbon precursors to buildup SICN type films, and plasma treatment thereof (see, for example, abstract, Fig 5, [0028-29]). Pore teaches wherein plasma chamber pressure and gas flow rate therein is tailorable to the desire outcome, and further can predictably be set at 2 Torr via implementation of flow of gases including Ar at levels of 20-2000 sccm (See, for example, [0081], [0088-0089]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pressure of 2 Torr / a flow of Ar of 20-2000 sccm for the plasma process of ii) since such a pressure / flow is known in the art to achieve predictable hydrogen plasma treatment of SiCN type ALD films, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim 5 further: Although the pressure of 2 Torr (266.7 Pa) of step ii) is not explicitly lower than the entirety of the possible pressure range of 100 to 8000Pa disclosed for step i), it is noted that 266.7 Pa is lower than 97.9% of the pressure range of i), thus strongly suggestive of the pressure in ii) being lower than in i); further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a pressure in i) of greater than 266.7 Pa (pressure of ii), since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 10 further: Although the Ar flow range of 20-2000 sccm of step ii) is not explicitly greater than a flow rate of Ar in i) (range of 100-6000 sccm) the range does include values that overlap situations where it is greater, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a greater flow rate of Ar in ii) since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-16 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagatsuma in view of Sasajima et al (US 20140080319; hereafter Sasajima).
Claim 1: refer to the rejection of claim 1 over Wagatsuma above. Particularly with respect to the claimed limitation of “i-i) and i-ii) being performed in the order as mentioned”, it is noted that per the teaching of Wagatsuma steps S11 and S13 are performed repeatedly to build up an SiCN film in an iterative manner (see, for example, [0014-0019]). So it would appear to be the summation of the combined stacks that is contributing to the design and optimization of overall properties, and not the particular order with respect to which of the two precursors is supplied first. Wagatsuma does not explicitly disclose an exemplary embodiment wherein the repetition is conducted and the nitrogen containing gas supersedes any Si-C raw gas implementation. Sasajima similarly teaches a substrate processing method involving the cyclic atomic layer deposition of nitrogen, silicon, and carbon precursors to buildup SIOCN type films, and plasma treatment thereof (see, for example, abstract, [0007-0012], Fig 5A-5B, [0028-29]). Sasajima has further taught wherein the ordering of delivery of the Si / C and N precursor gases can achieve the predictable result of an SIOCN film regardless of the which is supplied first (see, for example, Fig 4A – 8A), but does appear to prefer deposition of the N precursor (NH3) gas prior to the SI/C precursor as it notes that the NH3 gas provides an adsorption layer on the uppermost surface of the underlying wafer (200) that generates a surface state that facilitates the subsequent C / Si precursor adsorption / deposition (See, for example, [0097-0099], [0210-0212]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein i-i) and i-ii) are performed in the order as mentioned since it would provide a predictable means to deposit the ALD SICN cyclic stack, and further as starting with the nitrogen -containing gas prior to i-ii) would predictably facilitate subsequent C/Si adsorption / deposition.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-16: refer to the rejection of claim 1 over Wagatsuma in view of Sasajima above in combination with the rejections of claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-16 over Wagatsuma (alone) above.
Claim 10: Wagatsuma in view of Sasajima teaches the method of claim 9 (above) and Wagatsuma further teaches wherein i) includes supplying the inert gas (Ar) to the substrate together with the nitrogen-containing gas or the raw material gas (see, for example, [0071-0072], [0080-0081]). But Wagatsuma is silent as to the appropriate flow conditions within the plasma process, so it does not explicitly teach a flow rate of the inert gas in ii) is greater than a flow rate of the inert gas in i). Sasajima teaches wherein the inert gas flow rate can increased relative to the ALD steps as a predictable means to increase the amount of activation / decomposition of the reactive species (thus the Hydrogen species when considering Wagatsuma) (see, for example, [0188], [0220]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a flow rate of the inert gas in ii) greater than a flow rate of the inert gas in i) as it would predictably enhance the amount of activation/ decomposition of the Hydrogen reactive species.
Claim 14-16: in addition to the rejection of claims 14-16 over Wagatsuma above, Sasajima similarly demonstrates that such as cyclic SIOCN ALD process provides for tailorable control over etching resistance, composition ratio and dielectric constant (See, for example, abstract, [0233], claims)
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagatsuma in view of Sasajima as applied to claims 1 / 9 above, and further in view of Pore.
Claims 5 and 10: refer to the rejection of claims 1, and 9-10 above over Wagatsuma in view of Sasajima in combination with the rejections of claims 5 and 10 above over Wagatsuma in view of Pore. Further particularly for claim 10 note the further explicit guidance per Sasajima with respect to increasing of the flow rate during plasma processing to enhance activation / decomposition of the reacting gas therein (refer to the rejection of claim 10 over Wagatsuma in view of Sasajima above) further supporting selection of flow rates within the range which are greater than the flow rate of the inert gas in i).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights