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 filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive;
Applicant argues that, “wherein the RF power has a duty ratio of 50% or less."'Duty ratio' of a pulsed plasma is defined in paragraph [0050] of the instant specification as the percentage of time when a plasma is in a high power state, with respect to a total time of a cycle including a high state and a low state. (Note that the low state may be when the plasma is off.)”
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The Examiner notes that the present claim language states, “applying radio frequency (RF) power in a pulsed mode, wherein the RF power has a duty ratio of 50% or less.
The Examiner directs the Applicant to Kalutarage, paragraph 0046, where it shown that the frequency (RF) generator which can be varied from 2 to 100 MHz and that the plasma can be tuned to accommodate needs.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes the position that the position of Kalutarage’s "Sequential pulses" implies an on/off time, where 50% is an "obvious to explore"
The Examiner further notes that Kalutarage states, in paragraph 0046, “ plasma may be generated via any suitable plasma generation process or technique known to those skilled in the art.
The Examiner also notes that nowhere in the presently presented claim language has there been shown any specific method or range sort of the power controlling of the duty ratio; only that the duty ratio is less than 50%. Thus, the Examiner takes the position with no specific method steps for controlling that power or range wherein the power is adjusted, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the frequency and power to obtain an RF pulse mixture, that would produce a duty ratio of 50% or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
For these reasons, the Examiner maintains the position taken in the previous Non-Final Rejection and therefore makes the action Final.
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(s) #1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over KALUTARAGE (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0243323), hereinafter referred to as "Kalutarage".
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #1, a substrate processing method comprising: providing a substrate having a gap structure into a reaction space (paragraph 0013); and supplying a silicon precursor (paragraph 0014) and nitrogen reactant gas into the reaction space (paragraph 0015), and depositing a flowable silicon nitride film on the substrate to fill at least a part of the gap of the substrate (paragraph 0009, 0014), while maintaining an inside of the reaction space in a plasma state by applying radio frequency (RF) power in a pulsed mode, wherein the RF power has a duty ratio of 50% or less (paragraph 0046).
The Examiner notes that Kalutarage does not state explicitly that the duty ratio is 50% or lower. However, the Examiner notes that Kalutarage shows (paragraph 0046) that the frequency of the plasma may be tuned depending on the specific reactive species being used. Thus, the Examiner takes the position that Kalutarage provides both method and motivation for adjusting/configuring the plasma conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the frequency and power to obtain an RF power that would produce a duty ratio of 50% or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the depositing of the silicon nitride film comprises generating a plasma by using direct plasma treatment of directly generating a plasma on the substrate by applying RF power into the reaction space while supplying the silicon precursor, the nitrogen reactant gas, and inert gas into the reaction space (paragraph 0009, 0014-0015, 0046).
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the silicon precursor is trimer-trisilylamine (TSA) or dimer-trisilylamine (TSA) (paragraph 0004, 0019), and the nitrogen reactant gas is NH3 (paragraph 0015).
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein depositing the silicon nitride film comprises depositing the silicon nitride film by using a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process (paragraph 0046, 0054).
//
Claim #5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KALUTARAGE (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0243323), hereinafter referred to as "Kalutarage" and in view of Spence et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0237100), hereinafter referred to as "Spence".
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #5, a substrate processing method comprising: providing a substrate having a gap structure into a reaction space (paragraph 0013); supplying a silicon precursor (paragraph 0014) and nitrogen reactant gas into the reaction space (paragraph 0015), and depositing a flowable silicon nitride film in a gap of the substrate (paragraph 0009, 0014) while maintaining an inside of the reaction space in a plasma state by applying radio frequency (RF) power in a pulsed mode (paragraph 0046).
Kalutarage substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #5 above.
Kalutarage fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method comprising converting the flowable silicon nitride film into a silicon oxide film; and forming a densified silicon oxide film by densifying the silicon oxide film, wherein a duty ratio of the RF power is 50% or less.
Spence teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method comprising, converting the flowable silicon nitride film into a silicon oxide film (paragraph 0013, 0028); and forming a densified silicon oxide film by densifying the silicon oxide film (paragraph 0009-0010, 0140), wherein a duty ratio of the RF power is 50% or less (paragraph 0056, 0070, 0159).
