DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 2 and 4-22 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manna et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0028055).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Manna teaches a process for filling a recess on a surface of a substrate (abstract and Figures 1 and 3A) comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (0040); flowing a flowable precursor into the reaction chamber (0034); and exposing the precursor to a plasma (0037) at a temperature range of 150-550 ºC to form a solid deposited material including a void (0031 and Figure 3C) without using a cyclical process (0037); after depositing the material to fill the recess performing a post-deposition ion implantation process to cause the deposited material to reflow within the recess and fill the void (0045). Manna teaches that the deposited material can comprise carbon or silicon oxide (0043). Manna teaches all the critical limitations of claims 1, 2 and 4; therefore, Manna anticipates the claims.
II. Regarding claim 22, Manna teaches a structured formed according to the method (see Figures 3C and 5B). Manna teaches all the critical limitations of claim 22; therefore, Manna anticipates the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
2. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna.
Regarding claim 8, Manna teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see above), and the post-deposition treatment conducted at a temperature of less than 500 ºC (0047). Manna fails to explicitly teach a temperature range of 50-800 ºC. However, Manna teaches a range overlapping the claimed range as noted above. Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
3. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna in view of Cheung (“Plasma immersion ion implantation for semiconductor processing”).
Regarding claim 5, Manna teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach the post-deposition process is a plasma treatment. However, Manna does teach the process being an ion implantation process. Further, Cheung teaches that ion implantation can be practiced using a plasma immersion ion implantation process (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manna’s post-deposition process by having the ion implantation process being a plasma immersion ion implantation process as disclosed by Cheung. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Cheung teaches that plasma immersion ion implantation has a simpler machine design and allows for high throughput processing for both high-dose and large area applications (see Cheung at Summary section).
4. Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manna in view of Kalutarage et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0333760).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Manna teaches all the limitations of claim 4 (see above) and the precursor compound delivered to the reaction chamber using a carrier gas (0024). Additionally, Manna teaches that nitrogen can be incorporated into the deposited film as a dopant (0035). However, Manna fails to teach the plasma treatment conducted by including a nitrogen-containing gas.
However, Kalutarage teaches a similar process for depositing a flowable carbon containing film into a recess on a substrate (abstract) using plasma (abstract). Kalutarage teaches the use of a nitrogen-containing gas, such as nitrogen or ammonia (0063), to be used in generating the plasma for depositing the flowable carbon film, such that nitrogen can be incorporated into the film (0063). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Manna’s process by substituting Kalutarage’s process for incorporating nitrogen into the film by including nitrogen gas in the plasma for the undisclosed nitrogen incorporation process of Manna. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted Kalutarage’s process for Manna’s process with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that both are directed at generating filled recesses including nitrogen doping), and the predictable result of providing a nitrogen-doped recess filled with a coating without gaps or seams.
5. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0013612) in view of Manna.
I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 12 and 22, Blanquart teaches a structure (Blanquart at claim 19) and a process for preparing the structure (Blanquart at claim 1), wherein the process comprises: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (claim 1 and Figure 1A); and depositing a material on a surface of the substrate by flowing a flowable precursor (Blanquart at claim 1), such as mesitylene (0069), which includes a benzene cyclic structure (0069), and exposing the precursor to a plasma to form deposited material which fills the recess (Blanquart at claim 1) and note that the plasma is not shut down immediately upon filling and is continued for at least some amount of time after filling the recess (consistent with a post-deposition plasma treatment step), the depositing and post-deposition yielding a flowable film that flows within the recess (Blanquart at claim 1). Blanquart teaches the deposited material comprises carbon (0117), the depositing temperature being 85 ºC (Table 5, 0117) and a pressure being 1100 Pa (Table 5, 0117). Blanquart teaches that the step of depositing can be a continuous process and not cyclical (0081). Blanquart fails to teach the post-deposition treatment performed after the deposited material solidifies and the post-deposition treatment causing the deposited material to reflow such that it reduces an amount of voids in the deposited material.
However, Manna teaches a process for filling a recess on a surface of a substrate (abstract and Figures 1 and 3A) comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (0040); flowing a flowable precursor into the reaction chamber (0034); and exposing the precursor to a plasma (0037) at a temperature range of 150-550 ºC to form a solid deposited material including a void (0031 and Figure 3C) without using a cyclical process (0037); after depositing the material to fill the recess performing a post-deposition ion implantation process to cause the deposited material to reflow within the recess and fill the void (0045). Manna teaches that the deposited material can comprise carbon or silicon oxide (0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blanquart’s process by additionally performing an ion implantation process after Blanquart’s deposited material solidifies to cause the material to reflow and reduce the amount of any voids or seams as disclosed by Manna. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that any seams or voids are closed thereby providing an improved final product.
II. Regarding claim 21, Blanquart also teaches a system for performing the process noted above (Blanquart at claim 18) comprising: a reaction chamber (abstract and Figure 1A); and a controller for performing the depositing, exposing, and post-deposition (0116). Therefore, Blanquart in view of Manna also make obvious claim 21.
6. Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Manna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheung.
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Blanquart in view of Manna teach all the limitations of claim 1 including the pressure being 1100 Pa (see Blanquart at Table 5, 0117), but fails to teach the post-deposition process is a plasma treatment. However, Blanquart in view of Manna do teach the process being an ion implantation process. Further, Cheung teaches that ion implantation can be practiced using a plasma immersion ion implantation process (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blanquart in view of Manna’s post-deposition process by having the ion implantation process being a plasma immersion ion implantation process as disclosed by Cheung. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Cheung teaches that plasma immersion ion implantation has a simpler machine design and allows for high throughput processing for both high-dose and large area applications (see Cheung at Summary section).
7. Claim(s) 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Manna as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kalutarage.
Regarding claims 11, 13 and 14, Blanquart in view of Manna teach all the limitations of claim 1 (see above), but fail to teach the use of a precursor including a carbonyl group and an additional group as claimed in claims 11, 13 and 14.
However, Kalutarage teaches a similar process for depositing a flowable carbon containing film into a recess on a substrate (abstract) using plasma (abstract). Kalutarage teaches the use of a precursor including a propyl group or butyl group (see Figure 4B, where n is 1 or 2) and wherein R can be an ester group (Figure 4B and 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blanquart in view of Manna’s process by substituting Kalutarage’s precursor for Blanquart in view of Manna’s precursor. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Kalutarage teaches the inclusion of different R functional groups allows for tuning the reactivity of the plasma polymerization process (0047).
8. Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Mallick et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0045342) and Manna.
Regarding claims 15-20, Blanquart teaches a process for filling a recess on a substrate (Blanquart at claim 1) wherein the process comprises: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (claim 1 and Figure 1A); and depositing a flowable material on a surface of the substrate by flowing a precursor (Blanquart at claim 1), such as mesitylene (0069), which includes a benzene cyclic structure (0069), and exposing the precursor to a helium plasma (Table 5, 0117) while flowing the precursor (0073) to form deposited material which fills the recess (Blanquart at claim 1) and note that the plasma is not shut down immediately upon filling and is continued for at least some amount of time after filling the recess (consistent with a post-deposition helium plasma treatment step that provides excited species to the deposited material), the depositing and post-deposition yielding a flowable film that flows within the recess (Blanquart at claim 1). Blanquart teaches the deposited material comprises carbon (0117), the depositing temperature being 85 ºC (Table 5, 0117) and a pressure being 1100 Pa (Table 5, 0117). Blanquart fails to teach the precursor comprising a cyclic structure and at least one carbonyl functionality as claimed in claims 15-18. Blanquart further fails to teach the post-deposition treatment performed after the deposited material solidifies and the post-deposition treatment causing the deposited material to reflow.
First, Mallick teaches a similar process for depositing a flowable carbon containing layer (abstract) utilizing plasma (abstract) with a precursor, such as ethane (0019), mesitylene (0019, having a benzene cyclic structure) and/or ketones (0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blanquart’s process by including and/or substituting Mallick’s precursor for Blanquart’s precursor. One would have been motivated to make this substitution as one could have substituted one known precursor for another with a reasonable expectation of success (note that Mallick and Blanquart’s similar use of the precursor for depositing a flowable plasma deposited carbon layer), and the predictable result of providing a method for filling a recess without leaving any voids or gaps.
Second, Manna teaches a process for filling a recess on a surface of a substrate (abstract and Figures 1 and 3A) comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber (0040); flowing a flowable precursor into the reaction chamber (0034); and exposing the precursor to a plasma (0037) at a temperature range of 150-550 ºC to form a solid deposited material including a void (0031 and Figure 3C) without using a cyclical process (0037); after depositing the material to fill the recess performing a post-deposition ion implantation process to cause the deposited material to reflow within the recess and fill the void (0045). Manna teaches that the deposited material can comprise carbon or silicon oxide (0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blanquart’s process by additionally performing an ion implantation process after Blanquart’s deposited material solidifies to cause the material to reflow and reduce the amount of any voids or seams as disclosed by Manna. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure that any seams or voids are closed thereby providing an improved final product.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2 and 4-22 are pending.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-22 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 at 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
September 23, 2025Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717