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 1-10 are pending and rejected. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/26/2025 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd, US 6,733,830 B2 in view of Hara, US 2003/0180550 A1 and Edelstein, US 2005/0194619 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Todd teaches chemical vapor deposition processes resulting in films with low dielectric constants using precursors such as alkylalkoxysilanes (abstract). They teach that the silicon-containing film is deposited by CVD where the film has a dielectric constant of 3.5 or lower (Col. 2, lines 40-60), 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).
They teach that thermal CVD process can be used to deposit the film, but that PECVD can also be used to deposit the chemical precursors (Col. 2, lines 21-36 and Col. 6, lines 22-37, Col. 7, lines 35-60, and Col. 15, lines 23-34). They teach that the reaction chamber for PECVD produces in situ (in chamber) plasma (Col. 6, lines 22-54), such that the plasma energy will be applied to the materials in the reaction chamber. They teach that the film preferably contains an amount of silicon in the range of about 1% to about 60%, more preferably about 5% to about 35%, an amount of carbon in the range of about 10% to about 90%, more preferably about 10% to about 50%, and amount of oxygen in the range of about 0% to about 35%, more preferably about 1% to about 15% (Col. 8, line 45 to Col. 9, line 8), such that the film is an organosilica film, i.e., containing silicon, oxygen, and carbon. They teach that the chemical precursor is an alkylalkoxysilane of the formula (R2O)4-c-bSiR2bR1c where each R2 is independently methyl, ethyl, or propyl, R1 is H or D, c is 0, 1, or 2, b is 1, 2, or 3, and c+b=1, 2, or 3 (Col. 9, lines 9-12 and Col. 10, lines 21-30). Therefore, when c=0 the precursor is similar to formula 1 where the claimed R1 and R2 are ethyl or propyl and R3 is methyl, ethyl, or propyl and similar to formula 2 where R4 is ethyl or propyl and R5 is methyl, ethyl, or propyl. They teach depositing the film by introducing a gas containing a chemical precursor in to a chemical vapor deposition chamber, i.e., a reaction chamber, containing a substrate (Col. 2, lines 40-60). They teach depositing the chemical precursors in a reaction chamber where reaction gases and byproducts are exhausted from the reaction chamber (Col. 6, lines 1-37), indicating that the precursors are reacted during the process to form the film.
They do not teach that R3 or R5 is a branched C3 to C5 alkyl.
Hara teaches an insulating film material formed by CVD which contains an organic silane compound having such a structure that at least one secondary hydrocarbon group and/or tertiary hydrocarbon group is directly bonded to a silicon atom (abstract). They teach that an object of the invention is to provide a novel low-dielectric material, particularly a material for a low-k dielectric constant insulating film, containing an alkylsilane compound suitable for a PECVD apparatus, and to provide an insulating film employing it a semiconductor device containing such an insulating film (0014). They teach providing an insulating film material formed by CVD which contains an organic silane compound of formula (3):
PNG
media_image1.png
156
270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where R9, R10, and R11 is a C1-20 hydrocarbon group, R12 is a C1-10 hydrocarbon group or a hydrogen atom, d is an integer of from 1 to 3, e is an integer of from 0 to 2, and d+e is an integer of at most 3 (0018-0019). They teach that examples of each of R9, R10, and R11 are not limited and they are preferably a C1-10 alkyl group, where they may be the same or different (0046). They teach that examples of R9 and R10 include methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, i-propyl, n-butyl, i-butyl, sec-butyl, tert-butyl, etc. (0047). They teach that R12 is a C1-10 alkyl having a linear or branched chain, where preferred examples are methyl, ethyl, i-propyl, n-butyl, i-butyl, sec-butyl, and tert-butyl (0050). They teach that the organic silane of formula (3) can be an alkoxysilane trisubstituted with hydrocarbon groups, wherein (d=1, e=2), (d=2, e=1), or (d=3, e=0) (0051). They teach that the organic silane compounds of the formulae (1) to (3) of the invention are materials suitable as a low-dielectric constant insulating material for film formation by a PECVD apparatus (0119). They teach that it is also possible to obtain a low-k insulating material having a decreased dielectric constant by heat treating the film formed by CVD so that the tertiary carbon atom and the silicon atom are separated and the separated hydrocarbon molecule is discharged out of the film to form pores (0120), indicating that without heat treatment carbon is included in the film to provide a dense film. They teach using one of the described precursors in PECVD to provide a polymer of silicon oxide having such a structure that a tertiary butyl group was directly bonded to a silicon atom (0172-0173), indicating that they are forming carbon-doped silicon oxide films. They teach that the invention provides a material having a low dielectric constant and a high mechanical strength (0216). Therefore, Hara teaches forming a low-k dielectric layer having high mechanical strength by PECVD using a structure having claimed formula (1) when, for example, d=2, e=1, R9, R10, and R11 are methyl and R12 is isopropyl, tert-butyl, or sec-butyl and a structure having claimed formula (2) when, for example, d=1, e=2, R9, R10, and R11 are methyl and R12 is isopropyl, tert-butyl, or sec-butyl.
