Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/896,716

ADHESION IMPROVEMENT BETWEEN LOW-K MATERIALS AND CAP LAYERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 26, 2022
Examiner
SLUTSKER, JULIA
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Applied Materials, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
808 granted / 1051 resolved
+8.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1105
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
20.1%
-19.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1051 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracias (US 2004/0023515) in view of KR’223 (KR 20210065223, cited in IDS, Machine Translation is provided) and Clevenger (US 2005/0230831). Regarding claim 1, Gracias discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising: forming a layer of low dielectric constant material (Fig.1, numeral 101; [0022]) on the semiconductor substrate (100); forming an interface layer (103) on the layer of low dielectric constant material (101); and forming a cap layer (105) on the interface layer (103). Gracias does not disclose (1) providing one or more deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber wherein a semiconductor substrate is positioned within the processing region; (2) wherein an adhesion value between the layer of low dielectric constant material and the cap layer is greater than or about 3.0 J/m² Regarding element (1), Gracias however discloses forming a low-k dielectric layer (101). And KR’223 discloses forming a low-k dielectric layer ([0024]) by providing one or more deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber ([0047]) wherein a semiconductor substrate is positioned within the processing region ([0044]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gracias with KR’223 to provide one or more deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber wherein a semiconductor substrate is positioned within the processing region for the purpose of forming a low-k dielectric layer. Regarding element (2) Clevenger discloses wherein an adhesion value between the layer of low dielectric constant material and the cap layer is greater than or about 3.0 J/m² ([0044]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gracias with Clevenger to have an adhesion value between the layer of low dielectric constant material and the cap layer is greater than or about 3.0 J/m² for the purpose of improving adhesion between layers (Clevenger, [0044]). Regarding claim 2, KR’223 discloses wherein the semiconductor substrate is maintained at a temperature less than or about 550 °C during the semiconductor processing method ([0038]). Regarding claim 3, KR’223 discloses purging the processing region of the one or more deposition precursors, wherein a plasma power is maintained at less than or about 750 W while purging the processing region ([0050]; [0058]). Regarding claim 4, KR’223 discloses (halting a flow of the one or more deposition precursors prior to forming the interface layer ([0050]). Regarding claim 5, Gracias discloses providing an oxygen-containing precursor to the processing region prior to forming the interface layer ([0026]). Regarding claim 6, Gracias does not disclose wherein a flow rate of the oxygen-containing precursor is less than or about 750 sccm. Gracias however discloses flowing oxygen gas to oxides the surface of a low-k dielectric film (Fig.3, numeral 301; [0031]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the flow of oxygen to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing the oxidation process. Regarding claim 8, Clevenger discloses wherein an adhesion value between the layer of low dielectric constant material and the cap layer is greater than or about 4.0 J/m2 ([0044]). Regarding claim 9, Gracias discloses a semiconductor processing method comprising: forming a layer of low dielectric constant material (Fig.1, numeral 101) on a semiconductor substrate (103); forming an interface layer (103) on the layer of low dielectric constant material (101); and forming a cap layer (105) on the interface layer (103). Gracias does not disclose that the semiconductor substrate housed in a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a plasma power is maintained at a first plasma power level while forming the layer of low dielectric constant material; purging the processing region, wherein the plasma power is maintained at a second plasma power level while purging the processing region, and wherein the second plasma power level is less than or equal to the first plasma power level. KR’223 however discloses housed in a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a plasma power is maintained at a first plasma power level while forming the layer of low dielectric constant material ([0045]); purging the processing region, wherein the plasma power is maintained at a second plasma power level while purging the processing region, and wherein the second plasma power level is less than or equal to the first plasma power level ([0050]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gracias with KR’223 to have the semiconductor substrate housed in a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a plasma power is maintained at a first plasma power level while forming the layer of low dielectric constant material; purging the processing region, wherein the plasma power is maintained at a second plasma power level while purging the processing region, and wherein the second plasma power level is less than or equal to the first plasma power level for the purpose of forming a low-k dielectric layer. Regarding claim 10, Gracias discloses wherein the semiconductor substrate comprises silicon ([0022]). Regarding claim 11, KR’223 discloses wherein the layer of low dielectric constant material is formed through plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition ([0002]). Regarding claim 12, Gracias discloses wherein the interface layer (103) is characterized by a lower methyl incorporation than the layer of low dielectric constant material ([0026]). Regarding claim 14, KR’223 discloses reducing a flow rate of one or more precursors used to form the layer of low dielectric constant material prior to purging the processing region ([0050]). Regarding claim 15, Gracias discloses wherein a temperature and a pressure in the processing region while forming the layer of low dielectric constant material are maintained while forming the interface layer ([0031]). Regarding claim 16, KR’223 discloses reducing a flow rate of a carrier gas prior to purging the processing region ([0050]). Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gracias in view of KR’223 and Clevenger as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Chhabra (US 2013/0344704). Regarding claim 7, Gracias in view of KR’223 and Clevenger does not disclose densifying the layer of low dielectric constant material while purging the processing region of the one or more deposition precursors. Chhabra however discloses densifying the layer of low dielectric constant material while purging the processing region of the one or more deposition precursors ([0036]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gracias with Chhabra to densify the layer of low dielectric constant material while purging the processing region of the one or more deposition precursors for the purpose of improving properties of a low-k dielectric film (Chhabra, [0037]). Regarding claim 13, Gracias does not disclose providing molecular oxygen to the processing region while purging the processing region. Chhabra however discloses providing molecular oxygen to the processing region while purging the processing region ([0036]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Gracias with Chhabra provide molecular oxygen to the processing region while purging the processing region for the purpose of improving properties of a low-k dielectric film (Chhabra, [0037]). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/205 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant’s arguments that KR’223 does not disclose the limitations of claim 9 such as “purging the processing region, wherein the plasma power is maintained at a second plasma power level while purging the processing region, and wherein the second plasma power level is less than or equal to the first plasma power level, “are not persuasive because KR’223 discloses that plasma during purging is turn-off with a time difference ([0051]). Thus, during purging that plasma atmosphere is maintained by the high-frequency power (see [0051]). Therefore, KR’223 discloses purging the processing region, wherein the plasma power is maintained at a second plasma power level while purging the processing region, and wherein the second plasma power level is less than or equal to the first plasma power level ([0050], [0051]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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. /JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 26, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598971
Conductive Via With Improved Gap Filling Performance
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598880
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598969
FLEXIBLE MONOMER FOR SMOOTH POLYMER SURFACE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588323
NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE, SEMICONDUCTOR ELEMENT, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588480
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING BARRIER-METAL-FREE METAL INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE, AND BARRIER-METAL-FREE METAL INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.6%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1051 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month