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 the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, and 17 are pending and rejected. Claims 3, 5, 8, and 15 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 16 are amended and claims 11 and 14 are cancelled.
Please note: In future amendments, claims 3 and 5 should be given the proper status identifier of “withdrawn”.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draeger, US 2016/0056071 A1 (provided on the PTO-892 of 6/29/2023) alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan, WO 2013/134653 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 16, and 17, Draeger teaches a method for depositing a silicon-containing film in a flowable chemical vapor deposition process, wherein the silicon-containing film is selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide or carbon-doped silicon oxide (depositing a silicon oxide film, a silicon and nitrogen-containing film, or a silicon oxynitride film, 0053, where the deposited material is flowable and deposited by methods such as PECVD, abstract and 0094, where the film is a doped or undoped silicon oxide, carbon-doped silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, or silicon nitride film, 0006), the method comprising:
placing a substrate comprising a surface feature into a reactor which is at one or more temperatures ranging from 40 °C to about 200 °C (where the substrate is exposed to a pretreatment which is done in the deposition chamber or the substrate is transferred to a deposition chamber, 0051 and Fig. 4, indicating that the substrate will be placed into a reactor, where the substrate has a temperature between about -20°C and 100°C, 0099, the deposition is done at -20°C to 100°C, 0034, and the reactant partial pressures relative to their saturated vapor pressure are controlled at low temperatures, e.g., -20°C to 100°C, 0063, such that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the temperature of the reactor to be in the range of -20°C to 100°C so as to provide the desired reaction conditions, and where the substrate has a feature such as a via or trench with a porous dielectric layer formed therein, 0004 and Fig. 2A);
introducing into the reactor a precursor compound having the formula RnSiH4-n wherein R is independently selected from a linear or branched C2 to C6 alkyl or a C6-C10 aryl group and n is a number selected from 1, 2, and 3 (where the precursors used include alkylsilanes such as ethylsilane or those having the formula SiHxR’y-Rz, where R is a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group and R’ is a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, x is 1-3, y is 0-2, and x+y+z=4, 0006 and 0074-0075); and
providing a plasma source into the reactor to at least partially react the compound to form a flowable liquid or oligomer wherein the flowable liquid or oligomer at least partially fills a portion of the surface feature and forms a first film (where when forming silicon oxide the oxidant can be provided by a remote plasma generator and the silicon-containing compound and the oxidant react to form a condensed flowable film, 0072 and 0080, and where the vapor phase reactants are introduced into the deposition chamber to form the silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride film, where the vapor phase reactants may include species created by a plasma such as a remote plasma or in situ so that they react to form the flowable film, 0082, where the silicon-containing compound and co-reactant undergo a condensation reaction, condensing on the substrate surface to form a flowable film, 0094, such that the plasma source is provided to at least partially react the compound to form a flowable oligomer, i.e. portion of the precursor that reacts to form the film, where the flowable film fills pores on the substrate, 0021, 0052, Fig. 2B, and Fig. 4, such that the flowable film will at least partially fill a portion of the surface feature to form a first film).
As noted above Draeger teaches that the formula can include a single hydrogen atom and three alkyl groups (0075). They teach that ethylsilane is a suitable precursor (0074). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected triethylsilane (so that n=3) as the carbon-doped silicon precursor because ethyl is indicated as being a suitable alkyl chain for a silane precursor, where the silane precursor can include three alkyl groups and a single hydrogen atom such that it will be expected to provide a desirable silane for the deposition of the flowable film. Therefore, Draeger suggests using triethylsilane as the precursor compound as required by claims 12, 13, and 17.
As noted above, Draeger teaches a temperature overlapping the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Alternatively, they also teach that the pressure and temperature may be varied to adjust deposition time (0099). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature to be within the claimed range from the overlapping range of Draeger because they teach that the temperature and pressure can be varied to adjust deposition time, indicating that temperature is an optimizable variable. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Draeger further teaches that the films may be carbon-doped or include carbon so as to be carbon-doped (0072, 0075, 0076, and 0104), such that the silicon nitride film can include a carbon-doped silicon nitride as required by claims 1 and 16. Further, since they provide the process of claim 16, the resulting film is expected to be a carbon-doped silicon nitride film. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
They further teach forming the silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride film by using a nitrogen precursor such as a nitrogen-containing gas fed into a plasma such as ammonia (0082). They teach that the plasma can be in situ (0082). They also teach that an inert carrier gas is present, where the inert carrier gas is helium (0092). Therefore, when forming the carbon-doped silicon nitride or oxynitride film using an in-situ plasma with ammonia and a helium gas present in the reactor, the plasma source will include ammonia and helium as required by claims 2, 4, and 16.
As to not using a halogen catalyst in the process, Draeger teaches that the deposition chemistry may include one or more of a solvent and a catalyst as well (0053). They teach that the deposition chemistries may include a catalyst, a solvent, and other additives (0072). They teach that the catalyst and/or optional dopant may be incorporated into one of the reactants, pre-mixed with one of the reactants, or introduced as a separate reactant (0072). They teach that proton donor catalysts may be used such as nitric, phosphoric, sulfuric, hydrochloric, and bromic acids (0083). They teach that halogen-containing compounds may be used as catalysts (0084). They teach that halogen-free acid catalysts may be used (0087). Therefore, since they teach that the catalyst may be included it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not used a catalyst because they indicate that it is optional, i.e., the deposition chemistry can include one or more of a solvent and a catalyst, indicating that a catalyst is optional. Further, since they teach using various catalysts including halogen-free catalysts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a halogen-free catalyst in the process because such catalysts are indicated as being suitable.
Alternatively: They do not specifically teach the number of carbon atoms used in the alkyl chains.
Mallikarjunan teaches low temperature high quality silicon containing films deposited by PECVD at temperatures ranging from about 25°C to about 400°C using alkylsilane precursors selected from the group consisting of diethylsilane, triethylsilane, and combinations thereof (abstract and 0056). They teach that the precursor has the formula R1R2R3SiH, wherein R1, R2, and R3 can be C1-10 linear alkyl groups (0029). They teach that the films include silicon dioxide, carbon doped silicon oxide, silicon carbo-nitride, and silicon oxynitride films (0050). They teach forming silicon oxide films suing oxygen plasma as an oxygen source (0065). They teach depositing silicon and nitrogen-containing films using a nitrogen plasma, ammonia plasma, etc. (0067). They teach supplying energy to at least one of the silicon-containing precursor, oxygen-containing source, nitrogen-containing source, or combination thereof to induce reaction and form the silicon-containing film or coating on the substrate (0070). They teach that the energy can be provided by plasma (0070). Therefore, they teach depositing silicon oxide or silicon and nitrogen-containing, including silicon carbonitride, silicon oxide, and carbon doped silicon oxide films by PECVD at a temperature overlapping the range of Draeger to form high quality films using precursors such as diethylsilane and triethylsilane, i.e., silanes meeting the formula of Draeger.
From the teachings of Mallikarjunan, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Draeger to have used diethylsilane or triethylsilane as the precursor because Mallikarjunan teaches that diethylsilane and triethylsilane are desirable precursors for depositing silicon oxide, carbon-doped silicon oxide, and silicon carbonitride films by PECVD at a temperature overlapping the range of Draeger and because they meet the formula of Draeger such that it will be expected to provide desirable silicon precursors for the deposition process of Draeger. Therefore, Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan suggests using triethylsilane as the precursor compound as required by claims 12, 13, and 17.
Further, as to the temperature, Mallikarjunan indicates that the films can be deposited from about 25°C to about 400°C, where as noted above Draeger teaches using a temperature range of between about -20°C and 100°C with the suggestion of also optimizing the temperature. Therefore, since Draeger and Mallikarjunan both teach depositing the film, where the precursor is suggested to be triethylsilane, using a temperature overlapping the claimed range, the temperature is considered to render the claimed range obvious. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 6, Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan suggests the process of claim 1. Drager further teaches performing a post-deposition treatment to densify the film (0061 and Fig. 4). They teach that the post-deposition treatment may include a thermal anneal at temperatures of 300°C or greater (0104), such that it overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Regarding claim 9, Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan suggests the process of claim 1. Draeger further teaches that the plasma can be generated remotely (0082).
Regarding claim 10, Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan suggests the process of claim 1. Draeger further teaches that the pressure is between 1 and 200 Torr or between 10 and 75 Torr (0095), such that the pressure will be maintained at a pressure within or overlapping the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original). According to MPEP 2144.05, “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).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hong, US 2014/0213070 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan suggests the process of claim 6. Draeger teaches that the post-deposition treatment may be thermal, but they teach that other curing treatments can be provided such as plasma, UV, or microwave treatments (0102-0104).
They do not teach performing a thermal treatment and then performing another treatment.
Hong teaches methods of forming a dielectric layer on a substrate by introducing a first precursor into a remote plasma region coupled with a substrate processing region of a chamber and introducing a silicon-containing precursor into the substrate processing region so as to react and form a silicon-based dielectric layer that is initially flowable (abstract). They teach curing or densifying the formed dielectric layer (0010, 0012, and Fig. 2). They teach that one or more densifying operations may be performed to increase the quality of the dielectric material (0034). They teach that the layer can be treated with plasma and additionally annealed at temperatures above or about 400°C (0034). They teach a curing operation where the temperature is raised to above or about 200°C or higher (0037). They teach that the cured film can be densified by plasma effluents or annealed, where further post-deposition treatments may be performed including UV, e-beam, and other curing or annealing type operations (0038).
From the teachings of Hong, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Draeger alternatively in view of Mallikarjunan to have first performed the thermal treatment and then to have performed a subsequent curing treatment using UV or plasma because Draeger teaches that such treatments are used to cure the film and Hong teaches that multiple curing or densifying processes can be done where they teach heating first and then plasma treating or UV treating, where such processes improve the quality of the film such that it will be expected to provide a suitable sequence of curing steps to densify the formed film and improve the quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Draeger relates to a low temperature method, as discussed above, the temperature of Draeger ranges from between about -20°C and about 100°C (0099), such that it overlaps the claimed range. Further, Draeger suggests optimizing the temperature. Mallikarjunan also teaches a temperature overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Draeger does not disclose and any specific embodiment which shows a successful deposition at a substrate temperature higher than 30°C, according to MPEP 2123(II): Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. Therefore, while the examples of Draeger do not use a higher temperature, this is not considered to teach away from the broad disclosure of using a temperature of between about -20°C and about 100°C. Therefore, since Draeger teaches using a temperature range overlapping the claimed range, they suggest optimizing the temperature, they suggest using the claimed precursor compound and Mallikarjunan also provides the suggestion of using triethylsilane at a temperature overlapping the claimed range, the resulting precursor and temperature is expected to provide a desirably flowable film.
Regarding Applicant’s argument over the precursor of Draeger, as noted above the precursor of Draeger includes alkylsilanes such as ethylsilane or those having the formula SiHxR’y-Rz, where R is a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group and R’ is a substituted or unsubstituted alkyl group, x is 1-3, y is 0-2, and x+y+z=4 (0006 and 0074-0075). Therefore, x can be 1 so as to provide R3SiH, where since they indicate that ethylsilane is a suitable precursor, this suggests that ethyl groups are suitable R groups so as to provide the suggestion of using triethylsilane. Further, Mallikarjunan is alternatively relied upon for the suggestion of using triethylsilane.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Draeger teaches using plasma treatment after deposition rather than during deposition, it is noted that Draeger teaches using a remote plasma generator to supply activated oxidant species for the deposition process (0072 and 0080). They also teach that when depositing a silicon and nitrogen-containing film, the vapor phase reactants may include species created by a plasma that is remotely generated or generated in the deposition chamber (0082). Therefore, they teach using plasma during deposition to activate the reactants. Further paragraph 0094 is considered to be applicable to the process of Draeger since they indicate that the reaction takes place in the presence of plasma, where the reaction is between the silicon-containing compound and co-reactant, indicating that the plasma is used in the described process and not only in the background. This is further supported by Draeger teaching that the co-reactant is provided using a remote plasma generator, as discussed above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Draeger teaches using a catalyst rather than plasma, as discussed above, they teach using a plasma. Further, the use of a catalyst and a halogen-containing catalyst is considered to be optional in the process of Draeger for the reasons provided in the rejection above. Additionally, while the examples of Draeger may use a halogen-containing catalyst, the broad disclosure indicates that a catalyst and specifically a halogen-containing catalyst is optional. Note MPEP 2123(II): Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). As noted above, they indicate that the catalyst is optional, such that forming the flowable film without the catalyst is not considered to require undue experimentation.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the current case, the formula of Draeger provides the suggestion of using triethylsilane because Draeger indicates that ethyl is a suitable alkyl group for the alkylsilane precursors, where R’ and R can both be unsubstituted alkyl groups and where x=1-3 (0074-0075). Therefore, the formula of Draeger in combination with the indication that ethyl is a suitable alkyl group provides the suggestion of using triethylsilane as the precursor. Further, Mallikarjunan also alternatively suggests using triethylsilane as discussed above.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to depart from the preferred alkoxysilane precursor or modify ethylsilane, since Draeger teaches that alkylsilanes are suitable precursors and the formula in combination with the indication that ethyl is a suitable alkyl group the reference is consider to suggest using triethylsilane.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that one having ordinary skill would not expect success with triethylsilane based on the listing of trimethylsilane, it is noted that Draeger teaches using various precursors, including methyltriethoxysilane which has a boiling point of 142°C (Gelest, pg. 2). Therefore, since they teach using precursors having boiling points higher than triethylsilane, one having ordinary skill in the art would still expect success with triethylsilane based on the boiling point and in combination with the reasons discussed above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Mallikarjunan, while the materials of Mallikarjunan are not indicated as being flowable, they provide a PECVD process using alkylsilane precursors meeting the formula of Draeger, at a temperature overlapping the range of Draeger, to form the films desired by Draeger, using the reactants of Draeger, triethylsilane is also expected to provide a flowable film because it meets the requirements of Draeger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718