DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 15, 2026 and June 18, 2026 has been entered.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the amendment filed on June 18, 2026, claims 1 – 10, 15 – 18, 20 – 21 are pending. Claims 1, 18, 21 have been amended and claims 11 – 14, 19 have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Umeda et al. “Boron carbon nitride film with low dielectric constant as passivation film for high speed electronic devices”. Diamond and Related Materials 13 (2004) 1135 – 1138 (hereinafter “Umeda”).
Regarding claim 17:
As a preliminary matter, the Examiner notes that present claim 17 and claims dependent from claim 17 are product-by-process claims. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: rect]Umeda is directed to boron carbon nitride films on substrates such as n-Si substrate and particularly a Ni/BCN/n-Si/insulator/semiconductor structures [in total a device structure] (Abstract; page 1135 1st column, page 1136 1st col).
Umeda discloses BCN films with having a dielectric constant as low as 1.9 can be created by annealing BCN films after growth (page 1135 2nd col). As shown in Fig. 1, Umeda discloses specific embodiments of their after-annealed devices and the measured dielectric constants of BCN films specifically being below 2.0 as reproduced below with emphasis (Fig. 1):
Umeda therefore provides anticipatory examples of device structures comprising a boron nitride layer having a dielectric constant of less than 2.
Alternatively, Umeda discloses that deposition and annealing conditions can be modified to produce a BCN film having a dielectric constant as low as 1.9 (page 1135 2nd col, page 1135 – 1136 “2. Experimental procedure”). Umeda also discloses that producing devices having BCN/insulator films with a dielectric constant that is lower than 2 is critical to suppress signal time delays in ultralarge scale integrated circuits which in turns improves overall device operation performance (page 1135 1st col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have produced a device having a boron nitride film consisting essentially of boron and nitrogen having a dielectric constant of less than 2.0 by e.g. the method disclosed in Umeda with optimized process conditions because Umeda teaches that such devices would have improved operational performance compared to devices having a boron and nitrogen-containing films with larger dielectric constants.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umeda as applied to claim 17 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Umeda discloses a Ni [overlying metal] /BCN/n-Si/insulator/semiconductor structure and Ni [overlying metal] /BCN/GaAs structure (page 1135 Introduction; page 1136 1st col).
While Umeda does not expressly teach that the nickel film in the disclosed structures, Umeda does disclose that the investigation into BCN films is due to the serious issue of time delays in multilevel wiring [interconnected wiring with interconnects] in Si ultralarge scale integrated circuit devices (page 1135 1st col).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the basic structures disclosed in Umeda or have repeated the basic structures of Umeda to form the nickel films as interconnects because Umeda teaches that BCN films are useful as passivation layers and insulators to suppress signal time delays in ultralarge scale integrated circuits, which are interconnected metal films separated by insulation films. (page 1135 1st col).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 10, 15 – 16, 20 – 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1:
The prior art of record does not teach and does not reasonably suggest the recited method for forming boron nitride on a surface of a substrate, the method comprising [emphasis added]:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber; and
performing a thermal deposition process to deposit the boron nitride, the thermal deposition process comprising:
providing a boron precursor to the reaction chamber, the boron precursor comprising a boron-halogen compound comprising boron triiodide; and
providing a nitrogen precursor to the reaction chamber, the nitrogen precursor comprising a substituted hydrazine compound comprising one or more of 1-methyl-1- (m-tolyl) hydrazine or 1-ethyl-1- (p - tolyl) hydrazine,
wherein the thermal deposition process does not include use of a plasma to form activated species for use in the thermal deposition process, and
wherein the boron nitride consists essentially of boron and nitrogen and has a dielectric constant of less than 2.
Regarding claim 21:
The prior art of record does not teach and does not reasonably suggest the recited method for forming boron nitride on a surface of a substrate, the method comprising [emphasis added]:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber; and
performing a thermal deposition process to deposit the boron nitride, the thermal deposition process comprising:
providing a boron precursor to the reaction chamber, the boron precursor comprising a boron-halogen compound comprising one or more of iodine and bromine, wherein the boron precursor does not comprise fluorine or chlorine, and
providing a nitrogen precursor to the reaction chamber, the nitrogen precursor comprising a substituted hydrazine compound,
wherein the thermal deposition process does not include use of a plasma to form activated species for use in the thermal deposition process,
wherein the boron nitride has a dielectric constant of less than 2, and
wherein the substituted hydrazine compound comprises one or more of 1-methyl-1-(m-tolyl) hydrazine, and 1-ethyl-1-(p-tolyl) hydrazine.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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 on (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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights