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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16, 21-24 are pending in this application. Amended claims 1-3, 15-16; newly added claims 21-24; and canceled claims 17-20 are noted.
The amendment dated 02/04/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendments to the abstract, title, and claims. In view of said amendments, the objections to the abstract and title and the 112 rejection have been withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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.
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.
Independent claim 1
Claims 1, 5, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2017/0335449).
Li teaches a method of depositing a silicon-containing film (title) in which a deposited silicon nitride film is exposed to an oxygen source such as ozone for oxidation and cured with ultraviolet resulting in good gap-fill effects (0094). A pressure of 8-10 torr is used (0093). In one embodiment, a silicon oxide film is deposited using flowable chemical vapor deposition using polysilazane (claim 8). However, the reference does not clearly indicate whether the film was simultaneously exposed to ozone and ultraviolet.
Generally speaking, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches polysilazane (claim 8).
Regarding new claim 21, Li teaches ammonia (0025).
Regarding new claim 22, the applicant requires a specific wet etch rate ratio with respect to thermal silicon oxide. Li teaches a wet etch ratio of 2.2 to 2.5 times a high quality thermal oxide (0007). To utilize the claimed ratio would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding new claim 23, Li teaches silicon nitride which contains hydrogen (0026)
Regarding new claim 24, Li teaches polysilazane (claim 8), which meets the claimed limitation of a precursor comprising silicon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. Li also teaches nitrogen, hydrogen, and ammonia (0025).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2017/0335449) in view of Liao et al. (2008/0237662). Li fails to disclose the wavelength of the UV radiation.
Liao teaches of forming silicon nitride using a UV curing process, the wavelength of the UV being 100-400 nm (0063). It would have been obvious to utilize the claimed wavelength in Li with the expectation of success because Liao teaches of using a wavelength of 100-400 nm.
Independent claim 2
Claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2017/0335449).
Li teaches a method of depositing a silicon-containing film (title) in which a deposited silicon nitride film is exposed to an oxygen source such as ozone for oxidation and cured with ultraviolet resulting in good gap-fill effects (0094). A pressure of 8-10 torr is used (0093). In one embodiment, a silicon oxide film is deposited using flowable chemical vapor deposition using polysilazane (claim 8), which meets the claimed limitation of a precursor comprising silicon, nitrogen, and hydrogen. The reference also teaches nitrogen, hydrogen, and ammonia as well as a plasma (0025). However, the reference does not clearly indicate whether the film was simultaneously exposed to ozone and ultraviolet.
Generally speaking, no invention is involved in the broad concept of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches repeating a cycle (0083).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches ammonia (0025).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches silazane (0032).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the claimed formula (0010-0011).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches SiH3 (0010-0011).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the claimed formula (0010-0011).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the claimed formula (0011, 0014).
Regarding claim 11, Li does not disclose any vacuum break.
Regarding claim 13, the applicant requires two process chambers. Li only teaches one (0049). It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches a deposition temperature of 0-1000oC (0055).
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a deposition temperature of 0-1000oC (0055) and a curing temperature of 100-1000oC (0064). To utilize a curing temperature no more than 20oC higher than the deposition temperature would have been obvious given the recited temperatures in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches a deposition temperature of 0-1000oC (0055) and a curing temperature of 100-1000oC (0064). To utilize a curing temperature higher than the deposition temperature would have been obvious given the recited temperatures in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the rejection does not provide any motivation to use simultaneous steps from sequential steps (p.9 4th paragraph – p.10 first paragraph).
The examiner disagrees. Motivation has been provided in that there is no invention of performing simultaneously operations which have previously been performed in sequence in the absence of a showing of criticality. This position appears to be supported by case law: In re Tatincloux, 108 USPQ 125.
Applicant next argues that independent claim 2 and the dependent claims are allowable because they do not teach simultaneous exposure (pp.10-11).
The examiner disagrees. This issue has been addressed above.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
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 BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 03/04/2026