DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to First Action On The Merits
The 14 DEC 2025 amendments to independent claims 1 and 8 have been entered.
The 14 DEC 2025 cancellation of claims 15-17 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
See previous Office action for a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Macdonald et al. (WO 2018053129; below, “Macdonald” – previously cited 9 AUG 2022 IDS noted prior art reference). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known method” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 1, Macdonald, in paragraphs [0014] to [0102] and claims 1-22, discloses a process for the vapor deposition of a silicon oxycarbonitride film onto a microelectronic device surface, which comprises introducing into a reaction zone the following reactant chosen from:
a. at least one compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
227
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each R1 is independently chosen from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl, each R2 is independently chosen from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl; and each R3 is chosen from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl, provided that when R3 is hydrogen, R1 is C1-C4 alkyl; and
PNG
media_image2.png
352
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b. a reducing gas in plasma form or an oxidizing gas, with purging of each reactant prior to exposing the film to the next reactant (claims 1, 2, pages 14, 20),
wherein the film comprises:
about 30 to about 50 atomic percent silicon;
about 5 to about 30 atomic percent nitrogen;
about 2 to about 25 atomic percent carbon; and
about 20 to 40 atomic percent oxygen (e.g., [0074]).
A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art". For example, In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d ip1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). Such is the case here. MPEP § 2131.03.
RE 2, Macdonald discloses the process of claim 1, wherein each R1 is ethyl (claim 2, page 20).
RE 3, Macdonald discloses the process of claim 1, wherein each R2 is methyl (claim 2, page 20).
RE 6, Macdonald discloses the process of claim 1, wherein the oxidizing gas is chosen from oxygen, oxygen plasma, ozone, water, and nitrous oxide (e.g., [0016], claim 3).
RE 7, Macdonald discloses the process of claim 1, further comprising repeating a. and b. until a film of a desired thickness has been obtained (e.g., [0015], claim 1).
Claims 4, 5, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Macdonald with evidence from or in view of LAW et al. (WO 2003088327; below, “LAW” – previously cited 9 AUG 2022 IDS noted prior art reference). MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 4, Macdonald is silent regarding the process of claim 1, wherein the reducing gas is chosen from hydrogen, hydrazine; methyl hydrazine, t-butyl hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine.
LAW teaches a reducing gas is chosen from hydrogen, hydrazine; methyl hydrazine, t-butyl hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (e.g., paragraphs [0037], [0052], and claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 35).
Macdonald and LAW are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Macdonald as taught by LAW because: 1. hydrogenation forms Si-H bonds that eliminate dangling bonds and improve surface passivation (LAW [0052]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 5, modified Macdonald discloses the process of claim 4, wherein the reducing gas is hydrogen (e.g., [0037], [0052], and claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 35). See claim 4 for motivation to combine analysis.
RE 8, Macdonald, in paragraphs [0014] to [0102] and claims 1-22, discloses a process for the vapor deposition of a silicon oxycarbonitride film onto a microelectronic device surface, which comprises introducing into a reaction zone the following reactants chosen from:
a. at least one compound of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
227
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each R1 is independently chosen from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl, each R2 is independently chosen from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl; and each R3 is chosen from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl, provided that when R3 is hydrogen, R1 is C1-C4 alkyl (claims 1, 2, pages 14, 20); and
b. (see LAW for: a reducing gas in plasma form, with purging of each reactant prior to exposing the film to the next reactant),
wherein the film comprises:
about 30 to about 50 atomic percent silicon;
about 5 to about 30 atomic percent nitrogen;
about 2 to about 25 atomic percent carbon; and
about 20 to 40 atomic percent oxygen (e.g., [0074]).
Macdonald is silent regarding a reducing gas in plasma form, with purging of each reactant prior to exposing the film to the next reactant.
LAW teaches a reducing gas in plasma form, with purging of each reactant prior
to exposing the film to the next reactant (e.g., paragraphs [0031], [0039], and claims 1, 9, 11, 21).
Macdonald and LAW are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Macdonald as taught by LAW because: 1. hydrogenation forms Si-H bonds that eliminate dangling bonds and improve surface passivation (LAW [0052]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements as claimed …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 9, modified Macdonald discloses the process of claim 8, wherein each R1 is ethyl (claim 2, page 20). See claim 8 for motivation to combine analysis.
RE 10, modified Macdonald discloses the process of claim 8, wherein each R2 is methyl (claim 2, page 20). See claim 8 for motivation to combine analysis.
RE 11, Macdonald is silent regarding the process of claim 7, wherein the reducing gas is chosen from hydrogen, hydrazine; methyl hydrazine, t-butyl hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine.
LAW teaches a reducing gas is chosen from hydrogen, hydrazine; methyl hydrazine, t-butyl hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (e.g., paragraphs [0037], [0052], and claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 35).
Macdonald and LAW are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Macdonald as taught by LAW because: 1. hydrogenation forms Si-H bonds that eliminate dangling bonds and improve surface passivation (LAW [0052]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements as claimed …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 12, modified Macdonald discloses the process of claim 11, wherein the reducing gas is hydrogen (e.g., [0037], [0052], and claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 35). See claim 11 for motivation to combine analysis.
RE 13, modified Macdonald discloses the process of claim 11, further comprising repeating a. and b. until a film of a desired thickness has been obtained (e.g., [0015], claim 1).
RE 14, modified Macdonald discloses the process of claim 13, wherein the silicon oxycarbonitride film so formed exhibits an ashing damage difference as low as about 2.5 angstroms over a silicon nitride reference sample when exposed to oxygen plasma at 250 Watts for 60 seconds. Regarding the underlined portion of claim 14, applicants are reminded that different steps or a different sequence of steps distinguishes one method from a similar method. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to form a film exhibiting the underlined properties. See Macdonald’s [0070]. Hydrogen plasma lowers film dielectric constant and boost the damage resistance to following plasma ashing process while still keeping the carbon content in the bulk almost unchanged.
Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ 14 NOV 2025 rebuttal arguments (REM pages 5-7) are found to be unpersuasive in light of the arguments and positions detailed in the claim rejections supra. Regarding amended, independent claims 1 and 8, applicants assert that prior art reference Macdonald fails to disclose or suggest the claimed silicon oxycarbonitride films. REM page 6. The Office finds this assertion unpersuasive because Macdonald’s proportion of different elements overlap the claimed ranges. See the above rejections of claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, applicants’ assertion is not persuasive.
In view of these remarks, applicants’ arguments vis-à-vis patentability are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-14 are maintained.
Conclusion
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 Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815