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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 and 17 amended
Claims 13-15 withdrawn
Claims 1-12, 16-17 pending
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/20/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (WO 2016/126911 A2).
Consider Claim 1, Chandra teaches the process of forming carbon dope silicon oxide film (abstract), using plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (ALD) process [0057]. Chandra teaches the film forming process to include: step (A) providing a substrate having a feature in a reactor [0057].
Chandra teaches, step (B) heating the reactor to one or more temperatures ranging from ambient temperature to about 700°C, and optionally maintaining the reactor at a pressure of 100 Torr or less [0057].
Chandra teaches, step (C) introducing into the reactor at least one cyclic halo-carbosilane [0057], where the cyclic halo-carbosilane include 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro 1,3-disilacyclobutane (page 43, claim 4). Chandra teaches in a different embodiment, the process of depositing silicon containing films for forming carbon doped silicon oxide film using cyclic halo-carbosilane precursor, result in forming chemically absorbed precursor on the substrate ([0054], page 17, first paragraph) as an anchored chemisorbed layer, which reacts with the nitrogen source in a later step.
Therefore, the cyclic halo-carbosilane include 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro 1,3-disilacyclobutane in the embodiment of paragraph [0057] would follow the same behavior the cyclic halo-carbosilane in the embodiment of paragraph [0055] for forming anchored chemisorbed layer of the substrate surface, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Chandra teaches, step (D) the process purging away any unconsumed precursors with inert gas [0044].
Chandra teaches, step (E) the process of providing a plasma source selected from inert gas such as helium plasma, hydrogen gas such as hydrogen plasma, a mixture of hydrogen gas and inert gas such as hydrogen and helium plasma, to react with the precursors within the chemisorbed layer forming silicon carbide film (silicon carbonitride film) (page 19, first paragraph). Chandra teaches the forming of silicon-containing film (carbon dope silicon oxide) using 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro 1,3-disilacyclobutane (silicon precursor) at 300℃, where the film comprises 41.5% of O, 14.8 % of C, 42.4% Si with total of 98.7% [0072] and Table VII, in page 27.
Chandra teaches, step (F) the purging of the reactor from any reaction byproducts with inert gas [0044].
Chandra teaches, step (G) the process of repeating the cycle of forming carbon doped silicon film, to get the desired thickness of the silicon containing film [0092]. Although, the repetition step is performed in a different embodiment.
However, it would be obvious for skilled person in art to perform step (G) having a repetition cycle for forming the carbon doped silicon oxide layer, to achieve desired thickness.
Chandra teaches, step (H) the process of exposing the silicon carbide film to a post deposition treatment having an oxygen source at a temperature ranging from ambient temperature to 1000°C to convert the silicon carbonitride film (silicon carbide film) to carbon doped silicon oxide film (page 19, third paragraph). Chandra teaches the carbon dope silicon oxide film has carbon content of about 10 atomic weight percent or greater (page 44, claim 7), encompassing 30-50 at. %. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 2, Chandra teaches carbon doped silicon oxide film having low K less than 4 (table XIII) and carbon content of 20-40 at. % [0091].
Consider Claims 3-6, Chandra teaches the carbon doped silicon oxide film having an etch rate of about <0.01 Angstrom/second or less in a diluted HF (with DI water at 1:99 HF:water) [0077], and comparative to the thermal oxide etch rate of 0.55 Angstrom/second [0077]. Although Chandra does not explicitly teach wt. % of the diluted HF acid concentration with HF to Water rate of 1:99, however, it would be obvious for skilled person in art to calculate/adjust the weight percent of the diluted HF acid, using routine experimentation and known engineering principles, and achieving a 0.5 weight percent value, to provide with a desired etching solution for a desired rate. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 7-10, Chandra teaches the process of forming carbon doped silicon oxide film as described in claim 1 above.
Chandra does not explicitly teach that when testing the carbon doped silicon oxide film using oxygen ashing process, that the depth of 50 Angstrom of the film would be damaged.
However, the prior art of Chandra teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including “the claimed processes including step (A) to step (H) for forming carbon doped silicon oxide film”. Since the “characteristic of carbon dope silicon oxide film at the depth of 50 Angstrom of the film would be damaged follow an oxygen ashing process” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of “the claimed processes including step (A) to step (H) for forming carbon doped silicon oxide film”, and the prior art of Chandra teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Chandra would have naturally flow or inherently produced “characteristic of carbon dope silicon oxide film at the depth of 50 Angstrom of the film would be damaged follow an oxygen ashing process” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 11, Chandra teaches the process of post deposition thermal annealing of the carbon doped silicon oxide using UV light source (page 19, fourth paragraph), where the post deposition UV treatment include processing under helium gas to a temperature below 400°C [0085], encompassing 300°C – 400°C. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 12, Chandra teaches post deposition treatment using hydrogen or inert gas plasma at room temperature to 1000 degrees Celsius (page 19, third paragraph-fifth paragraph)
Consider Claim 16, Chandra teaches the process of forming carbon doped silicon oxide containing film using plasma ALD process using 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro 1,3-disilacyclobutane precursor [0091], using steps from (1) to (9) (table XVI). Chandra further teaches the processing of the carbon dope silicon oxide containing film by additional steps of repeating the steps (3) to (8) 1000 times, and exposing the carbon doped silicon oxide films to 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro 1,3-disilacyclobutane precursor (chlorosilane having Si-Me group), to get the desired thickness of silicon containing films [0092].
Consider Claim 17, Chandra teaches the silicon precursors are transported using inert gas [0033], or solvent [0048].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-12 and 16-17 under 103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chandra.
The previously applied 112b/d claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
The applicant argued against, the prior art of Chandra, on the ground that Chandra does not disclose the newly amended claim stating “to form a silicon carbide film having a combined silicon, carbon, and oxygen content of at least 98%”, as Chandra disclose the use of ammonia, which form a silicon carbide film with highly concentrated nitrogen.
However, although Chandra disclose the use of ammonia in the forming of silicon carbide film, Chandra also disclose an example where the nitrogen is 1.3%, [0072] and Table VII, in page 27.
Additionally, the claim disclose the forming of silicon carbide film under the claimed silicon precursors and the claimed condition. As Chandra discloses each and every limitation within claim 1. Therefore, the atomic percentage totaling to 98% of Si, O and C atoms would be resulting form the claimed steps, as the claims does not restrict the use of other materials (such as ammonia, nitrogen-compound), nor disclose the amount of the silicon precursors that is supplied into the chamber, and other specific detailed processes (temperature, pressure, plasma energy, RF, purge time, precursor flow time, and other) which results in the silicon carbide film in examples 1-3.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights