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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, “As such, Chowdhury does not teach or suggest the carbon- containing mask layer is not formed on the top surfaces of the trench. The other cited references do not cure the deficiency of Chowdhury. As such, independent claim 1 is believed to be allowable over the cited references”
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s position but respectfully disagrees for the following reason;
The Examiner notes that the present specification states that item 206a-b (as seen in Applicant’s fig. #2B), is deposited on the top surface of the trench (fig. #2A, item 204A). Thus, it is clear that the horizontal surfaces of the of item 202 (as viewed in fig. #2A-D), constitutes the top of the trench area.
The Examiner takes the position that the provided Examiner’s markup of prior art fig. #2B (as provided by Chowdhury) shows in fig. #Ex1 item TS as the top surface of the trench area. Furthermore, Chowdhury shows in fig. #3B that item 37 is deposited within the trench area and not on the top of the trench area of item 30, as shown in the previous Non-Final rejection and repeated in the present action below.
Also, the Examiner notes that the present amendment states that an amendment has been done to claim #1. However, the Examined fails to see any change to the present claim language filed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim #2 and 3 have been considered but are mute in view the amendments made that would require further search.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim #5 that, “the cited portion of Lee relates to removing a carbon component of carbon- containing silicon oxide. See Lee, para. [0071]. This portion of Lee is not equivalent to removing the carbon-containing mask layer as claimed. Instead, Lee maintains the material being discussed, making the material porous due to removal of carbon. See Id. The other cited references do not cure this deficiency of Lee. As such, dependent claim 5 is believed to be allowable over the cited references.
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s argument, but respectfully disagrees for the following reason;
The Examiner takes the position that the reference of Lee is used to teach a method of removing a carbon component of the carbon-containing material. The Examiner notes that this method may be used on various different materials for intended purpose. As shown in the previous Non-Final and repeated in the present action below, Lee teaches that a high temperature heat treatment using oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, and/or ammonia gas as a source gas is performed to remove some of the carbon component of the carbon-containing. The Examiner takes the position that Lee indeed does demonstrate a method for using heat and oxygen to remove the carbon from a designate area.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim #7, that, “There is no reason why one skilled in the art would combine Chowdhury with Mayorga. The Examiner asserts it would be obvious to combine Chowdhury with Mayorga “to incorporate a structural condition that effectively burns away carbon residue in a process that leverages the chemical reactivity of oxygen to oxidize the carbon”. See Id. Applicants respectfully disagree with this rationale being sufficient to support the aspect ratio of Mayorga being used in Chowdhury”.
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s argument, but respectfully disagrees for the following reason;
The Examiner first directs the Applicant the cited area on Mayorga where it stated that, “a pattern trench with aspect ratio of 1:9”.
The Examiner further notes that while the present specifications sites that high aspect trench areas are an increasing occurrence, it has not shown, either in the present specifications or claim language how the choices of choosing a high aspect ratio alters the claim method of operation or is dependent on a high aspect ratio, as taught by the prior art cited.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) #1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by CHOWDHURY et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2018/0248013), hereinafter referred to as "Chowdhury".
Chowdhury shows, with respect to claim #1, semiconductor processing method comprising: providing a structured semiconductor substrate (fig. #1B , item 40) (paragraph 0041) comprising a trench (fig. #1B , item 49) (paragraph 0046) having a bottom surface (Fig. #Ex1, item BS) and top surfaces (Fig. #Ex1, item TS) laterally adjacent to the bottom surface (paragraph 0048); depositing a portion of a silicon-containing material (Fig. #Ex1, item 50L) on the bottom surface (Fig. #Ex1, item BS) of the trench for at least one deposition cycle, wherein each deposition cycle comprises (paragraph 0049): depositing the portion of a silicon-containing material on the bottom surface and top surfaces (Fig. #Ex1, item TS) of the trench; depositing a carbon-containing mask layer (Fig. #3B, item 37) on the silicon-containing material on the bottom surface of the trench, wherein the carbon-containing mask layer is not formed on the top surfaces of the trench (paragraph 0051); removing the portion of the silicon-containing material from the top surfaces of the trench (paragraph 0052); and removing the carbon-containing mask layer from the silicon-containing material on the bottom surface of the trench, wherein the as-deposited silicon-containing (fig. #5b, item 50a) material remains on the bottom surface of the trench (paragraph 0052-0053).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top surface; TS)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom Surface; BS)][AltContent: textbox (Ex1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
281
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim #5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOWDHURY et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2018/0248013), hereinafter referred to as "Chowdhury" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in view of Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0061763), hereinafter referred to as "Lee".
Chowdhury substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Chowdhury fails to show, with respect to claim #5, method wherein the removing of the carbon-containing mask layer comprises heating the carbon-containing mask layer in an oxygen-containing atmosphere.
Lee teaches, with respect to claim #5, method wherein the removing of the carbon-containing mask layer comprises heating the carbon-containing mask layer in an oxygen-containing atmosphere (paragraph 0071).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Chowdhury with the modifications of Lee’s invention, which teaches, method wherein the removing of the carbon-containing mask layer comprises heating the carbon-containing mask layer in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, to incorporate a structural condition that effectively burns away carbon residue in a process that leverages the chemical reactivity of oxygen to oxidize the carbon, as taught by Lee.
////
Claim #6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOWDHURY et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2018/0248013), hereinafter referred to as "Chowdhury" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in view of Tu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0157075), hereinafter referred to as "Tu".
Chowdhury substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Chowdhury fails to show, with respect to claim #6, method wherein the at least one deposition cycle comprises greater than or about five deposition cycles.
Tu teaches, with respect to claim #6, method wherein the at least one deposition cycle comprises greater than or about five deposition cycles (paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #6, to modified the invention of Chowdhury with the modifications of Tu’s invention, which teaches, method wherein the at least one deposition cycle comprises greater than or about five deposition cycles, to incorporate a structural condition that effectively burns away carbon residue in a process that leverages the chemical reactivity of oxygen to oxidize the carbon, as taught by Tu.
////
Claim #7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOWDHURY et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2018/0248013), hereinafter referred to as "Chowdhury" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, and in view of MAYORGA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0146131), hereinafter referred to as "Mayorga".
Chowdhury substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Chowdhury fails to show, with respect to claim #7, method wherein the trench is characterized by a depth-to-width aspect ratio of greater than or about 3:1.
Mayorga teaches, with respect to claim #7, method wherein the trench is characterized by a depth-to-width aspect ratio of greater than or about 3:1 (paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Chowdhury with the modifications of Mayorga’s invention, which teaches, method wherein the trench is characterized by a depth-to-width aspect ratio of greater than or about 3:1, to incorporate a structural condition that effectively burns away carbon residue in a process that leverages the chemical reactivity of oxygen to oxidize the carbon, as taught by Mayorga.
Chowdhury substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #7 above.
Chowdhury shows, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the silicon-containing material comprises amorphous silicon or silicon nitride (paragraph 0059).
Allowable subject Matter
Claims #2, 3 and 4 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.
Claim #2, 3 have allowable subject matter;
The following is an examiner’s statement for indicating allowable subject matter: While the prior art teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising: providing a structured semiconductor substrate comprising a trench having a bottom surface and top surfaces laterally adjacent to the bottom surface; depositing a portion of a silicon-containing material on the bottom surface of the trench for at least one deposition cycle, wherein each deposition cycle comprises: depositing the portion of a silicon-containing material on the bottom surface and top surfaces of the trench; depositing a carbon-containing mask layer on the silicon-containing material on the bottom surface of the trench, wherein the carbon-containing mask layer is not formed on the top surfaces of the trench; removing the portion of the silicon-containing material from the top surfaces of the trench; and removing the carbon-containing mask layer from the silicon-containing material on the bottom surface of the trench, wherein the as-deposited silicon-containing material remains on the bottom surface of the trench, (CHOWDHURY et al., 2018/0248013; MAYORGA et al., 2025/0146131), it fails to teach either collectively or alone, with respect to claim #2, a method comprising treating a deposited silicon-containing material with ions of argon, helium, and hydrogen, wherein the ions are accelerated in a direction orthogonal to the structured semiconductor substrate. Furthermore, the prior art fails to teach either collectively or alone, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein a molecular layer deposition process comprising: depositing a first portion of a carbon-containing layer on the portion of the silicon-containing material on the bottom surface of the trench, wherein the first portion of the carbon layer is deposited from a first carbon-containing deposition precursor having a first reactive moiety.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
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 Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
01/13/2025
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899