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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/02/2026 has been accepted and entered. Claims 1-12, 14-15, and 17-23 remain pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the objections and the 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 21-23 are rejected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "substantially V-shape" in line 15
Regarding Claim 1: the term "substantially" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Substantially” is defined as " to a great extent or degree”” (see thefreedisctionnary.com). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe what substantially means in regard of being substantially V-shape. Would this mean that the gap can be U-shape, or a C-shaped, or exactly a V-shape? Thus, it is unclear because defining how the gap can be a V-shape or not, is not clearly defined. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, each claim and all claims depending therefrom is rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The balance of claims are rejected for being dependent upon an already rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73).
Regarding claim 8, Shin18 discloses a method for filling a trench (Fig 1A-Fig 1E, Title), the method comprising:
depositing a flowable material to fill a lower portion of the trench with a bottom plug (depositing a flowable material 112 to fill a bottom trench 109 with a bottom plug 110-Fig 1D, [0020] L12-16) and
to form a sidewall member of the flowable material adjacent to a sidewall of the trench and above the bottom plug (Layer 112 on top of plug 110, and on the sidewalls of trench 109-Fig 1D), wherein the sidewall member has an initial thickness (the layer 112 has a thickness-Fig 1D); and
wherein a remaining unfilled gap (remaining gap 109 above plug 110 and layer 112-Fig 1D) is defined above the bottom plug and inside the sidewall member; and
depositing a conformal material in the remaining unfilled gap (HDP layer so conformal layer 114 is formed in the remaining gap 109-Fig 1E, [0022] L3) .
Shin18 does not disclose a method for filling a trench, the method comprising:
performing a treatment to shrink the sidewall member from the initial thickness to a reduced thickness that is from 3 to 20 % less than the initial thickness.
Anthis89 teaches a method for filling a trench, the method comprising:
performing a treatment to shrink the sidewall member from the initial thickness to a reduced thickness (the conformal liner 130 is exposed to an oxygen plasma to convert a portion of the nitride film 130 to an oxide film 140, so the thickness of layer130 is reduced-[0028] L4-6, Fig 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for filling a trench of Shin18, as taught by Anthis89 for the purpose of filling the trench without leaving a seam (Anthis89: [0019] L 17-18).
Shin18 and Anthis89 do not teach a method for filling a trench, the method comprising:
a reduced thickness that is from 3 to 20 % less than the initial thickness.
Wang73 teaches a method for filling a trench, the method comprising:
a reduced thickness that is from 3 to 20 % less than the initial thickness (high temperature anneal resulting in a 5-40% shrinkage so the thickness is reduced from 3 to 30%-C9 L41-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for filling a trench of Shin18 in view of Anthis89, as taught by Wang73 for the purpose of improving film quality (Wang73: C9 L 1).
Regarding claim 11, Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination teaches all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Shin18 further discloses a method for filling a trench
wherein an upper portion of the trench has a first width, and wherein the lower portion of the trench has a second width different from the first width (Trench 109 is conic and the first width in the upper portion is different from the second width in the lower portion -Fig 1C).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Chou et al. (US 10204822-Chou22), as evidence by Yang et al (Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 4, 2492–2497-Yang97). Yang97 is not relied upon herein for teaching/disclosing aluminum oxide is an oxidation barrier).
Regarding claim 9, Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination teaches all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination does not teach a method for filling a trench
further comprising depositing conformal material to form a conformal liner along a sidewall and a bottom of the trench before depositing the flowable material.
Chou22 teaches a method for filling a trench
further comprising depositing conformal material to form a conformal liner along a sidewall and a bottom of the trench (conformal liner 344-Fig 3B, C7 L21-22) before depositing the flowable material (flowable material 350 filling the trench 302 after deposition of 344-Fig 3D, C7 L35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for filling a trench of Shin18 in view of Anthis89, and further in view of Wang73, as taught by Chou22 for the purpose of improving the passivation performance of trench isolator (Chou22: C3L64-65).
Regarding claim 10, Shin18, Anthis89, Wang73, and Chou22 combination teaches all the elements of claim 9, as noted above.
Chou22 further teaches a method for filling a trench
wherein the conformal material is an oxidation barrier dielectric layer (conformal material 344 is high-k dielectric liner such as aluminum oxide or hafnium oxide so it is an oxidation barrier dielectric layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for filling a trench of Shin18 in view of Anthis89, and further in view of Wang 73, as taught by Chou22 for the purpose of improving the passivation performance of trench isolator (Chou22: C3L64-65).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Mays et al. (US 20200365447-Mays47).
Regarding claim 12, Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination teaches all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination does not teach a method for filling a trench
wherein performing a treatment to shrink the sidewall member from the initial thickness to a reduced thickness comprises performing an ultraviolet treatment and/or a thermal anneal treatment.
Mays47 teaches a method for filling a trench
wherein performing a treatment to shrink the sidewall member from the initial thickness to a reduced thickness comprises performing an ultraviolet treatment and/or a thermal anneal treatment (sidewall member is densified so the initial thickness is reduced through thermal cure or UV cure, so using a thermal or ultraviolet treatment[0113] L10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for filling a trench of Shin18 in view of Anthis89, and further in view of Wang73, as taught by May47 for the purpose of having improved performance (Mays47: [0049] L14-15).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 20200105589-Tsai89).