The Examiner notes that neither Kalutarage nor Spence state explicitly that the duty ratio is 50% or lower. However, the Examiner notes that Kalutarage shows a method (paragraph 0046) wherein the frequency of the plasma may be tuned depending on the specific reactive species being used. Furthermore, Spence also shows a method (paragraph 0159) of controlling and optimizing the power of the plasma operation while employing NH3 precursor. Thus, the Examiner takes the position that both Kalutarage and Spence provide both a method and motivation for adjusting/configuring the plasma conditions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the frequency and power to obtain an RF power that would produce a duty ratio of 50% or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Kalutarage as modified by the invention of Spence, which teaches, a method comprising converting the flowable silicon nitride film into a silicon oxide film; and forming a densified silicon oxide film by densifying the silicon oxide film, wherein a duty ratio of the RF power is 50% or less, to incorporate a structural condition that would promote the optimal film with good flowability, as taught by Spence.
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the applying of the RF power in the pulsed mode in the depositing causes generation of fewer micropores in the silicon nitride film in the gap, compared to a case where the RF power is continuously applied (paragraph 0046).
The Examiner notes that Kalutarage does not state that results of the vary pulsing shown in the section recited in the above rejection of claim #6, causes generation of fewer micropores in the silicon nitride film in the gap, compared to a case where the RF power is continuously applied. However, the Examiner further notes that the present claim language fails to present any explicit method conditions that would deviate from Kalutarage’s method functions. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that Kalutarage discloses the claimed invention except for listing the results of causing the generation of fewer micropores in the silicon nitride film in the gap, compared to a case where the RF power is continuously applied; i.e. producing the same advantages. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the pulse plasma action of Kalutarage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233.
Kalutarage as modified by Spence, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #5 above.
Kalutarage fails to show, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the conversion comprises converting the flowable silicon nitride film into the silicon oxide film by introducing remote oxygen (02) plasma to the flowable silicon nitride film.
Spence teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the conversion comprises converting the flowable silicon nitride film into the silicon oxide film (paragraph 0010, 0140) by introducing remote oxygen (02) plasma to the flowable silicon nitride film (paragraph 0140, 0064-0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Kalutarage as modified by the invention of Spence, which teaches, a method wherein the conversion comprises converting the flowable silicon nitride film into the silicon oxide film by introducing remote oxygen (02) plasma to the flowable silicon nitride film, to incorporate a structural condition that would promote the optimal film with good flowability, as taught by Spence.
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #8, a substrate processing method wherein the RF power has a frequency ranging from 13.56 MHz to 60 MHz (paragraph 0046).
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #9, a substrate processing method wherein a pulse frequency of the RF power ranges from 0 KHz to 100 KHz (paragraph 0046).
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #10, a substrate processing method wherein the deposition comprises depositing the flowable silicon nitride film by using a direct plasma treatment while supplying the silicon precursor, the nitrogen reactant gas, and inert gas into the reaction space (paragraph 0106, 0108, 0113).
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #11, a substrate processing method wherein the silicon precursor is at least one of TSA, (SiH3)3N; DSO, (SiH3)2; DSMA, (SiH3)2NMe; DSEA, (SiH3)2NEt; DSIPA, (SiH3)2N(Pr); DSTBA, (SiH3)2N(tBu); DEAS, SiH3NEt:; DTBAS, SiH3N(tBu)2; BDEAS, SiH2(Net2)2; BDMAS, SiH2(NMez)2; BTBAS, SiH2(NHtBu)2; BITS, SiH2(NHSiMe3)2; DIPAS, SiH3N(iPr)z2; TEOS, Si(OEt)4; SiCl4; HCD, SizCle, 3DMAS, SiH(N(Me)2)3; BEMAS, SiH2[N(Et)(Me)]2; AHEAD, Si2(NHEt)s; TEAS, Si(NHEt)s; SisHs; DCS, SiH2Cl2; SiHIs; SiH2I2; dimer-trisilylamine, trimer-trisilylamine, tetramer-trisilylamine, pentamer- trisilylamine, hexamer-trisilylamine, heptamer-trisilylamine, octamer-trisilylamine, and a mixture thereof (paragraph 0004, 0019).
Kalutarage shows, with respect to claim #12, a substrate processing method wherein the nitrogen reactant gas is selected from at least one of NH3, N2, N20, NO2, N2H2, N2H4, and a mixture thereof (paragraph 0015, 0045).
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
03/11/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899