DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed October 23, 2025.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-17 are 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.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “at least one silicon precursor reacts to provide a layer” recited on lines 17-18 suggests, and what the term “a layer” refers to, because (a) the limitation cited above is incomplete since the verb “reacts” should be accompanied with a structural element or feature, or a material that the “at least one silicon precursor” reacts with unless the “at least one silicon precursor” spontaneously reacts onto or with itself, which does not appear to be the case in current application, and (b) therefore, it is not clear what the “at least one silicon precursor reacts” with “to provide a layer”.
(2) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how “the steps b through e are repeated until a desired thickness of the silicon nitride film is deposited” as recited on lines 23-24, because (a) in the step b), Applicants claim that “the at least one silicon precursor reacts to provide a chemisorbed layer” on lines 17-18, (b) however, as the Examiner also noted in the Non Final Office Action mailed April 25, 2025, the surface feature of the substrate recited on line 3 would be buried once the “at least one silicon precursor” covers the surface feature of the substrate, (c) in this case, the first dose of the at least one silicon precursor that may be able to contact the surface feature of the substrate and the second dose of the at least one silicon precursor that cannot contact the surface feature of the substrate would partake in distinct reactions, which cannot be referred to as being “repeated”, and (d) therefore, it appears that the only way that the steps b through e can be “repeated” would be that the “at least one silicon precursor” would spontaneously react onto or with itself to provide the claimed layer, which would also result in coating of walls of the claimed reactor, which in turn does not appear to be directed to Applicants’ inventive concept.
Claims 2-7 and 13-17 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-7 and 13-17 are also indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 13-17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 8,703,624) in view of Jung et al. (US 6,392,077), Jung (US 8,450,515) and/or Jung et al. (US 6,251,057)
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. disclose a method for forming a film that includes silicon and nitrogen (film formed with nitrogen source together with other silicon (and oxygen) sources) (col. 4, lines 41-42, col. 5, line 19, and col. 9, lines 15-16) via a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (“ALD”) process (col. 3, lines 45-58), the method comprising:
a) providing a substrate (col. 1, line 61) comprising a surface feature in a reactor and heating the substrate reactor to up to about 600°C (col. 6, line 61 - col. 7, line 3), and optionally maintaining the reactor at a chamber pressure of 100 torr or less (col. 7, lines 4-10);
b) introducing into the reactor at least one silicon precursor (col. 8, lines 44-58), whereby the at least one silicon precursor reacts to provide a layer (col. 8, lines 59-60);
c) purging the reactor using inert gas (col. 8, lines 61-62, and col. 6, lines 51-60);
d) providing a plasma comprising an oxygen source into the reactor to react with the layer to form a silicon nitride film (col. 8, lines 63-66, and col. 6, lines 21-50), because (i) as previously claimed, Applicants’ silicon nitride film does not essentially consist of silicon and nitrogen since Applicants referred to a silicon nitride film containing carbon as a silicon nitride film, (ii) Applicants’ “at least one silicon precursor having one or two Si-C-Si linkages” recited in the step b) comprises other elements such as carbon, and (ii) therefore, the silicon-containing film formed by using a nitrogen source disclosed by Yang et al. can be referred to as a silicon nitride film; and
e) purging the reactor using inert gas (col. 8, line 67, and col. 6, lines 51-60); wherein the steps b through e are repeated until a desired thickness of the silicon nitride film is deposited, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, because the step b) including the step of providing the chemisorbed layer on the surface feature of the substrate cannot be repeated once a silicon nitride film is formed after the first iteration.
Yang et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the 1,3-disilabutane derivatives can be at least one silicon precursor having one or two Si-C-Si linkages and selected from the group consisting of 1,1,1,3,3,3- hexachloro-2-methyl-1,3-disilapropane, 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloro-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-disilapropane, 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloro-1,3-disilabutane, 1,1,1,3,3- pentachloro-2-methyl-1,3-disilabutane, 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloro-2,2-dimethyl1,3-disilabutane, 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloro-2-ethyl-1,3-disilabutane, 1,1,1,3,3- pentachloro-1,3-disilapentane, 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloro-2-methyl-1,3- disilapentane, 1,1,1,3,3-pentxachloro-2,2-dimethyl-1,3-disilapentane, 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloro-2-ethyl-1,3-disilapentane, 1,1,1,3,3,5,5-heptachloro1,3,5-trisilahexane, 1,1,1,5,5-pentachloro-3,3-dimethyl-1,3,5-trisilahexane, 1,1,1,5,5-pentachloro-1,3,5-trisilahexane, 2,2,4,6,6-pentachloro-4-methyl2,4 ,6-trisilaheptane, and the plasma further comprises an ammonia source.
Jung et al. (US ‘077) disclose 1,1,1,3,3-pentachloro-1,3-disilabutane (col. 5, lines 43-44) as a derivative of 1,3-disilabutane.
Also, Jung (US ‘515) discloses 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloro-1,3-disilabutane (col. 10, lines 3-4) as a derivative of 1,3-disilabutane.
In addition, Jung et al. (US ‘057) disclose 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloro-1,3-disilabutane (col. 5, lines 4, 19-20 and 30-31) as a derivative of 1,3-disilabutane.
Since both Yang et al. and Jung et al./Jung/Jung et al. teach a 1,3-disilabutane derivative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the at least one silicon precursor disclosed by Yang et al. can be 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloro-1,3-disilabutane as disclosed by Jung et al./Jung/Jung et al., because (a) 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloro-1,3-disilabutane has been one of commonly employed and well-known 1,3-disilabutane derivative as disclosed by Jung et al./Jung/Jung et al., (b) 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexachloro-1,3-disilabutane can be formed with ease and in a cost-effective manner as disclosed by Jung et al./Jung/Jung et al., and (c) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Further regarding claim 1, Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the plasma further comprises an ammonia source.
Yang et al. further disclose employing “the at least one of the precursor, oxygen source, reducing agent, other precursors or combination thereof” (col. 7, lines 26-45), and as discussed above, Yang et al. disclose employing a nitrogen source (col. 4, lines 41-42, col. 5, line 19, and col. 9, lines 15-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plasma can further comprise an ammonia source in addition to or instead of the oxygen source disclosed by Yang et al., because (a) a plurality of gas species have been commonly employed in depositing a dielectric layer, a semiconductor layer and a metallic layer in semiconductor industry to better control the material composition of the deposited layer, to improve quality of the deposited layer and to optimize the strain of the deposited layer, (b) when one deposits a silicon nitride layer disclosed by Yang et al., an oxygen source can be accompanied with a nitrogen source such as ammonia to better control the material composition of the silicon nitride layer, to improve quality of the silicon nitride layer and to optimize the strain of the silicon nitride layer, and (c) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. further disclose that the silicon nitride film includes a measurable amount of carbon as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim the content of the “measurable amount of carbon”, which would vary depending on the X-ray photoelectron spectrometer with which the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is performed, and (b) Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. disclose all the claim limitations of claim 1, therefore, the claimed measurable amount of carbon should inherently be measured by the unspecified X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (claim 2), further comprising: exposing the silicon nitride film to a UV light source either during or after deposition of the silicon nitride film (col. 9, lines 45-49) (claim 4).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al. further comprise for the method according to claim 1 treating the silicon nitride film with a spike anneal at a temperature of 1000°C (Fig. 1).
Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the spike anneal is carried out at a temperature ranging between 400 and 1000°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the spike anneal temperature of the method disclosed by Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. can at a temperature ranging between 400 and 1000°C, because (a) the temperature of the spike anneal should be controlled and optimized to obtain a desired dielectric film with intended and desired characteristics such as a density, an optical constant, a dielectric constant, a band gap, etc., (b) even though the spike anneal temperature of 1000°C disclosed by Yang et al. does not exactly overlap with the claimed range of the spike anneal temperature of between 400 and 1000°C, the spike anneal temperature of 1000°C and the claimed range of the spike anneal temperature of between 400 and 1000°C nearly overlap with each other, and thus the spike anneal temperature disclosed by Yang et al. can be controlled and optimized to be in the claimed range, and (c) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the spike anneal temperature achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. further comprise for the method according to claim 1, exposing the silicon nitride film to a plasma (col. 9, lines 45-47).
Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the plasma comprises one or more gases selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, inert gas, nitrogen, and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plasma can comprise one or more gases selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, inert gas, nitrogen, and combinations thereof, because (a) a silicon-containing dielectric film such as a silicon nitride film or a silicon oxynitride film has been commonly treated with a plasma comprising one or more gases selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, inert gas, nitrogen, and combinations thereof to better control the material composition of the silicon-containing dielectric film, to improve quality of the silicon-containing dielectric film and to optimize the strain of the silicon-containing film, and (b) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. differ from the claimed invention by not further comprising: treating the silicon nitride film with an oxygen source at one or more temperatures ranging from ambient temperature to 1000 °C to convert the silicon nitride film into a silicon oxynitride film, either in situ or in a separate chamber from the reactor (claim 6), wherein the silicon nitride film includes a measurable amount of carbon as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and wherein the step of treating the silicon nitride film with an oxygen source converts the silicon nitride into a silicon oxynitride film (claim 7).
Yang et al. further disclose that “In certain embodiments, the resultant dielectric films or coatings can be exposed to a post-deposition treatment such as, but not limited to, a plasma treatment, chemical treatment, ultraviolet light exposure, electron beam exposure, and/or other treatments to affect one or more properties of the film” (col. 9, lines 45-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method disclosed by Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. can further comprise the steps of treating the silicon nitride film with an oxygen source at one or more temperatures ranging from ambient temperature to 1000 °C to convert the silicon nitride into a silicon oxynitride film, either in situ or in a separate chamber from the reactor, wherein the silicon nitride film includes a measurable amount of carbon as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and wherein the step of treating the silicon nitride film with an oxygen source converts the silicon nitride into a silicon oxynitride film, because (a) as disclosed by Yang et al., the silicon nitride dielectric film disclosed by Yang et al. can be further exposed to a post-deposition treatment, (b) the silicon nitride dielectric film disclosed by Yang et al. can thus be treated with an oxygen source at the claimed temperature to convert the silicon nitride into a silicon oxynitride film since the material composition, the dielectric constant, and other properties of the silicon nitride film can be modified by using the oxygen source at the claimed temperature, (c) a silicon oxynitride film has a wider range of dielectric constants and band gaps than a silicon nitride film, and thus has a wider range of applications than a silicon nitride film, (d) when the silicon nitride film is treated with the oxygen source, there can be only two places for the treatment, i.e. in situ or in a separate chamber from the reactor, (e) Applicants do not specifically claim the content of the “measurable amount of carbon”, which would vary depending on the X-ray photoelectron spectrometer with which the X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy is performed, and (f) Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. disclose all the claim limitations of claim 6, therefore, the claimed measurable amount of carbon should inherently be measured by the unspecified X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy.
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. further comprise for the method of claim 1 performing a thermal anneal on the silicon nitride film at from about 300 to about 1000°C (col. 7, lines 11-25), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim the duration of the thermal anneal, and (b) therefore, the claimed thermal anneal can be a brief anneal, albeit ephemeral, of the silicon nitride film at the same temperature as the deposition temperature right after the deposition of the silicon nitride film is complete.
Regarding claims 14-17, Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. further comprise for the method according to claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 performing a plasma treatment (col. 9, lines 45-47) on the silicon nitride film to a plasma.
Yang et al. in view of Jung et al., Jung and/or Jung et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the performing the plasma treatment on the silicon nitride film is with an inert gas plasma or hydrogen/inert gas plasma or nitrogen plasma at a temperature ranging between about 25°C and about 600°C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the plasma can comprise an inert gas plasma or hydrogen/inert plasma or nitrogen plasma at the claimed temperature, because (a) a silicon-containing dielectric film such as a silicon nitride film or a silicon oxynitride film has been commonly treated with a plasma comprising an inert gas plasma or hydrogen/inert plasma or nitrogen plasma at an elevated temperature to better control the material composition of the silicon-containing dielectric film, to improve quality of the silicon-containing dielectric film and to optimize the strain of the silicon-containing film, and (b) the temperature of the silicon nitride film during the plasma treatment should be selected to optimize the material composition, quality and strain of the silicon nitride film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because (a) the amended claim 1 is further indefinite as discussed above under the 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) Applicants’ arguments in the REMARKS are primarily based on attacking the teachings of the individual references, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (US 2021/0380418)
Wang et al. (US 12,297,115)
O’Neill et al. (US 12,230,496)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM – 6:00 PM 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 January 2, 2026