DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on November 11, 2025, claims 1 – 23 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 17, 21 have been amended. Claim 23 has been withdrawn from consideration.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112(a) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
The rejections of the claim 14 under 35 USC § 112(d) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment. While the Examiner disagrees with the characterization of the effect of the term “is purged” being an active step1, Applicant’s second argument, concerning the two limitations occurring concurrently but distinctly different, is convincing upon review of the plain meaning of the verbs “purge” and “dissipate”.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 22 are newly rejected, as necessitated by amendment, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1:
Claim 1 as presented has been amended to recite “is performed without exposing the substrate to an oxygen-containing environment” (hereinafter “Limitation A”). The originally filed disclosure does not expressly recite the added claim limitation. The Applicant also has not recited where the newly added claim limitation is supported in the originally filed disclosure.
While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. See MPEP 2163.02 and In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. MPEP 2163.02.
Furthermore, any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977).
The closest recitations of the originally filed disclosure to the subject matter encapsulated in Limitation A include paragraph [0093] of the present disclosure, reproduced below:
[0093] In reaction chamber 3, a circular duct 13 with an exhaust line 7 is provided, through which gas in the interior 11 of the reaction chamber 3 can be exhausted. Additionally, a transfer chamber 5, disposed below the reaction chamber 3, is provided with a seal gas line 24 to introduce seal gas into the interior 11 of the reaction chamber 3 via the interior 16 (transfer zone) of the transfer chamber 5, wherein a separation plate 14 for separating the reaction zone and the transfer zone is provided (a gate valve through which a wafer is transferred into or from the transfer chamber 5 is omitted from this figure). The transfer chamber is also provided with an exhaust line 6. In some embodiments, the deposition and treatment steps are performed in the same reaction space, so that two or more (e.g., all) of the steps can continuously be conducted without exposing the substrate to air or other oxygen-containing atmosphere.
However, the plain meaning of the term “atmosphere” and that of “environment” are different. The term “atmosphere” under its plain meaning can mean in one relevant sense “any gaseous envelope or medium” and in another relevant sense “the gaseous fluid surrounding the earth; the air”2. The term environment under its plain meaning is defined in one relevant sense as “the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences” and in another relevant sense as “the totality of the surrounding conditions, physical or social, of a particular area”3. Environment therefore includes things beyond the gaseous media surrounding, but can include e.g. the substance upon which a substrate rests or the physical characteristics of some part of the reaction space; oxygen-containing environment therefore has a broader scope than oxygen-containing atmospheres. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a ready implication for Limitation A; the closest support discusses the prevention of exposure in the context of a transfer chamber and the preventing air or other oxygen-containing atmosphere exterior to the reaction space from entering the reaction space and therefore expose the substrate to the air. The implication of prohibiting oxygen-containing atmosphere leads naturally to prevention of exposing substrates to oxygen-containing atmosphere exterior from the reaction space and subsequently the substrate within the reaction space.
Thus, the new claim introduces New Matter. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, there is no reasonable conveyance to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15:
Parent claim 1 has been amended to recite that the silicon-carbon precursor comprises carbon and consists of compounds represented by the same formula as that recited in claim 15. The precursor as limited in parent claim 1 is interpreted to be a singular precursor that have component objects/compounds that require carbon and allow any other element; and also exclusively restricted to be single or multiple compounds represented by the said same formula, which in effect requires one of the recited R groups to have a carbon atom within its moiety. Dependent claim 15 however states that the singular silicon-carbon precursor consists of the recited compound. The Examiner notes that the recited formula allows for all the recited R groups to be all be hydride moieties. Two issues of clarity then arise: whether the recited additional limitation recited in claim 15 requires that the silicon-carbon precursor is a singular compound species or allows for the plural compound species in the same manner as that of parent claim 1; and whether the silicon-carbon precursor requirements of claim 15 override the limitations of the silicon-carbon precursor recited in claim 1 in an attempt to further limit the subject matter of the silicon-carbon precursor. The combined limitations introduce an ambiguity of scope, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to fairly appraise the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter of instant claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 11:
In view of the amendments to the claims, claim 11 requires that the method is a PECVD process with continuous precursor supply. The term “precursor supply” is a broader term that can refer to all reactants required as precursors to the deposited silicon-carbon precursor, but would encompass the silicon-carbon precursor recited in grandparent claim 1. However, grandparent claim 1 requires that the ceasing of silicon-carbon precursor continues until the silicon-carbon precursor is substantially dissipated from the reaction space, i.e. precursor supply is discontinuous. The above parent limitation contradicts with the supply requirements of present claim 11. Thus, present claim 11 fails to include all the limitations of the claims upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 15:
In light of the indefiniteness of the claims, in one potential interpretation of the claims, the limitations of instant claim 15 is a repetition of the formula limitation in parent claim 1, thus failing to further limit the subject matter. In another potential interpretation, the precursor required may be one where all the R groups are hydrogen; thus claim 15 would fail to further include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 over Antonelli et al. US 8557712 B1 (hereinafter “Antonelli”) in view of Li et al. 2019/0055645 A1 and Blanquart WO 2019142055 A2 (hereinafter “Blanquart”) in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18 – 19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart WO 2019/142055 A2 (hereinafter “Blanquart”) in view of Nemani et. Al. US 2016/0194758 A1 (hereinafter “Nemani”).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 21:
Blanquart is directed to a method for depositing gap-fill layers by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition or atomic layer-like deposition, and particularly viscous flowable silicon-carbon films that can fill gaps (Abstract; [0008], [0011]).
In an embodiment, Blanquart discloses that the atomic layer-like deposition comprises:
providing a substrate comprising a patterned recess in a reaction space, e.g. the reaction space of an apparatus configured for atomic layer deposition (Abstract; [0047], [0071] – [0072]);
providing a plasma ignition gas [first gas] which can be H2 into the reaction space ([0073]);
providing a carrier gas [second gas] to the reaction space, wherein the second gas may be N2, Ar, and/or He ([0073]);
providing a single-species silicon-carbon precursor to the reaction space, wherein the silicon-carbon precursor has at least one Si-C bond ([0011], [0075]);
feeding precursor as a pulse into an apparatus configured for e.g. atomic layer deposition or pulsed RF chemical vapor deposition [related to claim 21] ([0062], [0076] – [0078], [0093] – [0094]);
purging the apparatus of precursor for set [first] time periods or pulsing the precursor for first time periods [ceasing flow of silicon-carbon precursor, part of the dissipating of silicon-carbon precursor during a first time period after ceasing the flow to substantially dissipate silicon-carbon precursor] ([0062] – [0063], [0093] – [0094]); and
striking a plasma after the purge step or interval [forming plasma beginning after ceasing the flow, part of the first time period and ending after the first time period, meeting claim 21 for pulsed chemical vapor deposition]; and purging again ([0011], [0060] Table 4, [0062] – [0063]; Fig. 1A).
Blanquart discloses that when the purging is set to a short interval, the precursor present near the top of a trench is substantially removed while the precursor near the bottom of the trench remains [also part of the dissipation, as the presence of precursor can be read as remaining silicon-carbon precursor], which allows for the formation of more viscous [flowable] material at the the bottom of the trench, enhancing gapfill and avoiding potential voids ([0062]).
Blanquart also discloses embodiments of their method where no oxygen and no oxygen-containing precursors are added ([0041], [0050], [0073]) and that the deposition and post-treatment steps may be performed in the same reaction space to prevent exposure of the substrate to air or other oxygen-containing atmosphere ([0085]). Finally, Blanquart discloses that the gases may be provided to an upper electrode that serves as a shower plate for reactant gas, dilution/carrier gas, and precursor gas ([0085]).
Blanquart does not expressly teach that the precursor consists of compounds represented by the recited formula:
Nemani is directed to a method for depositing flowable films by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition (Abstract; [0001], [0008], [0022]). Nemani discloses that in some embodiments, the precursor used for deposition can singularly be hexamethyldisilane [polysilane with 2 silicon atoms that that structurally matches the claimed formula as recited in claims 1, 15 ([0025], [0031]).
Blanquart discloses that any single precursor containing an Si – C bond is suitable as a monomer, including precursors bonded to saturated carbon chains.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blanquart by substituting the precursor of Blanquart with e.g. only hexamethyldisilane because as taught by Nemani, the use of only hexamethyldisilane is known to be suitable for the purpose of as a precursor for flowable films. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claim 2:
Blanquart discloses that an example process parameter for their processes may be e.g. 300 W ([0060], Table 4). More generally Blanquart discloses that plasma power may be e.g. 50 W, 100 W, 200 W, 300 W, 400 W, 500 W, 600 W, 700 W, 800 W, 900 W, 10000 W ([0068]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Blanquart discloses that the flow of hydrogen may overlap with the flow of precursor ([0073], [0093] – [0094], Table 5). While Blanquart in view of Nemani does not expressly teach that the provision of the first gas or first gas and second gas beings prior to the provision of the silicon-carbon precursor, Blanquart does disclose cyclic deposition processes like PEALD-like processes and pulsed CVD ([0095]), entails that a deposition can occur over n cycles. It would then be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that for an ith pulse (0 < i < n) of precursor provided, the carrier gas and plasma activation gas would be provided on a continuous basis for at least the pulsed CVD embodiments of the method ([0094]), thus meeting the limitations of instant claims 4 and 5 as carrier gas and plasma activation gas is provided prior to the ith pulse of precursor provided and will terminate at the end of deposition during or after the nth pulse.
Regarding claims 18, 19:
While Blanquart does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the temperature within the reaction chamber is less than 100°C, a pressure within the reaction chamber is between 300 Pa and 2000 Pa, Blanquart does disclose that the production of a polymerized flowable film depends on the wafer temperature within the reaction chamber, the chamber pressure ([0052] – [0056]) as well as provides a general parameter range of -10 to 200°C for the wafer temperature and 300 to 101325 Pa for the chamber pressure ([0053]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Nemani as applied to claims 1 – 6, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18 – 19, 21 above, and further in view of Antonelli.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9:
Blanquart discloses that after a few cycles of deposition or at the end of deposition, the deposited film may be treated with a hydrogen plasma ([0080]). The application may be periodic for a set duration
Blanquart does not expressly teach a step of treating the silicon-carbon material, wherein the step of treating comprises providing a gas consisting of the second gas to the reaction space during a step of forming a second plasma, wherein the step of treating begins after the first time period.
Antonelli is directed to methods of filling gaps with a dielectric material (Abstract).
Antonelli discloses a step of performing an in-situ treatment operation, i.e. operation performed in the same reaction chamber as a deposition operation, after depositing a flowable polymeric film to solidify the flowable polymeric film (col 4 lines 15 – 30, col 8 lines 10 – 20). The in-situ operation comprises a step of exposing substrates to plasmas such as e.g. helium and argon plasmas [related to a separate teaching of providing a second gas to produce the plasma] (col 8 lines 25 – 40). The deposition operation and the treatment operation may be repeated in a same chamber, which facilitates a multi-cycle deposition/treatment process, and an embodiment of transitioning between deposition and treatment in a cyclical manner (col 4 lines 30 – 67, col 8 lines 10 – 20). The in-situ operation comprises a step of exposing substrates to plasmas such as i.e. helium and argon plasmas, thus implying non-continuous provision (col 8 lines 25 – 40). Antonelli discloses that the treatment of the film with such argon and/or helium plasmas densifies the deposited film in a uniform manner (col 4 lines 30 – 60). The densification can be concurrent with any of increasing mechanical strength, lowering dielectric constants and/or removing/modulating carbon content (col 5 lines 15 – 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blanquart to include a step of treating the silicon-carbon material, wherein the step of treating comprises providing a gas consisting helium and/or argon [second gas] to the reaction space during a step of forming a second plasma, wherein the step of treating begins after the first time period because Antonelli teaches that such a step allows for densification of silicon-carbon containing films, alteration of the carbon content of the film and tuning of the mechanical strengths and dielectric constants of the deposited film.
As the plasma used for deposition and the plasma used for treatment are distinctly different plasmas and that the treatment step occurs after every deposition step, the limitation regarding the separation in time between the formation of plasmas is met.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Nemani as applied to claims 1 – 6, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18 – 19, 21 above, and further in view of Weidman et al. US 2013/0065404 (hereinafter “Weidman”).
Regarding claim 17:
Blanquart discloses in some embodiments that the additive gas may contain reactant gases for nitriding the resultant deposited film, necessarily including nitrogen in silicon carbide films that result from the embodiment method using such reactant gases ([0041]). Furthermore, Blanquart contemplates some embodiments where SiCN films may be excluded, which naturally implies other embodiments where the film deposited may be SiCN [consisting of silicon carbon and nitrogen] or SiNH(OC) ([0050]). Furthermore, Blanquart discloses that polymerization may use argon or helium plasma, but also that hydrogen provision may not be detrimental to filling properties ([0073]).
Blanquart finally discloses that alkylsilane compounds are provided as precursors ([0011], [0075]).
Blanquart does not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the silicon-carbon material consists of silicon, carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen.
In analogous art, Weidman is directed to low temperature deposition of silicon containing films, including silicon carbonitride films, using carbosilane precursors (Abstract; [0027]). Weidman discloses a method comprising: depositing a silicon carbide film using PECVD ([0008], [0027]); and treating the deposited carbonitride film with a plasma containing helium, argon or hydrogen gas in order to remove hydrogen that is present within the deposited film ([0010], [0029]). Weidman discloses disilabutane as a precursor; disilabutane contains C – H bonds ([0011], [0034]), similar to the alkylsilanes disclosed in Blanquart. Weidman further discloses the hydrogen content of deposited films created from hexamethyldisilazane precursor and after treatment with hydrogen or hydrogen + nitrogen plasma(s) ([0055] – [0057]). Within those examples, an amount of hydrogen remains (Table 2), thus suggesting that a higher amount of hydrogen was present in the deposited films prior to dehydrogenation treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized and expected that films deposited from precursors containing carbon and hydrogen atoms, and prior to a post-deposition treatment, would also contain hydrogen because Weidman suggests that chemical vapor deposition of hydrocarbon-containing precursors would generally leave some amount of hydrogen in the resultant film. Thus, it would have been readily apparent that at least one embodiment of Blanquart would result in the deposition of a silicon-carbon material consisting of hydrogen alongside silicon, carbon, nitrogen.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Nemani as applied to claims 1 – 6, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18 – 19, 21 above, and further in view of Sims et al. US 2014/0113457A1 (hereafter Sims) and optionally Yuan et al. US 2021/0391171 (hereinafter “Yuan”).
Regarding claim 20:
Blanquart in view of Nemani does not expressly teach that the properties of the silicon-carbon material are manipulated by changing on one more of the first gas and the second gas.
In analogous arts, Sims is directed to methods of depositing dielectric films such as silicon nitride, silicon carbonitrides and in some cases silicon oxide films by plasma-enhanced atomic layer deposition ([0004], [0032], [0046]). Sims discloses that their method is performed in an apparatus with similar components to that of Blanquart (compare Fig. 3 of Sims with Fig. 1 of Blanquart, with provision of RF power, a gas distribution showerhead/plate, and means for generating a direct plasma). In the context of their method, Sims discloses that during deposition of an overall film, the plasma conditions may be changed to help tune a film to desired characteristics [desired film properties] ([0056] – [0057). Among the plasma characteristics that may be different, the gas composition can be changed [changing one or more of the first gas and the second gas] ([0057]).
Optionally and additionally, Yuan is directed to a doped or undoped silicon carbide film and methods of depositing such films in one or more features of a substrate for gapfills (Abstract). Yuan discloses that the characteristics size and growth profile of the grown silicon carbide film can be controlled by controlling treatment time, treatment frequency, treatment power, time intervals between deposition phases and plasma treatment phases, and/or remote gas composition (Abstract; [0005]; [0055] – [0058]). Yuan discloses that the remote plasma gas composition may comprise a source of hydrogen radicals (e.g. hydrogen gas) alongside carrier gases such as argon and helium; the carrier gases affect the ionization characteristics of the source gas that supplies hydrogen radicals ([0038]). During plasma treatment, the remote plasma gas composition can be adjusted [changed] to obtain desired gapfill behavior [manipulation of silicon-carbon material] such as preventing the opening near the top surfaces of features do not close up ([0056] – [0057]). Yuan discloses that proper modulation and control of the gapfill behavior helps prevents voids and seams from forming ([0002], [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blanquart in view of Nemani by changing the gases used for deposition [first or second gas] as needed because Sims teaches that changing the gas composition can help tune film characteristics over the course of a given deposition. Optionally and additionally, Yuan also teaches that such modulation aids in gapfilling recesses without creating seams or voids.
Claim(s) 12 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukazawa et al. US 2020/0118815 A1 (hereafter “Fukazawa”) in view of Blanquart.
Regarding claims 12, 13:
Fukazawa is directed to forming conformal silicon carbide films by cyclic chemical vapor deposition [cyclic CVD] (Abstract). The films can be formed in such a way as to form a flowable liquid that can be used as a gapfiller for filling substrates having trenches or other recesses ([0034]). Fukazawa discloses that their cyclic CVD method (Fig. 2, 3, 6, 7; [0021] – [0050]) comprises: providing a substrate having a recess pattern onto a PECVD apparatus’s lower electrode/stage [first electrode] within the apparatus’s interior/reaction zone ([0022], [0053]; Fig. 1A); performing in a cycle the steps of: supplying an organosilane precursor [silicon-carbon precursors] in pulses [necessarily ceasing of the flow of precursor, and also providing gases before a given provision of a silicon-carbon precursor] into the reaction space from an upper electrode/shower plate [second electrode that acts as a gas distribution device], wherein the precursor may be e.g. monovinyl silane ([0022], [0024], [0044], ([0053]), [0058]; Table 2; Claim 2; Fig. 1A); continuously providing a hydride gas such as H2 [first gas, wherein the first gas comprises hydrogen, meeting claim 2] and an inert gas such as nitrogen gas or noble gases [second gas, wherein the first gas and second gas differ and wherein the second gas comprises nitrogen gas (N2) or a noble gas e.g. specifically Ar into the reaction space through the shower plate ([0022], [0026] – [0030], [0043], [0053], [0058]; Fig. 2, 6; Table 2 “Inert Gas”); and applying RF power at a power of e.g. 50 – 500W in the reaction space by applying high frequency RF power (HRF) to one of the shower plate or stage from an HRF generator [power source] to ignite [form] a plasma during both a deposition phase and a first treatment phase from the hydride gas, e.g. hydrogen gas, and the inert gas, e.g. argon gas ([0017], [0022], [0026] – [0030], [0053]; Fig. 1A; Table 1).
In some embodiments of the disclosed method, the process temperature may be 100°C or lower ([0024] – [0033], [0034]). In those embodiments, a flowable liquid material is formed [initial flowability], which then can be used for filling gaps by using the flowable material’s surface tension ([0034]).
Fukazawa also discloses embodiments where no reactant gas for oxidizing or oxygen-doping silicon carbide is provided ([0017]), which also would imply to one of ordinary skill in the art a desire to prevent the exposure of adventitious oxygen to the substrate [performed without exposing the substrate to an oxygen-containing environment].
Fukazawa does not expressly teach that the silicon carbon precursor comprises/consists of a species described by the recited formulas; and that a first time period begins after the flow of the silicon-carbon precursor is ceased and the first time period ends when the silicon-carbon precursor is substantially dissipated from the reaction space.
