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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 3, 206, was filed after the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance on February 13, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submission filed on May 3, 2026, has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-19 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Blanquart (U.S. Pat. 11482412) [PCT Pub. WO 2019/142055, Jul 25, 2019] [Rejection will be based on the PCT Pub.]. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanquart (PCT Pub. WO 2019/142055).
Regarding claims 1-2, Blanquart [Fig.9] discloses a method of filling a gap, the method comprising
- providing a substrate [31] to a reaction chamber, the substrate comprising the gap [32];
- depositing a convertible layer [33] on the substrate; and,
- exposing the substrate to an active species [plasma strike], thereby converting at least a part of the convertible layer into a gap filling fluid [36];
wherein the gap filling fluid at least partially fills the gap [Fig.9c];
wherein converting at least a part of the convertible layer into a gap filling fluid comprises liquefying the convertible layer [Para.64].
Regarding claims 4 and 8-11, Blanquart [Fig.9] discloses a method of filling a gap,
wherein the method further comprises solidifying the gap filling fluid, thereby filling the gap with a solidified material [Para.48];
comprising a plurality of redeposition cycles, a redeposition cycle comprising the steps of depositing a convertible layer on the substrate and exposing the substrate to the active species [Paras.77-78];
wherein the method further comprises a step of converting the gap filling fluid into a converted material [Para.80];
wherein the step of converting the gap filling fluid into the converted material comprises a step of exposing the substrate to a direct plasma [Para.80];
wherein the direct plasma is a direct oxygen plasma [Para.80].
Regarding claims 13-14, Blanquart [Fig.9] discloses a method of filling a gap,
comprising a plurality of conversion cycles, a conversion cycle comprising:
- exposing the substrate to the active species; and,
- converting the gap filling fluid into a converted material [Paras.77-80];
comprising a plurality of super cycles, a super cycle comprising
- depositing a convertible layer on the substrate;
- exposing the substrate to the active species; and,
- converting the gap filling fluid into a converted material [Paras.77-80].
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart (PCT Pub. WO 2019/142055).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Blanquart fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the active species comprises fluorine;
wherein the direct plasma is a direct nitrogen plasma.
However, using fluorine as an active species and using a nitrogen in a plasma process are well-known and obvious in semiconductor manufacturing and is well within the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to use suitable alternatives. It would have been obvious to include wherein the active species comprises fluorine; and wherein the direct plasma is a direct nitrogen plasma, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 18-19, Blanquart fails to explicitly disclose
a field effect transistor comprising a gate contact comprising a layer formed according to a method according to claim 1; and
a metal contact comprising a layer deposited by means of a method according claim 1.
However, Blanquart [Para.89] discloses the method accordingly to claim 1 can be applied to various semiconductor devices. It would be obvious the various semiconductor devices include a field effect transistor comprising a gate contact and a metal contact as claimed. It would have been obvious since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6-7, and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
[Claim 3] wherein the convertible layer comprises a volatilizable element, and wherein converting at least a part of the convertible layer into a gap filling fluid comprises:
- volatilizing the volatilizable element and forming a volatilized vapor; and,
- condensing the volatilized vapor, thereby forming the gap filling fluid.
[Claim 6] wherein the convertible layer is selected from a metal, a metal alloy, a metal oxide, and a metal nitride.
[Claim 7] wherein the convertible layer comprises a metal oxide, the metal oxide comprising a metal and oxygen, and wherein depositing the metal oxide on the substrate comprises one or more metal oxide deposition sub cycles, a metal oxide deposition sub cycle comprising
- a metal precursor pulse comprising exposing the substrate to a metal precursor, the metal precursor comprising the metal; and,
- an oxygen reactant pulse comprising exposing the substrate to an oxygen reactant, the oxygen reactant comprising the oxygen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights