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 Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the while the plasma doping operation is ongoing, monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “while the plasma doping operation is ongoing, monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source” in the last two paragraphs of the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source” in the last five lines of the claim language.
Applicant does not have support on the originally filed specification for monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source. Based on Applicant’s specification [0033] and [0034] provides support for monitoring carbon level implanted into the wafer 20, and based upon those monitored carbon levels in the wafer to increase or decrease the amount of primary dopant gas and/or diluent gas fed into the chamber. However, the specification does not provide support for monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source
Claims 2-8 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(a) rejected instance claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1. Claim 1 recites the limitation “while the plasma doping operation is ongoing, monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source” in the last five lines of the claim language.
It is unclear to the examiner as to how applicant is monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation.
The specification does not disclose any parameters nor specific settings of the metrology equipment for monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, the gas levels. For the purpose of examination, examiner shall interpret monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer to be any metrology equipment described by applicant will disclose this limitation.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for dependence upon a 112(b) rejected instance claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (U.S. 2012/0248550), and Ventzek et al (U.S. 2014/0356984).
Regarding Claim 1. Huang et al disclose a method for reducing a wet etch rate of flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD) oxide layers in a semiconductor wafer (a dopant to reduce its etch rates [TITLE]), the method comprising: performing a plasma doping operation on the semiconductor wafer using a primary dopant gas and a diluent gas adapted to reduce a wet etch rate of the FCVD oxide layer, wherein the dopant gas and the diluent gas are supplied by a gas source of a plasma doping system ([0038], claims 1, 9-11), and wherein the diluent gas is provided in an amount of 0.01% - 5% by volume of a total amount of gas supplied by the gas source during the plasma doping operation ([0038], i.e. The percentage of the dopant-containing gas may be in a range from about 1% to about 100%; [0038], i.e. one or more dopant containing gases, such as CH4),
monitoring carbon levels in the semiconductor wafer ([0041]); and based on the monitored levels of carbon in the semiconductor wafer ([0041]), varying the amount of one of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source ([0041], i.e. The dosage setting on the system is varied from about 5E12 ions/ cm2 to about 7.5E15 ions/ cm2. The dosage setting range is selected to target dopant concentration in a range from about 5E18 atoms/cm3 to about 5E22 atoms/cm3).
Huang et al fails to explicitly disclose while the plasma doping operation is ongoing, monitoring levels within the FCVD oxide layer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source.
However, Ventzek et al teaches while the plasma doping operation is ongoing (FIG. 9), monitoring levels within the FCVD oxide layer (as best understood by the 112(b) rejection above; [0042], i.e. Optical emission spectroscopy (OES) or monitoring of the plasma impedance are methods by which the dopant 1244 content relative to dopant 1252 amount can be controlled using the aforementioned control system); and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer ([0042]), dynamically varying ([0043], i.e. The amount of oxygen and dopant may be effectively metered by fast mass flow controllers (MFC's) upstream of the processing chamber 1218 or by introducing only the desired amount of dopant and oxide into the crucible), during the plasma doping operation ([0042]), the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source ([0043]).
Since Huang et al and Ventzek et al teach plasma doping, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method for reducing a wet etch rate of flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD) oxide layers in a semiconductor wafer as disclosed to modify Huang et al with the teachings of monitoring levels within the FCVD oxide layer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source as disclosed by Ventzek et al. The use of Optical emission spectroscopy (OES) or monitoring of the plasma impedance are methods by which the dopant 1244 content relative to dopant 1252 amount can be controlled using the aforementioned control system in Ventzek et al provides for a doping plasma used to expose a portion of the substrate surface while controlling operating variables to achieve target uniformity of dopant concentration, sheet resistance, degree of dopant clustering, and erosion of features on the substrate (Ventzek et al, [Abstract]).
Regarding Claim 2. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the primary dopant gas is He ([0038], claims 11) and the diluent gas is a carbon-containing gas ([0038], claims 9, 11).
Regarding Claim 3. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 2 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the diluent gas is selected from a group consisting of CH4, CO, CO2, and CF2 ([0038], i.e. , one or more dopant containing gases, such as CH4).
Regarding Claim 5. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the dopant gas and the diluent gas are provided to the gas source in separate containers (claim 24).
Regarding Claim 6. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses wherein the dopant gas and the diluent gas are provided to the gas source in a common, pre-mixed container (Claim 11).
Regarding Claim 7. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses further comprising heating the wafer to a temperature in a range of 350 degrees C - 500 degrees C ([0038]).
Regarding Claim 8. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al further discloses further comprising subjecting the wafer to an electrical bias in a range of 0V - 10KV ([0038], i.e. the bias voltage is in a range from about 0 KV to about 10 KV).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (U.S. 2012/0248550) and Ventzek et al (U.S. 2014/0356984) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nguyen et al (U.S. 2014/0273524).
Regarding Claim 4. Huang et al and Ventzek et al discloses all the limitation of the method of claim 1 above.
Huang et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the diluent gas is oxygen.
However, Nguyen et al teaches wherein the diluent gas is oxygen (claim 5, i.e. the dopant comprises O; [0026] film may be doped with B or O to reduce the dielectric constant).
Since Huang et al, Ventzek et al and Nguyen et al teach plasma doping modify etch rates, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the method for reducing a wet etch rate of flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD) oxide layers in a semiconductor wafer as disclosed to modify Huang et al and Ventzek et al with the teachings of wherein the diluent gas is oxygen as disclosed by Nguyen et al. The use of the dopant comprises O in Nguyen et al provides for improved properties of the films such as reduced dielectric constant (Nguyen et al, [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding objection to Drawings.
On page of 5 of applicant’s remarks, Applicant appears to argues that the drawings are not required because the structure is already disclosed in the drawings. Applicant is reminded that the claims are directed to the method and not the structure.
Regarding the objections to the specifications
Applicant does not present argument for the objections to specification as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Applicant does not have support on the originally filed specification for monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source. Based on Applicant’s specification [0033] and [0034] provides support for monitoring carbon level implanted into the wafer 20, and based upon those monitored carbon levels in the wafer to increase or decrease the amount of primary dopant gas and/or diluent gas fed into the chamber. However, the specification does not provide support for monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source
Objections to specifications maintained.
Regarding 112 rejections.
On page 7 and applicant’s remarks for 112(a), applicant appears to argue that support can be found in the disclosed process architecture.
Examiner respectfully points out that the claims are directed to the method, and not the apparatus. Applicant appears to further argue that support can be found in the summary that the disclosed method employs a primary dopant gas and a diluent gas “adapted to reduce wet etch rate of the FCVD oxide layer. Examiner respectfully points out that applicant’s claim states monitoring carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer of the semiconductor wafer; and based on the monitored carbon levels within the FCVD oxide layer, dynamically varying, during the plasma doping operation, the amount of at least one of the primary dopant gas and the diluent gas supplied by the gas source. Applicant’s specification of the PG Pub of the instance application in [0030] states the FCVD oxide layer on the surface of wafer 20 and [0033], [0034] states monitoring the carbon level in the wafer 20. Applicant does not have support for the claim language.112(a) rejection maintained.
On page 7 and applicant’s remarks for 112(b), applicant appears to argue that one of ordinary skill in semiconductor plasma processing.
Examiner respectfully points out that it appears that applicant is arguing one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to do what applicant is claiming and that no specific equipment is needed to practice the claim language. Examiner respectfully points out that the claims are directed to the method, and not the apparatus. Applicant discloses in PG Pub of the instant application in [0034] that the real-time monitoring of the carbon levels in the wafer can be monitored by optical omission spectrometer (OES). Examiner respectfully points out that Ventzek teaches the OES equipment that applicant discloses in [0042], i.e. Optical emission spectroscopy (OES) or monitoring of the plasma impedance are methods by which the dopant 1244 content relative to dopant 1252 amount can be controlled using the aforementioned control system. Examiner respectfully points out, as best understood by the 112(b) above, that the prior art of recorded teaches applicant’s claim limitations and applicant has stated that one of ordinary skill in semiconductor plasma processing would know that no particular brand, configuration, or operating parameter of metrology equipment and that skilled artisan would readily understand that implanted carbon concentration within an FCVD oxide layer may be monitored using conventional semiconductor metrology techniques, including SIMS, XPS, ellipsometry, OES-correlated process monitoring, or other known concentration-analysis approaches.
112(b) rejection maintained.
Regarding claims 1-3,5-8.
On page 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Huang et al fails to disclose real-time monitoring of carbon concentration within an FCVD oxide layer during plasma doping.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., real-time monitoring of carbon concentration within an FCVD oxide layer during plasma doping) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). On page 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that neither Huang nor Ventzek et al disclose any direct or indirect monitoring of carbon concentration within the FCVD oxide layer itself. On page 9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that neither Huang nor Ventzek et al teaches or suggest a closed-loop carbon-controlled methodology. Applicant also appears to argue that Ventzek et al does not recognize the problem address by applicant, namely controlling the wet etch rate of FCVD oxide layers through real-time carbon concentration management. Applicant additionally argues Huang does not teach monitoring carbon concentration within an FCVD oxide layer as a controllable process variable.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., any direct or indirect monitoring of carbon concentration within the FCVD oxide layer itself; a closed-loop carbon-controlled methodology; controlling the wet etch rate of FCVD oxide layers through real-time carbon concentration management; monitoring carbon concentration within an FCVD oxide layer as a controllable process variable) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 4.
On page 9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that Nguyen does not disclose reducing the wet etch rate of FCVD oxide layer through the claimed monitoring-and-feedback plasma-doping methodology. Applicant also appears to argue that the prior art cited fails to disclose a specific closed-loop plasma-doping process directed to controlling carbon incorporation within FCVD oxide layers during active plasma processing in order to reduce wet etch rate.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., reducing the wet etch rate of FCVD oxide layer through the claimed monitoring-and-feedback plasma-doping methodology; a specific closed-loop plasma-doping process directed to controlling carbon incorporation within FCVD oxide layers during active plasma processing in order to reduce wet etch rate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Rejection maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sheng (U.S. 5,354,381) discloses Plasma Immersion Ion Implantation apparatus.
Draeger et al (U.S. 8,846,536) discloses flowable oxide film with tunable wet etch rate.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights