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Claims 13-15 withdrawn
Claims 1-2, 17 amended
Claims 1-12 and 16-17 and pending
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.
Claim 17 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.
Claim 17 in page 5, states “wherein the at least one silicon precursor is introduced as a part of composition”. However, it is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim by stating that the silicon precursor is introduced into the reactor (per claim 1) as a “part of a composition”. As the silicon precursor(s) are already a composition(s) themselves.
Claim 17 in page 5, states “wherein the at least one silicon precursor is introduced as part of a composition that consists essentially of the at least one silicon precursor and optionally …”. However, it is unclear what the applicant is trying to claim as the “at least one silicon precursor” is introduced into the reactor where this “at least one silicon precursor” consist essentially of the “at least one silicon precursor”, as the limitation “optionally” does not positively recite an addition to the claim.
In summary, the applicant is trying to claim “the at least one silicon precursor is … that consists essentially of the at least one silicon precursor”, which is redundant.
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.
Claim 17 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.
Claim 17 in page 5, states “wherein the at least one silicon precursor is introduced as part of a composition that consists essentially of the at least one silicon precursor and optionally one or more of solvent, hydrogen, and an inert gas ”. However, the limitation “optionally one or more of solvent, hydrogen, and an inert gas” does not positively recite an addition to the dependent claim 17 nor the independent claim 1, as claim 1 and step c) states “introducing into the reactor at least one silicon precursor…”.
Additionally, independent claim 1 recites “introducing into the reactor at least one silicon precursor having two Si-C-Si linkages selected from the group consisting of…”, where the dependent claim 17 recites “wherein the at least one silicon precursor is introduced as part of a composition that consists essentially of the at least one silicon precursor”. Therefore, the dependent claim 17 having the limitation “consists essentially of” is broader than the independent claim having “group consisting of”.
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.
In summary, the applicant is trying to claim “the at least one silicon precursor is … that consists essentially of the at least one silicon precursor”, which is redundant.
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 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, 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 20-40 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).
Chandra does not explicitly teach the process of forming carbon doped silicon oxide film resulted in having an oxygen atomic percentage of less than 5 at. %.
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 “carbon doped silicon oxide film resulted in having an oxygen atomic percentage of less than 5 at. %.” 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 “carbon doped silicon oxide film resulted in having an oxygen atomic percentage of less than 5 at. %.” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
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].
Chandra does not explicitly teach the process of forming carbon doped silicon oxide film resulted in having an oxygen atomic percentage of less than 5 at. %.
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 “carbon doped silicon oxide film resulted in having an oxygen atomic percentage of less than 5 at. %.” 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 “carbon doped silicon oxide film resulted in having an oxygen atomic percentage of less than 5 at. %.” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previously applied 112b/d claims rejection, are maintained. In summary, the applicant is trying to claim “the at least one silicon precursor is … that consists essentially of the at least one silicon precursor”, which is redundant.
The applicant argued against the prior art of Chandra, on the ground that the prior art of Chandra failed to disclose the step of forming a silicon carbide film and then converting that silicon carbide film into carbon-doped silicon oxide film, as Chandra discloses the process of forming silicon nitride film, converting the silicon nitride film into silicon oxide film.
However, the prior art of Chandra discloses the process of forming silicon carbonitride film (pages 18-19, [0057]), where the silicon carbonitride film is a silicon carbide nitride film, as the claim does not restrict the addition of a nitrogen/nitride into the silicon carbide film. Moreover, Chandra teaches the process of exposing the silicon carbide film into plasma forming carbon dope silicon oxide film (pages 18-19, [0057]).
Additionally, the specification as originally filed stated in paragraph [0022]: “The steps of introducing the precursor(s), purging as necessary, introducing the plasma, and again purging as necessary, are repeated as necessary to bring the as-deposited silicon carbide film to a predetermined thickness”. Therefore, “the as deposited silicon carbide film” is the claimed limitation “a silicon carbide film” in step (E); wherein paragraph [0044] it is also stated: “First, the as-deposited, reactive carbon-doped silicon nitride film is formed using the silicon precursor precursors comprising at least one Si—C—Si linkage, and a nitrogen source. Without wishing to be bound by any theory or explanation, it is believed that the Si—C—Si linkage from the silicon precursor remains in the resulting as-deposited film and provides a high carbon content of at least 10 at. % or greater as measured by XPS (e.g., about 25 to about 50 at. %, about 30 to about 40 at. % and in some cases about 40 to about 50 at. % carbon). Second, when exposing the as-deposited film to an oxygen source, such as water, either intermittently during the deposition process, as a post-deposition treatment, or a combination thereof, at least a portion or all of the nitrogen content in the film is converted to oxygen to provide a film selected from a carbon-doped silicon oxide or a carbon-doped silicon oxynitride film. The nitrogen in the as-deposited film is released as one or more nitrogen-containing by-products such as ammonia or an amine group”. Therefore, before the exposing the argued “silicon carbide film” to an oxygen source in step (H), the nitrogen is present in the “silicon carbide film”, where after the exposure to oxygen source, the nitrogen escapes as a gas, as ammonia or amine group, [0044].
The applicant argued against the carbon content within the silicon containing film, based on example 1, example 2, an example 3, stating that the carbon content within those examples is 32.2 at.%, 37.9 at.%, and 36.2 at.%, respectively.
However, the current claim require “and has an oxygen content of less than 5 at. %”, and where only example 1 have oxygen content of 3.8 at.%, where example 2 an example 3 have oxygen content of 7.7 and 20.3 at, %, respectively, which are both outside the claimed range.
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
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 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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00AM-5:00PM 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