From the teachings of Hara, 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 Todd to have used the precursor of Hara to form a carbon doped oxide layer by PECVD because Hara teaches that such a precursor provides a low-k dielectric silicon oxide film that includes carbon having high mechanical strength and because the precursor is similar to that described by Todd in that it is an alkylalkoxysilane having similar R groups (methyl, ethyl, etc.) such that it will be expected to provide the desired and predictable result of depositing the CDO layer as desired. Therefore, the precursor suggested by Todd in view of Hara will have a formula with ligands that meet the requirements of a structure having claimed formula (1) when, for example, d=2, e=1, R9, R10, and R11 are methyl and R12 is isopropyl, tert-butyl, or sec-butyl and a structure having claimed formula (2) when, for example, d=1, e=2, R9, R10, and R11 are methyl and R12 is isopropyl, tert-butyl, or sec-butyl.
While they do not teach the density of the film, there is no indication that the film is formed to be porous, i.e., no porogens are included, etc., and Hara indicates that it is optional to provide the heat treatment for removing the tertiary carbon group to result in a porous film, such that the film is considered to be a dense organosilica film.
They do not teach the elastic modulus of the film or the dielectric constant when using the precursor of Hara.
Todd teaches forming the organosilica layer by flowing the chemical precursor, i.e., the alkoxysilane and an inert gas such as helium or argon as a carrier gas (Col. 8, lines 45-65). They teach that an oxygen source may also be provided as a supplemental source of a desired element (Col. 11, lines 43-67). They teach that secondary chemical precursors can include oxygen, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, etc. (Col. 12, lines 25-35). They teach using the secondary chemical precursors when the primary chemical precursors do not provide the desired balance of elements in the film structure or the desired atom-to-atom bonding in the film (Col. 11, lines 43-67). They teach that dielectric materials are used to insulate metal line and vias in microelectronic devices, where the film is useful in the microelectronics industry (abstract and Col. 1, lines 24-36). They teach that the films may also contain hydrogen (Col. 17, line 61 to Col. 18, line 2).
Edelstein teaches a low-k dielectric material with increased cohesive strength for use in electronic structures where the material includes atoms of Si, C, O, and H (abstract). They teach forming the SiCOH dielectric materials by PECVD using an alkoxycarbosilane precursor comprising atoms of Si, C, O, and H, and inert carrier such as He or Ar, and an oxidizing agent such as O2, N2O, CO-2, or a combination thereof (0061). They teach that the conditions used for the deposition step may vary depending on the desired final dielectric constant of the SiCOH dielectric material (0071). They teach that the conditions used for providing a stable dielectric material comprising elements of Si, C, O, H that has a dielectric constant of about 3.2 or less and an elastic modulus from about 2 to about 15 GPa (0071). They teach forming the SiCOH as an insulating layer in a semiconductor device (title, 0029, and 0030).
From the teachings of Edelstein, 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 deposition conditions to form the organosilica layer to have an elastic modulus in the range of 2 to 15 GPa and a dielectric constant of 3.5 or less or 3.2 or less because Edelstein teaches that such a modulus is suitable for an insulating film containing Si, C, O, and H formed from precursors similar to those of Todd and Hara (alkoxycarbosilanes or alkyl alkoxysilanes) by a similar process, i.e. PECVD flowing oxygen, helium, and the precursor and Todd and Edelstein indicate that such a dielectric constant is desirable for a low-k layer, where the conditions can be optimized such that it will be expected to provide a desirable CDO layer. Therefore, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest a method of making an organosilica film by providing a substrate within a reaction chamber, introducing into the reaction chamber a gaseous composition having a formula with ligands and ranges overlapping the claimed monoalkoxysilane formulas, and applying energy to the gaseous composition in the chamber, i.e., either thermal or in situ plasma energy to induce reaction of the precursors or gaseous composition to deposit the organosilica film having a dielectric constant and elastic modulus 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.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Further, since Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein form the film using the same process steps as claim 1, the resulting film is expected to have a modulus and dielectric constant within or overlapping the claimed range. 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)”.
Regarding claim 2, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1. There is no indication in Todd, Hara, or Edelstein that a hardening additive is included or needed, 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 not included a hardening additive since there is no suggestion to include one.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1. Todd further teaches depositing the film by plasma deposition using gases in a PECVD reactor such that the process is understood to be a PECVD process (Col. 6, lines 22-37 and Col. 7, lines 35-60). Hara also teaches using a PECVD process (0119).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1. Todd further teaches depositing the organosilica layer by flowing the chemical precursor, i.e., the alkoxysilane and an inert gas such as helium or argon as a carrier gas (Col. 8, lines 45-65). They teach that an oxygen source may also be provided as a supplemental source of a desired element (Col. 11, lines 43-67). They teach that secondary chemical precursors can include oxidizing agents such as oxygen, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, nitrous oxide, or water (Col. 12, lines 6-35). They teach using the secondary chemical precursors when the primary chemical precursors do not provide the desired balance of elements in the film structure or the desired atom-to-atom bonding in the film (Col. 11, lines 43-67). They teach that the absence of an oxidizing agent in the gas is preferred when the gas contains a primary chemical precursor that contains one or more oxygen atoms within its chemical structure (Col. 12, lines 6-23). 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 either included an oxidant such as water, oxygen, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, or nitrous oxide or to have omitted the oxidizing agent or oxidant so as to provide the film with the desired properties because Todd teaches that oxidizing agents can or cannot be included in the deposition gas depending on the desired properties of the film and whether the primary precursor provides the desired balance of elements or atom-to-atom bonding in the film such that it will be expected to result in optimizing the desired properties of the film.
Regarding claim 7, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1. Todd further teaches depositing the organosilica layer by flowing the chemical precursor, i.e., the alkoxysilane and a carrier gas such as helium, hydrogen, argon, neon, krypton, or mixtures thereof (Col. 8, lines 45-65). Therefore, the reaction chamber will comprise at least one gas selected from He, Ar, or Kr during the applying step because it will be carrying the precursor gas in to the chamber when thermal energy or plasma is applied.
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1.
Edelstein teaches that it is desirable to form a film having about 15 to about 40 atomic percent C (0049). 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 deposition process so as to form the film with a carbon content in the range of about 15 to about 40 atomic percent because Edelstein teaches that such a range is desirable in a film containing Si, C, O, and H for the purposes of forming an insulating layer. Therefore, in the process of Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein, the carbon content will overlap 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). While they do not teach that the carbon content is measured by XPS, since they suggest forming a film with that carbon content, it is expected to also be the same when measured by XPS because the carbon is understood to be provided throughout the film.
Edelstein further teaches that the SiCOH dielectric material in which the fraction of C atoms bonded as Si-CH--Si as detected by FTIR is larger than in prior art SiCOH dielectrics (0015), indicating it is desirable to have Si-CH-Si bonds.
Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein do not specifically teach the refractive index or the SiCH2Si/SiOx IR ratio, however, since Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest forming the organosilica film using the process of claim 1, where the film is deposited by PECVD using an optional oxidant and helium as required by claims 4, 5, and 7, the resulting film is also expected to have a refractive index and SiCH2Si/SiOx ratio meeting the claim requirements. 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)".
Regarding claim 9, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1. Todd teaches examples where films with thickness of 1,000 nm are deposited in 10 or 20 minutes (Col. 19, lines 1-55 and Col. 20, lines 1-67), such that the deposition rate of the films is 50 nm/min and 100 nm/min. 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 deposition rate when using the monoalkoxysilane precursor to be in a range of 50-100 nm/min because Todd teaches using a deposition rate of 50 to 100 nm/min such that a range of 50-100 nm/min would be expected to be suitable for forming the film. Therefore, the deposition rate is optimized to be within 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 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).
Claims 8 and 10 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu, US 7,781,351 B1 and Niu, US 7,326, 444 B1.
It is noted that the second inventor is used for US 7,326,444 B1 to differentiate between Wu references.
Regarding claim 8, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1. Edelstein teaches that it is desirable to form a film having 5-40 atomic % Si, 10-30 atomic % O, 5-50 atomic % C, and10-55 atomic % H (0049).
They do not teach the refractive index or carbon concentration of the film.
Wu teaches methods of preparing carbon doped oxide (CDO) layers with a low dielectric constant (e.g., at most 3) and low residual stress (abstract and Col. 2, lines 66 through Col. 3, line 13). They teach that the dielectric constant will be less than about 3.5, with a preferred embodiment having a dielectric constant less than 3 and a modulus of at least about 5 GPa (Col. 3, lines 19-22). They teach introducing a CDO precursor into a deposition chamber that contains a substrate and igniting and maintaining a plasma to deposit the CDO film (Col. 2, line 66 through Col. 3, line 13). They teach that the precursor may be chosen from a variety of chemical compounds including alkoxysilanes (Col. 3, lines 23-40). They teach that the refractive index of the film preferably ranges between about 1.3 and 1.6 to provide a desirable etch sensitivity (Col. 6, lines 29-40). They teach that the CDO films are composed of, at least, silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon, typically having 10-50 atomic % silicon, 5-60 atomic % oxygen, 5-50 atomic % carbon, and 20-35 atomic % hydrogen (Col. 6, lines 41-48). They teach including precursors such as trimethylmethoxysilane (Col. 7, lines 11-24).
From the teachings of Edelstein and Wu, 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 deposited the organosilica film of Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein to have a carbon content ranging from 5-50 atomic % and a refractive index in the range of 1.3 to 1.6 because Wu and Edelstein teach that such a carbon content is desirable and Wu teaches that a refractive index in the range of 1.3 to 1.6 provides desirable etch properties.
They do not teach that the refractive index is measured at 632 nm.
Niu teaches method of preparing a CDO layer having a refractive index of 1.49-1.52 as measured at 633 nm (abstract).
From the teachings of Niu, 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 formed the film having a refractive index in the range of 1.3 to 1.6 as measured at 633 nm because Niu indicates that a CDO film has a RI range similar to that as measured at 633 nm, indicating that the refractive index is known to be measured at such wavelength. Alternatively, 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 formed the film to have a refractive index of 1.49 to 1.52 as measured at 633 nm because it is within the range of Wu so as to be expected to provide desirable etch properties and because Niu indicates that such a range is desirable for an organosilica or CDO film. While they suggest measuring the refractive index at 633 nm, since it is very close to 632 nm it is expected to provide the same results. Note MPEP 2144.05(I): Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Additionally, while they do not teach that the carbon content is measured by XPS, since they suggest forming a film with that carbon content range, it is expected to also be the same when measured by XPS because the carbon is understood to be provided throughout the film. Therefore, the carbon content overlaps the claimed range and the RI is within 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). 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).
Further, since Todd in view of Hara, Edelstein, Wu, and Niu provide the film using the claimed process it is expected to also have the same properties. 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)”.
Regarding claim 10, Todd in view of Hara, Edelstein, Wu, and Niu suggest the process of clam 8. Wu further teaches that an increase in RI is associated with an increase in the Si-C bond content, where methylene bridging (Si-CH2-Si) in the film is desired (Col. 13, lines 13-29). They teach that the tensile stress of the film decreases as the content of carbon and methylene bridging increases (Col. 13, lines 13-29). They teach forming films with a [Si-CH2-Si]/[Si-O] % in the range of about 0.12 to about 0.23 from FTIR (Col. 12, lines 45-53 and Fig. 7b), such that the SiCH2Si/SiOx*1E4 IR ratio is understood to be in a range of 12-23 (note the data in Fig. 7b is a percent).
From the teachings of Wu, 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 provided a SiCH2Si/SiOx*1E4 IR ratio in the film in the range of about 12 to 23 because Wu teaches that it is desirable for methylene bridging to increase so as to decrease stress, where they provide examples in such a range such that it will be expected to provide a desirable film with lower stress. Alternatively, 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 ratio to be within the claimed range so as to provide a film having low stress because Wu teaches that increasing the methylene bridging reduces stress, indicating it is a results effective variable. Therefore, Todd in view of Hara, Edelstein, Wu, and Niu suggest providing an SiCH2Si/SiOx*1E4 IR ratio within or optimized to be within 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 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).
Claim 9 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong, US 2003/0224593 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach the desired deposition rate of the films.
Wong teaches depositing carbon doped oxides containing silicon, carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen by PECVD (abstract and 0012). They teach providing a mixture of gases including an organosilane precursor and helium or argon to a chamber and applying an RF excitation power to deposit the CDO film (0018). They teach that manufacturable film deposition rates are typically in the 300 nm/min to 1000 nm/min range (0018).
From the teachings of Wong, 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 Todd in view of Hara and Edelstein to have deposited the films with a deposition rate in the range of 300-1000 nm/min because Wong teaches that such a rate is a manufacturable film deposition rate such that it will be expected to provide a desirable speed at which to form the films. Therefore, the deposition rate will overlap 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 8/26/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over unexpected results, it is noted that the cited portion of the specification refer to benefits associated with formula 1 or 2, where R1 and R2 are selected from the group consisting of ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, sec-butyl, or tert-butyl, and R3 is selected from the group of methyl, ethyl, propyl, iso-propyl, butyl, sec-butyl, iso-butyl, or tert-butyl, where claim 1 now requires that R3 or R5 are a branched C3 to C5 alkyl. Therefore, the specification would suggest that the claimed formula is not critical because the benefits are provided with other compounds. For example, it is not clear whether the claimed precursors would provide the improved or unexpected results compared to the alkylalkoxysilanes of Todd, because Todd teaches using R groups that can be methyl, ethyl, or propyl and the specification indicates that such groups can be used to provide the desired stable radicals. Similarly, it is not clear whether the claimed precursors would provide the improved or unexpected results compared to the alkylalkoxysilanes of Hara, because Hara teaches using R groups that meet the claimed precursors.
Additionally, according to Tables 2 and 3, DEMS and MPSCP provide an elastic modulus that is within the claimed range, where the elastic modulus is similar to that of DEMIPS. It is also not clear whether improved results associated with the claimed precursors would be commensurate in scope with claim 1. For example, claim 1 does not limit the plasma power or any additional reactive gases, such that it is not clear whether using DEMS or MPSCP with a different plasma power and reactant would also provide the same results as using the claimed precursors.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Todd fails to direct one of skill in the art to general synthesis or deposition methods involving any of the categories of precursors, it is noted that Todd provides a PECVD method of depositing a carbon doped oxide using alkoxysilanes, where Hara suggests using precursors meeting the claimed formula such that the combination reads on the claimed limitations. Hara also describes how the precursors are made, although this is not required by the claimed process. Further, Todd describes the deposition process as a PECVD process in which a film is formed by applying energy to a gaseous composition to deposit an organosilica film, such that Todd is considered to direct one of skill in the art to a deposition method.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Todd provides precursors that were of hypothetical interest but not necessarily useful or even available, it is noted that Todd teaches that the alkylalkoxysilane is a preferred primary chemical precursor (Col. 9, lines 9-12 and Col. 10, lines 21-29), indicating it is a desired precursor so as to be considered a useful precursor. Additionally, there is no indication that the precursors are hypothetical or unavailable. Further, Hara describes methods of making the precursors.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over Andideh, since the reference is no longer used in the above rejection, these arguments are not addressed herein.
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