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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 17 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 10 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda, US 2013/0171838 in view of Peter, “Engineering high quality and conformal ultrathin SiNx films by PEALD for downscaled and advanced CMOS nodes”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 39, 042401 (2021).
Regarding Claim 1, Okuda teaches in various embodiments throughout the disclosure that also teaches :
A process for depositing a silicon nitride film on a microelectronic device substrate, which comprises contacting said substrate with sequentially pulsed precursor compounds comprising a pulse sequence comprising:
a. halo silane compound (paragraph 147),
b. an amino – silane (paragraph 147), and
optionally c. a compound of the formula R2 NH, wherein each R is independently hydrogen or a C1 – C4 alkyl group (such as ammonia in paragraphs 125, 162), in combination with hydrogen (paragraphs 127 and 153), under vapor deposition conditions (fig. 1, paragraphs 138 and 142) in paragraphs 127, 138, 142, 147, 153 and 162.
Based on the above citations, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okuda and arrive at the sequences of steps as enumerated in the claim above.
Okuda teaches vapor deposition conditions, but fails to teach wherein the silicon nitride film is deposited under atomic layer deposition (ALD) vapor deposition conditions, wherein the silicon nitride film has a conformality of at least about 95%.
Peter teaches various vapor deposition techniques for ALD wherein the silicon nitride film has a conformality of at least about 95% in the Abstract for the benefit of liner and spacer applications in FEOL integration in column 1 of page 39.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okuda and deposit the silicon nitride film under atomic layer deposition (ALD) vapor deposition conditions, wherein the silicon nitride film has a conformality of at least about 95% for the benefit of liner and spacer applications in FEOL integration as taught by Peter in column 1 of page 39.
Regarding Claim 2, Okuda teaches the limitations as were described earlier in rejecting Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Okuda teaches wherein a., b., and/or c. are followed by a purge step with an inert gas with references to Figs, 5 – 9.
Regarding Claim 4, Okuda teaches wherein the halo silane compound is hexachlorodisilane in paragraph 147.
Regarding Claim 5, Okuda teaches wherein the amino – silane is a compound of tetrakisdimethylamino silane of formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
180
248
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In paragraph 147.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Okuda teaches impurity free, high density SiN film with high etch resistance, but fails to teach wherein the silicon nitride film comprises a silicon : nitrogen ratio of at least about 3.1 : 4 and wherein the silicon nitride film comprises a silicon : nitrogen ratio of greater than or equal to about 1:1.
However, given the substantial teaching of Okuda, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to judiciously adjust and control the silicon : nitrogen ratio through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve optimum benefits (see MPEP 2144.05) and it would not yield any unexpected results.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed processes or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen methods or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen methods or variables are critical (Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir., 1990)). See also In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233 – 237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Regarding Claims 12 – 17, Okuda teaches these limitations of pulse sequences in various embodiments with references to Figs. 5 – 9.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda, US 2013/0171838 in view of Wang, US 2004/0096582.
Regarding these claims, Okuda fails to teach wherein the amino – silane is a compound of the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
186
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And
PNG
media_image3.png
190
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang teaches that these amino – silane compounds of above formulae can be used to form silicon nitride films with reference to Formula (2) in paragraph 41 for the bene fit of forming silicon nitride at lower temperatures and are chemically equivalent to other common amino silanes used for vapor deposition purposes in paragraphs 13 and 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okuda and use amino – silane compoundsshown above as being functionally equivalent to other aminosilanes as taught by Wang in paragraphs 13 and 14.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda, US 2013/0171838 in view of Peter, “Engineering high quality and conformal ultrathin SiNx films by PEALD for downscaled and advanced CMOS nodes”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 39, 042401 (2021) and further in view of Shiba, US 2022/0319833.
Okuda in view of Peter fails to teach the amino – silane is a compound hexaethylamino – disilane of the formula:
PNG
media_image4.png
120
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shiba teaches various silicon precursors for depositing SiN films that includes hexachlorodisilane and also hexaethylamino – disilane in paragraph 49.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okuda and use amino – silane compound hexaethylamino – disilane as being functionally equivalent to other aminosilanes as taught by Shiba in paragraph 49.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuda, US 2013/0171838 in view of Schuh, “Disilanyl – amines – Compounds Comprising the Structural Unit Si – Si – N, as Single – Source Precursors for Plasma – Enhanced Chemical Vapour Deposition (PE – CVD) of Silicon Nitride”, Z. anorg. allg, Chem. 619 (1993) 1347 – 1352 and further in view of Peter, “Engineering high quality and conformal ultrathin SiNx films by PEALD for downscaled and advanced CMOS nodes”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 39, 042401 (2021).
.
Okuda fails to teach the amino – silane is a compound 1, 2 – dicholoro octaethyl disilane of the formula:
PNG
media_image5.png
118
328
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Schuh teaches such compounds for the deposition for the deposition of high quality silicon nitride in the Abstract and the Introduction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Okuda in view of Peter and use amino – silane compound 1, 2 – dicholoro octaethyl disilane as being functionally equivalent to other aminosilanes as taught by Schuh in the Abstract and the Introduction.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASOK K SARKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1970. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9:30 AM - 6:30 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.
/ASOK K SARKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891 February 5, 2026