With regards to the silicon carbon precursor:
Blanquart is directed to a method for depositing gap-fill layers by plasma-assisted chemical vapor deposition or atomic layer-like deposition, and particularly flowable silicon-carbon films (Abstract; [0008], [0011]). Blanquart further discloses that in some embodiments, the precursor used for deposition can singularly be tetramethylsilane or dimethyldivinylsilane [polysilane with 2 silicon atoms that that structurally matches the claimed formula as recited in claim 13, as evidenced by CAS10519 ([0011], [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukazawa by substituting the precursors of Fukazawa with e.g. only dimethyldivinylsilane because as taught by Blanquart, the use of only dimethyldivinylsilane is known to be suitable for the purpose of as a precursor for flowable films. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With regards to the dissipation of the silicon-carbon precursor during a first time period after the ceasing of the flow of the silicon-carbon precursor and the formation of the first plasma beginning after ceasing the flow of the silicon-carbon precursor during the first time period and ending after the first time period:
In an embodiment, Blaquart discloses that the atomic layer-like deposition comprises: feeding precursor into an apparatus configured for atomic layer deposition; purging the apparatus [ ceasing flow of silicon-carbon precursor , part of the dissipating of silicon-carbon precursor during a first time period after ceasing the flow]; striking a plasma after the purge step [forming plasma beginning after ceasing the flow, part of the first time period and ending after the first time period]; and purging again ([0011], [0060] Table 4, [0062] – [0063], ; Fig. 1A). Blanquart discloses that when the purging is set to a short interval, the precursor present near the top of a trench is substantially removed [substantial dissipation from the reaction space] while the precursor near the bottom of the trench remains, which allows for the formation of more viscous [flowable] material at the the bottom of the trench, enhancing gapfill and avoiding potential voids ([0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Fukazawa in view of Blanquart to have dissipated the silicon-carbon precursor during a first time period after the ceasing of the flow of the silicon-carbon precursor and have formed the first plasma beginning after ceasing the flow of the silicon-carbon precursor during the first time period and ending after the first time period, such as in the manner taught by Blanquart, because Blanquart teaches that such a modification allows for enhanced gapfill with a minimization of voids as more flowable material is formed at the bottom of gaps as opposed to the top of gaps.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Nemani as applied to claims 1 – 6, 10 – 11, 14 – 16, 18 – 19, 21 above, and further in view of Yuan.
Blanquart in view of Nemani does not expressly teach the etch selectivities of the deposited conformal silicon carbide films.
Yuan discloses that a high etch selectivity to silicon oxide and silicon nitride is a desirable property of SiCxOyNz films, including films where y = 0 (i.e. doped silicon carbide films with no oxygen, [0027] – [0029]). Yuan further discloses forming such films with an etch selectivity of at least 7:1 against both oxide and nitride materials ([0070]) by a method similar to that of Blanquart (Yuan Claim 1, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the deposition of the silicon-carbon material deposited by the method of Blanquart in view of Nemani modified by Yuan to obtain a maximal etch selectivity because Yuan teaches that such a property his desirable in the fabrication of semiconductor devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s remaining principal arguments are:
a.) Blanquart does not teach a method where the substrate is not exposed to an oxygen-containing method.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) Contrary to Applicant’s argument, Blanquart in view of the other prior art of record meets the negative limitation as discussed above in the rejection of the claims over Blanquart in view of Nemani.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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 on (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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 The term “purged” in the phrase “is purged” is acting as a past participle modifying the present tense conjugation of the verb “to be” (is). In such a form, the participle is describing a state, condition, existence or being of the subject, not an action in and of itself.
2 See Butler, S. (Ed.). (2017). Atmosphere. In The Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed.). https://access.infobase.com/
3 See Butler, S. (Ed.). (2017). Environment. In The Macquarie Dictionary (7th ed.). https://access.infobase.com