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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/25 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, “Liang does not actually teach or suggest providing a silicon-containing precursor and a hydrogen- containing precursor to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber and generating plasma effluents thereof in the processing region. Instead, Liang is generally directed to a remote chemical vapor deposition (CVD) where plasma effluents produced in the plasma excitation outside the substrate processing region, such as plasma effluents of a hydrogen- containing precursor, are provided to the substrate processing region while a non-excited precursor, such as a silicon-containing precursor, is also provided to the substrate processing region”.
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The Examiner first directs the Applicant to the cited locations shown in the previous Non-Final action (paragraph 0018, 0020) where it shown by Liang that a silicon containing precursor is being used.
Paragraph 0018; “for example mixing a radical precursor with a silicon-containing precursor”.
Paragraph 0020; “Silicon-containing precursor may be, for example, a silicon-and-nitrogen-containing precursor, a silicon-and-hydrogen-containing precursor, or a silicon-nitrogen-and-hydrogen-containing precursor, among other classes of silicon precursors”.
The Examiner further notes that Liang further demonstrates the presence of a silicon containing precursor in a plethora of areas and compacities; for example, paragraph 0021-0027.
Also, the Examiner notes that Liang shows (paragraph 0022, 0045, 00578, as noted the previous Non-Final and further supported in paragraphs 0046, 0049) the production of effluents within the plasma action.
The Applicant argues, Liang then describes that the substrate processing region may be described herein as "plasma-free" during the growth of the silicon-nitrogen-and-hydrogen-containing layer.
The has considered the Applicants argument, but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The Examiner takes the position that Laing shows methods for both plasma and plasma-free actions using silicon precursors; as shown in the cited locations of paragraph 0022, 0045, 00578, as noted the previous Non-Final and further supported in paragraphs 0046, 0049).
For the above reasons, the Examiner takes the position that the rejection was proper and therefore maintained. Therefore, the action is made final.
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, 2, 5, 7-10, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Liang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2012/0269989), hereinafter referred to as "Liang".
Liang shows, with respect to claim #1, a semiconductor processing method comprising: providing a silicon-containing precursor (paragraph 0018, 0020) to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (fig. #3, item308a-f) (paragraph 0041), wherein a substrate is housed within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber (paragraph 0028); providing a hydrogen-containing precursor to the processing region (paragraph 0020); generating plasma effluents of the silicon-containing precursor and plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor in the processing region (paragraph 0022, 0045, 0057), wherein the plasma effluents are generated at a frequency greater than 15 MHz; and depositing a silicon-containing material on the substrate (paragraph 0050).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the silicon-containing precursor comprises tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) (paragraph 0029).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein a temperature in the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 600 °C during the method (paragraph 0028).
The term "about" 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. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 600 °C in order to be considered “about” 600 °C. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is [2 nm]) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim 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.
Liang shows, with respect to claim #7, a method further comprising: performing a post-deposition treatment on the silicon-containing material (paragraph 0041).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein performing the post-deposition treatment increases an oxygen content in the silicon-containing material (paragraph 0022, 0041).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the post-deposition treatment comprises exposing the silicon-containing material to ultraviolet light (paragraph 0022, 0041).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein the post-deposition treatment comprises annealing the silicon-containing material in the presence of a second hydrogen-containing precursor, a nitrogen-containing precursor, or an oxygen- containing precursor (paragraph 0022, 0041).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #18, a semiconductor processing method comprising: providing a silicon-containing precursor (paragraph 0018, 0020) to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein a substrate is housed within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber (fig. #3, item308a-f) (paragraph 0041); providing a hydrogen-containing precursor to the processing region (paragraph 0020); generating plasma effluents of the silicon-containing precursor and plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor in the processing region (paragraph 0022, 0045, 0057), wherein the plasma effluents are generated at a frequency greater than 15 MHz; depositing a silicon-containing material on the substrate (paragraph 0050); and performing a post-deposition treatment on the silicon-containing material, wherein performing the post-deposition treatment increases an oxygen content in the silicon- containing material (paragraph 0022, 0041).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein performing the post-deposition treatment decreases a hydrogen content in the silicon-containing material (paragraph 0022, 0041).
Liang shows, with respect to claim #20, a method further comprising: halting a flow of the silicon-containing precursor and a flow of the hydrogen- containing precursor (separation or halting by moving to separate chamber) prior to performing the post-deposition treatment (paragraph 0030, 0041).
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 #3, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2012/0269989), hereinafter referred to as "Liang" and in view of Jiang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0020594), hereinafter referred to as "Jiang".
Liang substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Liang fails to show, with respect to claim #3 a method wherein the hydrogen-containing precursor comprises less than or about 5% of a total flow of precursors provided to the processing region.
Jiang shows, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the hydrogen-containing precursor comprises less than or about 5% of a total flow of precursors provided to the processing region (paragraph 0005).
The term "about" 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. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 5% in order to be considered “about” 5%. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 5%) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Liang as modified by the invention of Jiang, which teaches, a method wherein the hydrogen-containing precursor comprises less than or about 5% of a total flow of precursors provided to the processing region, to incorporate a structural condition wherein the radical transport in the plasma is controlled and also to control the coating wear resistance in the plasma atmosphere, as taught by Jiang.
Liang fails to show, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein a plasma power is maintained at less than or about 1000 W while generating plasma effluents of the silicon-containing precursor and plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor.
Jiang teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein a plasma power is maintained at less than or about 1000 W while generating plasma effluents of the silicon-containing precursor and plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor (paragraph 0037, 0040, 0045).
The term "about" 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. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 1000 W in order to be considered “about” 1000 W. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 1000 W) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim 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.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Liang as modified by the invention of Jiang, which teaches, a method wherein a plasma power is maintained at less than or about 1000 W while generating plasma effluents of the silicon-containing precursor and plasma effluents of the hydrogen-containing precursor, to incorporate a structural condition which may maintain an amount of hydrogen incorporation in the deposited materials, as taught by Jiang.
Liang fails to show, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein a pressure in the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 30 Torr during the method.
Jiang teaches, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein a pressure in the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 30 Torr during the method (paragraph 0048).
The term "about" 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. “About” is defined as " almost or nearly used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how much the value can deviate from about 30 Torr in order to be considered “about” 30 Torr. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is about 30 Torr) and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claim 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. 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 Liang as modified by the invention of Jiang, which teaches, wherein a pressure in the semiconductor processing chamber is maintained at less than or about 30 Torr during the method, to incorporate a structural condition wherein improved fill of narrow features utilizing silicon-containing materials may be required, as taught by Jiang.
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
03/18/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899