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 the Claims
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 14-16, and 19-24 are pending and rejected. Claims 7 and 18 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected species. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 17 are canceled.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 14-16, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrtis, US 2015/0364321 A1 in view of Edelstein, US 2005/0194619 A1, Shimayama, US 2008/0254631 A1, Fuller, US 2005/0258542 A1, and Li, US 2016/0049293 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 12, and 23, Vrtis teaches a method for making a dense organosilica film (a method for producing a film containing porogen and organosilicate glass where the film contains silicon, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and optionally fluorine indicating it is an organosilica film, abstract, 0010, 0019, and 0021, where the film can be deposited with no porogen and removing the porogen provides the film with pores, abstract and 0076, such that the film formed without porogen is considered to be a dense organosilica film because it will be non-porous since there is no porogen included to provide the film with pores), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber (0013);
introducing into the reaction chamber a gaseous composition comprising one or more selected from the group consisting of 1-methyl-1-iso-propoxy-silacyclopentane and 1-methyl-1-iso-propoxy-silacyclobutane (introducing gaseous reagents into the reaction chamber wherein the gaseous reagents comprise a structure forming precursor comprising an alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compound of formula I, where R1 is selected from a group including a linear C1 to C10 alkyl, R2 is selected from a group including a branched C1 to C10 alkyl group, and R3 is selected from a C3 to C10 alkyl di-radical which forms a four-membered or five-membered cyclic ring with the Si atom, where suitable linear groups include methyl and suitable branched alkyl groups include isopropyl, such that the formula includes 1-methyl-1-iso-propoxy-silacyclopentane and 1-methyl-1-iso-propoxy-silacyclobutane, 0014 and 0025, where they specifically indicate using 1-methyl-1-iso-propoxy-silacyclopentane, 0033); and
applying energy to the gaseous composition in the reaction chamber to induce reaction of the gaseous composition and thereby deposit an organosilica film on the substrate (where the process deposits a preliminary film containing porogen and the organosilicate glass, 0015 and 0019, but when no porogen is included, it will result in the deposition of the dense or non-porous organosilica film).
As noted above, Vrtis teaches that the films described are uniformly deposited dielectric films, but they may consist of several layers with, for example, a thin layer at the bottom or top which contains no porogen (0076). Since they describe the films in reference to the films deposited by the claimed invention using the alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compounds, the films deposited with no porogen are understood to also be deposited with these precursors. Further, Vrtis teaches that the precursors offer benefits compared to other structure forming precursors such as the capability of incorporating carbon in the form of bridging groups so that the structure is not disrupted by increasing the carbon content which allows the film to be more resilient to carbon depletion during etching, plasma ashing, and NH3 plasma treatment (0038). They teach that the precursors make it possible to incorporate more carbon content with minor impact on the mechanical properties of the dielectric film compared to prior art structure former precursors such as DEMS (0020). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compounds such as 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-silacyclopentane and 1-methyl-1-isopropxyl-silacyclobutane as the precursors when forming the film with no porogen, i.e. when forming the dense film, because Vrtis teaches that such precursors provide the benefits of incorporating more carbon with minor impact on the mechanical properties so as to make the film more resilient to carbon depletion during etching, plasma ashing, and NH3 plasma treatment such that these benefits are also to be expected when forming the dense film.
Vrtis teaches removing the porogen to provide a porous film with a dielectric constant less than 2.7 (0019). They teach that there are several ways in which industry has attempted to produce silica-based CVD films with lower dielectric constants, the most successful being the doping of the insulating silicon oxide film with organic groups providing dielectric constants ranging from about 2.7 to about 3.5 (0003). They teach that this organosilicate glass is typically deposited as a dense film from an organosilicon precursor and an oxidant (0003). They teach that as dielectric constant values drop below 2.7, industry has turned to various porous materials for improved insulating properties (0003).
Further, as to the density of the film, Vrtis teaches that the films have a density of less than 2.0 g/ml where the porosity ranges from 5-75% and dense organosilica glass is typically deposited as a dense film with a density of ~1.5 g/cm3 (0003 and 0068). From this, since the porous films can have a density that is greater than a dense organosilica film, this suggests that the film deposited with no porogen will also be a dense film because it will not contain pores.
