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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-17, 20, and 22 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soe (WO 2020222853) in view of Tabata (US 20180061655).
Regarding Claims 1, Soe teaches a substrate processing method, comprising, a first phase of forming a liner layer on a patterned structure; and a second phase of forming a deposition layer on the liner layer; wherein the first phase of forming the liner layer is carried out by providing a RF power ([0071-0087]). Soe teaches the liner layer being an absorbed layer of the precursor (Operation 133) and the deposition layer being a converted layer (Operation 135), i.e. the layers are compositionally different. Soe teaches a first step of providing the a substrate with a the patterned structure to a reactor ([0071-0072]); a second step of providing a first reactant to the substrate and forming a first source layer on the patterned structure ([0073]); a third step of providing a RF power to the first source layer ([0078-0083]); a fourth step of converting the first source layer into a second source layer ([0078]); wherein a third reactant is continuously provided throughout the second step to the fourth step ([0117-0133]). Soe teaches repeating the process ([0087-0088]).
Soe teaches plasma generated by applying RF to a gas using two capacitively coupled plates ([0083]). Soe does not teach dual frequency RF; however, Tabata teaches plasma generated coating by applying RF using two capacitively coupled plasma device wherein a dual frequency RF power ([0049-0050]-[0064-0070]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Soe to include dual frequency RF power, as suggested in Tabata, because it is a known processing method in the art and one of ordinary skill I the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the coating of Soe with dual frequency RF power as in Tabata.
Regarding Claims 3, Tabata teaches high and low frequency power overlapping the claimed range ([0049-0050]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the frequencies of the combined references to be any of those within the claimed range because Tabata teaches they are all suitable for use with the invention.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Soe teaches the claimed precursors ([0102]).
Regarding Claim 7, Soe teaches the first source layer is dissociated by the third reactant activated by the RF power and is converted into the second source layer ([0079-0083]).
Regarding Claim 10, Soe teaches argon ([0117-0133]).
Regarding Claim 18, Soe teaches the liner layer is converted into a compound by the activated second reactant ([0078]).
Claim(s) 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soe (WO 2020222853) in view of Tabata (US 20180061655) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of Dussarrat (US 2015/0004317).
Regarding Claim 9, Soe teaches silicon nitride and carbides. Soe does not explicitly teach SiCN; however, SiCN is a known alternative to the materials of Soe in the art (See Dussarrat [0067-0071]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include materials, as suggested in Dussarrat, because they are known materials in the art and one of ordinary skill I the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Soe with materials as in Dussarrat.
Regarding Claim 21, Soe teaches the patterned structure comprises a silicon wafer and teaches underlayer materials ([0071]). Soe does not explicitly teach a photoresist, carbon material, or amorphous silicon; however, the claimed materials are known alternatives in the art (See Dussarrat [0109]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include materials, as suggested in Dussarrat, because they are known materials in the art and one of ordinary skill I the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Soe with materials as in Dussarrat.
Claim(s) 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soe (WO 2020222853) in view of Tabata (US 20180061655) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2019/0334035).
Regarding Claims 9 and 23, Soe teaches one or more layers including under-layers of dielectric materials ([0071]). Soe teaches the method applicable for depositing silicon nitride and carbides ([0142]). Soe does not explicitly teach a combination of SiCN and SiO2 layers; however, SiCN is a known alternative to the materials of Soe in the art (See Chang [0035]). Chang teaches at least two dielectric layers including different materials ([0035]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include two materials, as suggested in Chang, because they are known materials in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Soe with materials as in Chang.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soe (WO 2020222853) in view of Tabata (US 20180061655) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of Fields (WO 2019/199682).
Regarding Claim 17, Soe does not teach only a part of the liner layer is converted into the deposition layer; however, Fields teaches a similar method to Soe wherein the layer is only partially converted for the benefit of control of hydrophobicity for subsequent processing ([0060-0062]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Soe to include partial conversion, as suggested by Fields, in order to advantageously control the hydrophobicity of the film as desired for subsequent processing.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soe (WO 2020222853) in view of Tabata (US 20180061655) as applied to claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of Usui (Usui, Approaching the limits of dielectric breakdown for SiO2 films deposited by plasma-enhanced atomic layer, Acta Materialia, 61, 2013, pg. 7660-7670).
Regarding Claim 19, Soe is silent as to the film thickness; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to related art to determine an appropriate thickness. Usui teaches atomic layer deposition of silicon oxide wherein dielectric breakdown is dependent on film thickness (abstract). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the thickness of Soe to be an optimized thickness, as suggested by Usui, in order to achieve the desired film properties and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 2/10/2026, with respect to previous prior art rejection of claim 11 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the same step of Soe cannot disclose both the "fourth step of converting the first source layer into a second source layer" of the "forming the liner layer" of claim 1 and the "second phase of forming a deposition layer on the liner layer" of claim 1. In response to Applicant's argument, Soe teaches repeating the process ([0087-0088]). Soe's first application (Operation 133-135) meets the claimed first phase wherein the second application of the absorbed layer of the precursor (Operation 133) meets the claimed compositionally different deposition layer.
Applicant argues the other references do not cure the deficiency; however, this is not convincing as discussed above.
Applicant argues, regarding the limitations of Claim 20, that the coating being conformal does not mean that the patterned structure is not lost. In response to applicant's argument, a conformal coating preserves the shape of the surface to which it is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712