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, 2, 4-14 and 16-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/31/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 1 and 17 require a delta chamber pressure of greater than or about 10 Torr and the prior art does not teach this feature. In particular, Applicant contends that the prior art only teaches a first pressure of 5-10 Torr and thus cannot teach or suggest a delta of 10 as the highest pressure is 10 Torr. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that Tsiang teaches a delta chamber pressure of at least 3 Torr. Further, Applicant notes that Tsiang teaches a first pressure of at most 10 Torr. However, this pressure is simply one exemplary implementation as noted in paragraph 0014. Tsiang does not teach that pressures of greater than 10 Torr are excluded, and it is well known that pressures will need to be adjusted based on precursors and desired deposition speed. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Tsiang teaches a range for the delta which overlaps the Applicant’s claimed range (greater than at least 3 Torr overlaps with greater than about 10 Torr) and there is nothing to suggest that the initial pressure cannot be higher in separate examples/embodiments). Thus, the rejections over Tsiang are maintained.
With respect to claim 10, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the second volumetric flow rate is more than 100% greater than the first volumetric flow rate and that neither Tsiang nor Savas provide a teaching or suggestion to increase the volumetric flow rate of the carrier precursor. However, the Examiner disagrees and notes that Savas teaches depositing a first amount of silicon dioxide with a plasma process followed by depositing a second amount of silicon dioxide (0130) with a plasma process using tetraethyl orthosilicate as a precursor (0096) and that the density and hardness of the layers can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the flow of argon between the depositions (0083). Therefore, the flow rate and increasing/decreasing the rate between steps is a result-effective variable, and it would have been obvious to optimize to the claimed range.
Finally, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the delta pressure of amended claim 17 for the same reasons as previously cited. However, the Examiner disagrees and maintains the rejections based upon the arguments as presented above. Therefore, the rejections over the prior art are maintained as outlined below.
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, 2, 4, 5, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiang et al. (WO 2018/112463).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-9, Tsiang teaches a process for forming a combination layer of silicon oxide (0013-0015) comprising: delivering tetraethyl orthosilicate and argon to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (0002 and 0013); forming a plasma within the processing region and depositing a first amount of silicon oxide on a substrate disposed within the processing region (0014) where the depositing occurs at a first pressure (0014); adjusting the chamber pressure to be lower (0015); and depositing a second amount of silicon oxide on the first amount of silicon oxide yielding a combination layer (0015). Tsiang additionally teaches that the substrate is maintained at a temperature above 300 ºC while depositing the first and second amounts (0014-0015). Tsiang teaches a delta chamber pressure being at least 3 Torr (0015, note that this overlaps Applicant’s claimed range of greater than or about 10 Torr and that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Tsiang teaches an essentially identical process to that claimed and the second amount deposited at a lower pressure which will inherently yield the second amount having a greater density than the first amount (see also Applicant’s specification which makes clear that lowering the pressure increases the density at 0040). Tsiang fails to teach the second amount of material characterized by a thickness less than 5 nm and a thickness greater than 0.5 nm.
However, the thickness is a result-effective variable as adjusting the thickness will alter the durability and other properties of the resultant film and will need to be adjusted based on desired application. Additionally, Tsiang makes clear that the thickness can be adjusted by adjusting length of deposition time (0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
2. Claim(s) 6, 10-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsiang in view of Savas et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0111684).
I. Regarding claim 6, Tsiang makes obvious all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fails to teach increasing the flow rate of the carrier precursor while adjusting the first chamber pressure. However, Savas makes clear that adjusting the flow rate of a precursor gas (argon) during plasma deposition between deposition steps can increase or decrease the ion bombardment relative to the deposition rate (0069 and 0083). Savas further teaches depositing a first amount of silicon dioxide with a plasma process followed by depositing a second amount of silicon dioxide (0130) with a plasma process using tetraethyl orthosilicate as a precursor (0096) and that the density and hardness of the layers can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the flow of argon between the depositions (0083). 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 Tsiang’s process by additionally adjusting the argon flow rate by increasing the flow rate while also adjusting the chamber pressure. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved control over the deposition and to yield the desired density and hardness in the second amount of silicon oxide that is deposited as disclosed by Savas.
II. Regarding claims 10-14, Tsiang teaches a process for forming a combination layer of silicon oxide (0013-0015) comprising: delivering tetraethyl orthosilicate and argon to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (0002 and 0013); forming a plasma within the processing region and depositing a first amount of silicon oxide on a substrate disposed within the processing region (0014) where the depositing occurs at a first pressure (0014); adjusting the chamber pressure to be lower (0015); and depositing a second amount of silicon oxide on the first amount of silicon oxide yielding a combination layer (0015). Tsiang additionally teaches that the substrate is maintained at a temperature above 300 ºC while depositing the first and second amounts (0014-0015). Tsiang also teaches a delta chamber pressure of greater than about 3 (note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Tsiang fails to teach adjusting the flow rate of the argon gas to an increased flow rate which is more than 100% or more than 200% greater than the first flow rate for the depositing the second amount. Tsiang also fails to teach depositing the second amount over an amount of time less than 5 seconds and the second material characterized by a thickness between 0.5 nm and 5 nm.
First, Savas makes clear that adjusting the flow rate of a precursor gas (argon) during plasma deposition between deposition steps can increase or decrease the ion bombardment relative to the deposition rate (0069 and 0083). Savas further teaches depositing a first amount of silicon dioxide with a plasma process followed by depositing a second amount of silicon dioxide (0130) with a plasma process using tetraethyl orthosilicate as a precursor (0096) and that the density and hardness of the layers can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the flow of argon between the depositions (0083). 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 Tsiang’s process by additionally adjusting the argon flow rate by increasing the flow rate to greater than 100% or greater than 200% while also adjusting the chamber pressure. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved control over the deposition and to yield the desired density and hardness in the second amount of silicon oxide that is deposited as disclosed by Savas.
Second, the time in which the second material is deposited is a result-effective variable as altering this time will alter the thickness of the resultant layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Third, the thickness is a result-effective variable as adjusting the thickness will alter the durability and other properties of the resultant film and will need to be adjusted based on desired application. Additionally, Tsiang makes clear that the thickness can be adjusted by adjusting length of deposition time (0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 16, Tsiang in view of Savas make obvious an identical process to that claimed in claim 10; therefore, inherently this process will yield the second amount of material having a greater compressive strength than the compressive strength of the first material (note that Applicant clarifies that compressive strength increases with increasing density, see 0047, and that conducting the second deposition at a lower pressure yields a denser film, see 0040).
IV. Regarding claim 21, Tsiang in view of Savas teach all the limitations of claim 10 (see above), and Savas teaches providing the silicon material to have a compressive strength of less than or about between -50 to -500 MPa (0087). 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 Tsiang in view of Savas’ process by additionally providing the first amount and second amount to have a compressive strength of less than or about -40 MPa or greater than about -300 MPa as disclosed by Savas. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the deposited films with improved strength and durability.
V. Regarding claims 17-20, Tsiang teaches a process for forming a combination layer of silicon oxide (0013-0015) comprising: delivering tetraethyl orthosilicate and argon to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (0002 and 0013); forming a plasma within the processing region and depositing a first amount of silicon oxide on a substrate disposed within the processing region (0014) where the depositing occurs at a first pressure (0014); adjusting the chamber pressure to be lower (0015); and depositing a second amount of silicon oxide on the first amount of silicon oxide yielding a combination layer (0015). Tsiang additionally teaches that the substrate is maintained at a temperature above 300 ºC while depositing the first and second amounts (0014-0015). Tsiang teaches a delta chamber pressure being at least 3 Torr (which overlaps the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 10 Torr, and note that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness). Tsiang teaches the chamber pressure during the first and second deposition being less than 10 Torr (0014-0015), and the second material deposited over a time less than the time for depositing the first material (0014-0015). Tsiang fails to teach adjusting the flow rate of the argon gas to an increased flow rate for the depositing the second amount. Tsiang also fails to teach depositing the second amount to a thickness less than 1 nm.
First, Savas makes clear that adjusting the flow rate of a precursor gas (argon) during plasma deposition between deposition steps can increase or decrease the ion bombardment relative to the deposition rate (0069 and 0083). Savas further teaches depositing a first amount of silicon dioxide with a plasma process followed by depositing a second amount of silicon dioxide (0130) with a plasma process using tetraethyl orthosilicate as a precursor (0096) and that the density and hardness of the layers can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the flow of argon between the depositions (0083). 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 Tsiang’s process by additionally adjusting the argon flow rate by increasing the flow rate while also adjusting the chamber pressure. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide improved control over the deposition and to yield the desired density and hardness in the second amount of silicon oxide that is deposited as disclosed by Savas.
Second, the thickness is a result-effective variable as adjusting the thickness will alter the durability and other properties of the resultant film and will need to be adjusted based on desired application. Additionally, Tsiang makes clear that the thickness can be adjusted by adjusting length of deposition time (0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-14 and 16-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, 4-14 and 16-21 are rejected.
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 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/
October 6, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