Vrtis teaches that the films have about 10 to about 35 atomic % silicon, about 20 to about 45 atomic percent oxygen, about 15 to about 40 atomic % hydrogen, and about 10 to about 45 atomic % carbon (0066). They teach that in certain embodiments the film comprises a higher carbon content (10-40%) as measured by XPS (0010). They teach using XPS to determine the composition of the film (0064 and 0099). Therefore, the carbon atomic percentages are understood to be determined by XPS such that they teach a film having a carbon atomic percentage overlapping the range of claim 9. They teach that the films are suitable for a variety of uses including as an insulation layer, interlayer dielectric and/or an intermetal dielectric layer (0073). They teach forming the film by PECVD, where inert gas such as He, Ar, N2, Kr, Xe, etc. may also be introduced to the chamber as a carrier gas along with an oxidant such as O2, N2O, NO, NO2, CO2, water, H2O2, ozone and combinations thereof (0056-0057 and 0098).
Vrtis does not teach the elastic modulus of the film or the dielectric constant of the dense film without pores.
Edelstein teaches a low-k dielectric material with increased cohesive strength for use in electronic structures that includes atoms of Si, C, O, and H (abstract). They teach that the SiCOH film comprises between about 10 and about 20 atomic percent of Si, between about 15 and about 40 atomic % C, between about 10 to about 30 atomic % oxygen, and between about 20 and about 45 atomic % of H (0049), such that the range of silicon is within that of Vrtis, the oxygen and carbon ranges overlap those of Vrtis, and the hydrogen range of Vrtis is within the range of Edelstein. They teach forming the SiCOH dielectric materials by PECVD using an alkoxycarbosilane precursor comprising atoms of Si, C, O, and H, and inert carrier such as He or Ar, and an oxidizing agent such as O2, N2O, CO2, or a combination thereof (0061). They teach that the conditions used for the deposition step may vary depending on the desired final dielectric constant of the SiCOH dielectric material (0071). They teach that the conditions used for providing a stable dielectric material comprising elements of Si, C, O, H that has a dielectric constant of about 3.2 or less and an elastic modulus from about 2 to about 15 GPa (0071). They teach that the dielectric material is used as an intralevel and interlevel dielectric layer so as to provide an interlayer dielectric layer (0124).
From the teachings of Edelstein, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the deposition of the organosilica film to have a dielectric constant in the range of 3.2 or less and an elastic modulus in the range of 2-15 GPa because Edelstein teaches that such properties are desirable for a SiCOH film deposited by PECVD having a similar composition to the film of Vrtis, using similar gases, i.e. inert gas, oxidant, and a silicon, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen containing precursor, where the film is used as an interlayer dielectric and because Edelstein teaches that the properties can be adjusted by adjusting the deposition conditions such that it will be expected to provide a desirable organosilica film for an interlayer dielectric layer while also providing the benefits of the precursors of Vrtis. Therefore, Vrtis in view of Edelstein suggest forming a dense organosilica film, i.e., the upper or lower film containing no porogen, having a dielectric constant and an elastic modulus overlapping the ranges of claims 1, 12, and 23. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
As to the hardening additive, Vrtis further teaches that in certain embodiments the structure-forming precursor further comprises a hardening additive (0015). They provide an example where a porous film is deposited from MPSCAP and a porogen where there is no indication of a hardening additive being added (0103). Vrtis teaches that typical hardening additives are tetralkoxysilanes such as TEOS or TMOS (0040). Edelstein teaches that an alkoxysilane precursor can optionally be included (0066), however, there is no indication that a hardening additive is included or required. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not included a hardening additive in the gaseous composition because Vrtis indicates it is optional and also because Edelstein does not indicate requiring one.
Additionally, as to the dielectric constant and the elastic modulus, since Vrtis in view of Edelstein suggest forming the organosilica film using the process of claims 1, 12, and 23 where the film is deposited by PECVD using oxygen as an oxidant (as discussed below for claim 24), an inert gas as required by claims 8, 15, and 16 (discussed more below), with an atomic carbon percentage overlapping the range of claim 9 (discussed more below), where the film is suggested to be deposited without a hardening additive, the resulting film is also expected to have a dielectric constant and elastic modulus meeting the claim requirements and also to provide a film having improved mechanical properties. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Vrtis in view of Edelstein do not teach the thickness of the dense organosilica film.
Shimayama teaches a method for fabrication of a semiconductor device by coating the substrate with a double-layered insulating film in laminate structure and etching the upper layer of the insulating film as far as the lower layer of the insulating film (abstract). They teach forming a first insulating layer containing porogen A by PECVD, i.e., CVD with plasma, using DEMS, oxygen, and porogen A so as to form a carbon-containing silicon oxide film containing porogen A (0034-0037 and Fig. 3A-E). They teach that the first insulating film should have a skeleton of inorganic material having a low dielectric constant (0038). They teach forming the second insulating layer using PECVD with DEMS, oxygen, and porogen B (0040-0042 and Fig. 3A-E). They teach etching through the second insulating layer, where since the second insulating layer has a higher carbon content than the first insulating layer there is a high etching selective ratio between the two insulating films (0041, 0044-0045, and Fig. 3A-E). They then etch through the first insulating film to form a desired pattern (0047 and Fig. 3A-E). They teach that the first insulating film may be replaced by a non-porous SiOC film so that the CVD process can be used to form the first insulating film and the second insulating film consecutively, thereby further improving productivity (0061). They provide other embodiments where a first porous insulating layer is coated with a second non-porous SiOC film for forming the two-layer masking structure (0063, 0105, Fig. 5A-D, and Fig. 8A-D). They teach using the process of forming interconnects (0096). Therefore, Shimayama teaches forming two SiOC layers where one layer is non-porous and the other layer is porous, where it is desirable for the SiOC layer to have a low dielectric constant, where they indicate forming the layers using DEMS, for the purposes of forming a two-layer mask structure in forming a semiconductor device.
Fuller teaches interconnect structures possessing a non-porous (dense) low-k OSG film utilizing a porous low-k OSG film as an etch stop layer (abstract). They teach providing a structure comprising a porous OSG etch stop layer located between a first non-porous OSG interlevel dielectric and a second non-porous OSG interlevel dielectric, where the porous OSG layer has a carbon content greater than that of the non-porous layers (0013, 0025, and Fig. 2). They teach patterning the structure to provide an opening that extends through the structure using lithography and etching (0014, 0025, and Fig. 2). They teach that the thickness of the non-porous OSG interlevel dielectric is typically from about 100 to about 500 nm (0039), i.e., from about 0.1 to about 0.5 microns.
Li teaches sealing the pores of a low dielectric constant layer by providing an additional thin dielectric film or a pore sealing layer on the surface (abstract). They teach contacting the porous low dielectric constant film with at least one organosilicon compound to provide an absorbed organosilicon compound, and treating the absorbed organosilicon compound (abstract). They teach providing a substrate in a reactor, i.e., a reaction chamber and contacting the substrate with an organosilicon compound having formula E, where examples include 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-1-silacyclopentane, and where the formula includes 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-1-silacyclobutane (0011-0013 and 0026). They teach providing the organosilicon precursors to the reactor by flash vaporization (0046), indicating that they are provided as a vapor. They teach that plasma is introduced into the reactor to react with adsorbed organosilicon compound and the process is repeated until the desired thickness of the pore sealing layer is formed (0015-0016), such that an organosilica film will be formed as indicated in Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 (0022 and 0028). While Schemes 1 and 2 are with different precursors, since all the precursors are organosilicon precursors and they depict forming an organosilica film using two of the precursors, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an organosilica film with the precursors of formula E as well with the expectation of forming a desirable pore-sealing film. They teach that it is known to cap a porous dielectric layer with a dense dielectric layer (0007). Further, there is no indication that there are pores formed in the capping layer. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the pore-sealing layer as a dense organosilica film because it will seal the pores and because it is known to seal pores with a dense layer. Therefore, Li teaches using organosilicon precursors such as 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-1-silacyclopentane and 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-1-silacyclobutane to form a dense OSG layer.
From the teachings of Shimayama, Fuller, and Li, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Vrtis in view of Edelstein to have used 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-silacylopentane or 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-silacylobutane and oxygen in their PECVD process to have deposited a first dense organosilica layer having a thickness of about 0.1 to about 0.5 microns and a second porous organosilica layer (or vice versa) so as to form a two layer mask structure for forming a semiconductor device because the films of Vrtis in view of Edelstein are low-k carbon-containing silica layers and Vrtis teaches that their precursors provide benefits compared to other structure forming precursors (such as DEMS, 0020) such as the capability of incorporating carbon with minor impact on mechanical properties, and Vrtis teaches that the films can be included in a multilayer structure that include a film having no porogen, where Shimayama teaches using the same precursor to form a dense and porous layered structure for forming an interconnect in a semiconductor device, Fuller teaches that when using a dense and porous layer for forming an interconnect it is desirable for the dense layer to have a thickness of from about 0.1 to about 0.5 microns, and Li teaches that 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-1-silacyclopentane and 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-1-silacyclobutane can be used to form dense OSG layers such that it will be expected to provide a desirable porous and non-porous organosilica or carbon-containing silica insulating structure for use in forming a semiconductor device. Therefore, in the process of Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li the claimed precursors will be used to form a dense organosilica film in a two-layered structure in a semiconductor device, where the dielectric constant and the elastic modulus are optimized to be within the claimed range and where the thickness of the dense layer overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claims 3, 4, 14, and 15, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest the limitations of instant claims 1 and 12. Vrtis further teaches depositing the film by PECVD (0057 and 0098). Edelstein further teaches forming the film by PECVD (0019).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest the limitations of instant claims 1 and 12. Vrtis further teaches that inert gas such as He, Ar, N2, Kr, Xe, etc. may also be introduced to the chamber as a carrier gas (0056), such that the reaction chamber in the applying step will also comprise one of the listed gases. Edelstein also teaches flowing an inert carrier such as He or Ar as a carrier gas to the PECVD reactor (0061).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Vrtis in view Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest the limitations of instant claims 1 and 12. Vrtis further teaches that the deposition rate is about 50 nm/min (0059). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have deposited the film without the porogen at a rate of 50 nm/min because Vrtis indicates that such a deposition rate is suitable for forming a film such that it will be expected to provide a desirable film within a reasonable time. Therefore, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest depositing the film at a rate within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Regarding claims 11 and 22, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest the limitations of instant claims 1 and 12. Edelstein teaches that the SiCOH dielectric material in which the fraction of C atoms bonded as Si-CH2-Si as detected by FTIR is larger than in prior art SiCOH dielectrics (0015), indicating it is desirable to have Si-CH2-Si bonds. Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li do not specifically teach the SiCH2Si/SiOx IR ratio, however, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest forming the organosilica film using the process of claims 1 and 12 where the film is deposited by PECVD using an oxidant as required by claims 16 and 21 (discussed more below), an inert gas as required by claims 8 and 15 (discussed more above), with an atomic carbon percentage overlapping the range of claim 9 (discussed more below) and overlapping the range of claim 12 (as discussed above), the resulting film is also expected to have a SiCH2Si/SiOx ratio meeting the claim requirements. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest the process of claims 1 and 12. Vrtis further teaches that the flow rate for each of the gaseous reagents preferably ranges from 10 to 5000 sccm (0058). They teach that the oxidant is selected from materials including O2 (0057). Edelstein teaches that when an oxidizing agent is employed, it is flowed into the PECVD reactor at a flow rate between about 10 sccm to about 1000 sccm (0072), where the oxidizing agent may be O2 (0089). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used O2 as an oxidant and to have optimized the flow rate within the range of 10 to 1000 sccm because both Vrtis and Edelstein indicate that O2 is a suitable oxidant where Edelstein indicates that a preferred flow rate is 10-1000 sccm which is within the range of Vrtis such that it will be expected to provide a suitable flow rate for O2 in depositing the desired organosilica film. Therefore, Vrtis in view of Edelstein suggest using a flow rate of oxygen, as required by claim 16, overlapping the range of claim 24. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Wu, US 6,225,238 B1.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Vrtis in view Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li suggest the limitations of instant claims 1 and 12. Vrtis teaches that the films have about 10 to about 35 atomic % silicon, about 20 to about 45 atomic percent oxygen, about 15 to about 40 atomic % hydrogen, and about 10 to about 45 atomic % carbon (0066). They teach that in certain embodiments the film comprises a higher carbon content (10-40%) as measured by XPS (0010). They teach using XPS to determine the composition of the film (0064 and 0099). Therefore, the carbon atomic percentages are understood to be determined by XPS such that they teach a film having a carbon atomic percentage overlapping the range of claim 9. Edelstein also teaches forming a film having about 15 to about 40 atomic percent carbon (0049).