Regarding claim 14, Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination teaches all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Shin18, Anthis89, and Wang73 combination does not teach a method for filling a trench
wherein the flowable material is silicon oxide, and
wherein depositing a conformal material in the remaining unfilled gap comprises
depositing silicon nitride by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process.
Tsai89 teaches a method for filling a trench
wherein the flowable material is silicon oxide (Layer 140 is formed using in-situ steam generation, so it is a flowable material-[0020] L 65-67; Layer 140 is a silicon oxide layer-[0020] L 16-17) and
wherein depositing a conformal material in the remaining unfilled gap (Layer 150 is formed over layer 140 so deposed in the remaining unfilled gap-[0021] L1-2) comprises
depositing silicon nitride by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (Layer 150 is a silicon nitride layer-[0021] L 22-24; Layer 150 is an ALD layer-[0021] L 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for filling a trench of Shin18 in view of Anthis89, and further in view of Wang73, as taught by Tsai89 for the purpose of improving fin width uniformity (Tai89 [0035] L36-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method for filling a trench, namely “(b) performing a treatment to incorporate at least one additional element into the first conformal material to form a modified sublayer at an exterior surface of the conformal liner, wherein an upper portion of the conformal liner is modified more than a lower portion of the conformal liner such that a thickness of the modified sublayer decreases from a maximum thickness at an opening of the trench to a minimum thickness toward a bottom of the trench; (c) repeating steps (a) and (b), wherein in each repetition of step (a) the first conformal material is deposited directly onto a modified surface of the conformal liner formed by the modified sublayer at the opening and onto a non-modified surface of the conformal liner formed by the first conformal material at the bottom”.
References such as Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89) and Bhatnagar et al. (US 20210125832-Bhatnagar32).combination, teaches a method for filling a trench, but does not teach or suggest a method for filling a trench, namely “(b) performing a treatment to incorporate at least one additional element into the first conformal material to form a modified sublayer at an exterior surface of the conformal liner, wherein an upper portion of the conformal liner is modified more than a lower portion of the conformal liner such that a thickness of the modified sublayer decreases from a maximum thickness at an opening of the trench to a minimum thickness toward a bottom of the trench; (c) repeating steps (a) and (b), wherein in each repetition of step (a) the first conformal material is deposited directly onto a modified surface of the conformal liner formed by the modified sublayer at the opening and onto a non-modified surface of the conformal liner formed by the first conformal material at the bottom”, in combination with other claimed elements.
The balance of the claims are allowable for at least the above-stated reasons.
Claims 15 and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a method for filling a trench, namely “wherein the first conformal material is silicon nitride and is silicon rich, and depositing a second conformal material at a second deposition rate greater than the first deposition rate and at a second temperature lower than the first temperature to form a second conformal liner in the trench, wherein the second conformal material is silicon nitride and is nitrogen rich”.
References such as Govindaraju et al (US20150179567-Govindaraju67) and Lim et al. (US US11195928-Lim28).combination, teaches a method for filling a trench but does not teach or suggest [Preamble], namely “wherein the first conformal material is silicon nitride and is silicon rich, and depositing a second conformal material at a second deposition rate greater than the first deposition rate and at a second temperature lower than the first temperature to form a second conformal liner in the trench, wherein the second conformal material is silicon nitride and is nitrogen rich”, in combination with other claimed elements.
The balance of the claims are allowed for at least the above-stated reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed on 01/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection of claim 1 based on the use of an indefinite term, as stated above in this Office Action.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 2nd paragraph as being indefinite, and claims 2-7 and 21-23 are rejected for their dependencies.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8, see pages 7-10, filed on 01/02/2026, 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.
Amended claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73).
Therefore, claims 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Chou et al. (US 10204822-Chou22), as evidence by Yang et al (Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 4, 2492–2497-Yang97). Yang97 is not relied upon herein for teaching/disclosing aluminum oxide is an oxidation barrier).
Therefore, claims 9-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Chou et al. (US 10204822-Chou22), as evidence by Yang et al (Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 4, 2492–2497-Yang97). Yang97 is not relied upon herein for teaching/disclosing aluminum oxide is an oxidation barrier).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Mays et al. (US 20200365447-Mays47).
Therefore, claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Mays et al. (US 20200365447-Mays47).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 20200105589-Tsai89).
Therefore, claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US20090004818A1-Shin18) in view of Anthis et al. (US 20180033689-Anthis89), in view of Wang et al. (US 7888273 B1-Wang73), and further in view of Tsai et al. (US 20200105589-Tsai89).
Applicant’s arguments, , see pages 7-10, filed on 01/02/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 has been withdrawn.
Therefore, claim 15 is allowed, and claims 17-20 are allowed at least for their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chou et al. (US20180174888 A1-Chou81) discloses a method for filling a trench comprising deposing a first conformal material to form a conformal liner (abstract), performing treatment (HDP-Abstract), having a gap with a V-shape (Fig 2B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALIE R FAYETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-1220. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6pm ET.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
NATHALIE R. FAYETTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/NATHALIE R FAYETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 02/04/2026
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812