They do not teach the refractive index of the film.
Wu teaches a polyorganosilicon dielectric coating prepared by subjected specified polycarbosilanes to thermal or high energy treatments to generate cross-linked polyorganosilicon coatings having low k dielectric properties with dielectric constants less than 4.0, preferably less than 3.0 (abstract and Col. 4, lines 12-16). They teach that the film when treated under atmospheric conditions include Si, O, C, and H (Col. 10, lines 26-29). They teach that a film containing Si-C, Si-H, Si-O, and C-H has a refractive index of 1.46 at 633 nm (Col. 12, lines 12-17).
From the teachings of Wu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the film of Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li to have a refractive index of 1.46 at 633 nm because Wu indicates that such a refractive index is achieved when forming an organosilica coating formed from Si, O, C, and H, i.e. a film formed of the same materials of the film of Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li. It is noted that while Wu teaches the refractive index at 633 nm, the refractive index is expected to also be 1.46 at 632 nm because the wavelengths only differ by 1 nm. Therefore, Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, Li, and Wu suggest forming a film having a carbon atomic percentage overlapping range of claim 9 and a refractive index within the range of claims 9 and 20. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original).
Further, since Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, Li, and Wu provide a film using the claimed process and having a carbon atomic percentage overlapping the claimed range, and Wu indicates that organosilica films have refractive indexes of 1.46 at 633 nm, the film is also expected to have a refractive index within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over the dielectric value of the films of Vrtis, the dielectric constants are understood to be in reference to the porous films deposited by Vrtis. As discussed in the rejection above, Vrtis also teaches depositing films with no porogen such that the dense films are expected to have dielectric constant in the range of 3.2 or less as suggested by Edelstein. Additionally, the films deposited by Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li are expected to have a dielectric constant within the claimed range because they are deposited using the claimed method.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of unexpected results for 1-methyl-1-iso-propoxy-silacyclopentane (MIPSCP) compared to 1-methyl-1-ethoxy-silacyclopentane (MESCP), it is unclear whether the provided results are unexpected or that such results would be consistent with using a precursor having more carbon (MIPSCP) and whether using 1-methyl-1-isopropoxy-silacyclobutane would also provide improved results compared to MESCP or another similar precursor. Additionally, it is unclear whether the differences between MESCP and MIPSCP are unexpected or whether this type of variation is known to occur between similar precursors. Further, the results are not commensurate in scope with the independent claims, which allow for the films to be deposited using any temperature, pressure, RF power, flow rates for the precursor, and any flow rate of oxygen, etc. It is noted that the data provided in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 indicate that the properties of the film varies with variables such as the oxygen flow rate and the power. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the improved properties of the MIPSCP film will be present over all oxygen ranges and power ranges currently allowed by the claims. As to the small change in k resulting in a large change in elastic modulus, it is noted that MESCP also has the same increase in modulus with the increase in k, i.e., it increases 3 GPa with a change in k of 2.9 to 3.0. Further, MESCP has an elastic modulus and dielectric constant within the claimed range, suggesting that the use of MIPSCP is not critical to provide the claimed ranges of dielectric constant and elastic modulus. Additionally, while Vrtis provides several precursors they specifically teach using 1-methyl-1-isopropxyl-silacyclobutane and 1-methyl-1-isopropoxyl-silacyclopentane (0033, 0103, and claim 4). Further, Vrtis indicates that the precursors provide improved results compared to DEMS (0020 and 0038).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one of skill in the art would find nothing in Vrtis to believe that the claimed precursors would be used to manufacture dense or non-porous films, it is noted that Vrtis teaches forming porous films, but they also teach that the films can be used in a full integration structure which may consist of several sandwiched layers with, for example, a thin layer at the bottom or top which contains little or no porogen being deposited (0076), indicating that the thin layers with no porogen will not be porous and can therefore be considered dense films. Further, Vrtis teaches that the precursors offer benefits compared to other structure forming precursors such as the capability of incorporating carbon in the form of bridging groups so that the structure is not disrupted by increasing the carbon content which allows the film to be more resilient to carbon depletion during etching, plasma ashing, and NH3 plasma treatment (0038). They teach that the precursors make is possible to incorporate more carbon content with minor impact on the mechanical properties of the dielectric film compared to prior art structure former precursors (0020). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would also expect these benefits when forming a dense or non-porous film because the film will still be provided with an increase in carbon content with minor impact to mechanical properties. Further, Shimayama suggests using the process of Vrtis in view of Edelstein to form a non-porous and porous organosilica layer and Li has been included to indicate that the claimed precursors can be used to form dense layers. Therefore, Vrtis provides the motivation to form dense films in the multilayered structures, where the motivation to use the claimed precursors for the dense layer is because of the benefits of such precursors taught by Vrtis, where Li further supports the use of these precursors in forming a dense layer.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Edelstein teaches optimizing the properties of the film only with their precursors, as discussed in the rejection above, the films formed by Vrtis and those formed by Edelstein have similar compositions such that the films of Vrtis using the claimed precursors are also expected to result in films having properties similar to those of Edelstein and are also expected to inherently have the claimed properties since they are formed using the claimed method. Additionally, Edelstein points to deposition conditions that can be used to optimize the properties, where the conditions include the temperature, the power density, the flow rates, the pressure, and the power (0071). Therefore, in the process of Vrtis in view of Edelstein, Shimayama, Fuller, and Li, tuning the same deposition parameters when using the desirable precursors of Vrtis is also expected to result in optimizing the dielectric constant and the elastic modulus to have parameters within the claimed range.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one having ordinary skill in the art would leave behind the porous film methods of Vrtis and use the precursors of Edelstein, as noted above Vrtis also teaches depositing layers without porogen so as to provide dense layers. Further, Vrtis describes benefits of using the claimed precursors, where the resulting films have a similar composition to those of Edelstein such that similar properties are expected in the films. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the claimed precursors with the expectation of the benefits described by Vrtis and also expected similar properties to the films of Edelstein because of the similar compositions.
As to Applicant’s argument that the films discussed in paragraph 0076 of Vrtis are not formed using the same precursors, it is noted that in this paragraph Vrtis refers to “the films described herein”, where “the films” as used in the structure consist of several layers with little or no porogen or may be deposited under conditions where there is a lower porogen precursor flow (0076). From this, the layers are understood to be the films described in Vrtis using the claimed precursors where the composition is changed by changing the porogen concentration so as to provide layers with different properties. Further, they describe the layers as enhancing adhesion, etch selectivity, or electromigration performance, but these features are understood to be effects caused by changing the porogen content since they indicate that the sandwich layers are formed by changing the porogen amount and how much porogen is removed (0076). Additionally, Vrtis describes the benefits of using the alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compounds, providing motivation to use them when forming the dense layer. Further, as discussed above Shimayama indicates that using a porous and non-porous SiCO film provides etch selectivity, indicating that it is known in the art to include or not include porogen for etch selectivity, where the same precursor is used for forming the dense and porous layers. Li has also alternatively been added to indicate that the claimed precursors can be used to form dense layers.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over the thickness of the film, the reference of Fuller has been included to suggest forming a dense film having a thickness overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding the affidavit dated 12/15/2025, while point 7 indicates that porous films and dense films have different properties that cannot be equated and point 8 indicates that paragraph 0076 of the Vrtis reference would refer to forming a gradient of porous films, where no layer is set to be as thick as 0.5 microns, it is noted that 0076 of Vrtis also specifically teaches that a thin layer at the bottom or top can be deposited with no porogen. Therefore, even in the gradient structure at least a layer can be deposited as a dense layer. Further, Vrtis has been modified with Shimayama, Fuller, and Li to provide the suggestion of forming a dense layer with a thickness of about 0.1 to about 0.5 microns along with a porous layer so as to form a two-layer mask structure. Therefore, the thickness is not suggested to be in the gradient structure described by Vrtis but in the structure suggested by Shimayama, Fuller, and Li.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718