DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of NF3, TSA and O2 as the species in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 22 is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14 is considered the broadest claim. It is noted that per MPEP 608.01(m) it is helpful in the interest of prosecution to file the claims in the order varying from the broadest to the most detailed.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 19 include a “source” gas and a “reactant” gas – the gases are not specifically defined other than a reactivity of the source gas with the inhibition gas, therefore, when applying prior art, even if the gas is described as a “reaction/reactant” gas, it may meet the claim requirements of the source gas.
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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The terms “high RF” and “low RF” power in claim 10 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “high” or “low” are 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. The specification includes that the high power is broadly 200 W or less and the lower power about 100 W [0068] therefore not clearly defining the terms.
Claim 11 applies the term “HRF” but the term is not defined (the claim does not depend on claim 10 wherein the acronym is applied).
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho (2018/0166270).
Cho teaches a substrate processing method comprising:
- providing a wafer comprising a gap in a reaction chamber, see Figs. 2 and [0017] and providing a deposition inhibiting gas and purging the chamber, see Fig. 1 step 101, and [0015-24], particularly [0019] in regard to the purge,
- forming a thin film: providing source and reaction gas, see steps 103-105, the steps of applying the gases are further described in [0025-29] with plasma and purge [0038-39].
In regard to a third operation of removing the deposition inhibiting gas, the teachings further include step S109, removing the suppression layer. The act includes applying a reducing agent [0032], as the teachings include the film is formed using NH3 or N2 [0028], these gases are well-understood in the art as reducing gases and would have been an operable selection in the process based on the teachings. (Since the selection of NH3 or N2 as the reducing gas for removing the inhibition layer is made but is within the teachings, the claim is anticipated).
Regarding claim 17, as per the teachings, the cycles are repeated. Cho generally teaches per Fig. 1 and 3 and [0051] that any number of steps are operably performed as such a claimed super cycle – to produce a gap fill without a void [0033].
Regarding claim 19, all elements are taught per claim 14, including the providing a substrate with a gap and filling by a cyclical process (see Figs. 1 and 2 particularly as noted), wherein the cyclical process includes:
- a step of supplying a fluorine gas, step 101 wherein NF3 (etc.) is supplied [0019-21],
- a step of supplying a source gas and reaction gas – see S103 and S105 to form a film in the gap (see related text and Fig. 2) wherein it is understood that fluorine terminated sites are formed (to the extent that the instant application and the prior art each teach that a gap is exposed to a fluorine gas to create sites that form a deposition inhibiting region, the prior art is understood to include the same effect of forming fluorine terminated sites) and
- as per above the source gas exposure is repeated – as per above, exposure to a reducing agent removes the excess residual fluorine. In this case there is no claimed distinction of the source gas and the reaction gas, and since both gases participate in the reaction, either gas reasonably meets the claim requirements of the source gas and therefore the source gas is considered the reducing agent (nitrogen gas).
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 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.
Claims 13, 18, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho.
Regarding claim 13, all elements of the claim are taught as described above in reference per Cho in claim 14 except the requirements of the RF power, but those features are further taught by Cho as outlined here;
- the first operation of claim 13 is that of claim 14, wherein there is an inhibiting region formed in a gap, as noted above,
- the second operation is the second operation of Cho as above, wherein S103 and S105 are applied to form the thin film in the gap, see as per [0028] wherein step S105 (the claimed source gas) includes O2 plasma, and
- third operation of removing residual deposition inhibiting gas in the region by performing supplying the source gas. The teachings of Cho include this as per step 109, wherein, as noted above, the source gas is the O2 plasma. In this case, Cho teaches that a “plasma treatment” may be used for removing the deposition suppressing layer [0032]. Besides stating that the plasma treatment may include argon, Cho is silent on gases in the plasma treatment (therefore broadly teaching any plasma treatment) – however, the description includes the plasma treatment as carried out in step S103, the oxygen plasma exposure. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the source gas (O2 plasma) of Cho to remove the deposition suppressing layer as Cho generally teaches that (any) plasma is operable to perform the task and teaches O2 plasma as an example plasma used in the process. Cho does not teach criticality of the gas applied with the plasma.
Further regarding the use of “RF” and the teaching of “plasma” by Cho, Examiner initially takes the position that there are limited methods of forming plasma in the industry, wherein Cho teaches plasma such “RF” would be understood. Alternatively, Examiner takes Official Notice that wherein Cho teaches using a plasma in the method, the use of RF plasma would have been a well-known selection.
In regard to the repetition of the performing the third operation, Cho generally teaches repeating steps [0029] but not specifically this removal step. The repetition of a step, however, is understood as obvious based on the teaching of the relevance of the step. It is analogous to a change in sequence of adding an ingredient (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.) except in this case the ‘ingredient’ is added multiple times for the same purpose. See also 2144.04 VI. B. in regard to duplication of parts, wherein the MPEP citation is drawn to a physical component, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the duplication of a step would likewise be obvious without a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18, as per claim 17 above, the cycles are repeated. Cho generally teaches per Fig. 1 and 3 and [0051] that any number of steps are operably performed as such a claimed super cycle – to produce a gap fill without a void [0033]. In further regard to the broad requirement of the “adjusting a repetition ratio of the first, second and third steps, such adjustment is obvious based on the teaching of Cho of any number of cycles (see particularly “m-cycle” per Fig. 1). The modification of the sequences during a process would be further a matter of a routine change of sequence and obvious without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.
Regarding claim 24, the teachings are silent on the flow rate of fluorine gas or the power of the plasma, however, because it is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as flow rate of gases and plasma power. Absent evidence showing such criticality use of the claimed flow rate and plasma power would have been prima facie obvious. To apply the claimed flow rates and/or plasm powers would have been obvious as a selection of some value is necessary and applicants do not demonstrate any criticality of the claimed values within the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 25, as depicted, the film is formed at the lower region of the gap.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Abel (2020/0017967).
The teachings of Cho are described above, Cho teaches filling a gap as noted, but not of the claimed shape. Abel teaches however that an effective semiconductor structure is formed either with uniform sidewalls or with a gap wherein the middle region gap is wider than the upper and lower regions, see Figs. 1-3. The teachings include forming a deposition inhibiting region in order to fill such gaps in addition to gaps with a common width, see particularly [0023-30]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Cho and Abel as Cho teaches a process of filling gaps using an inhibition layer and alternatively Abel teaches that devices including gaps with middle sections that are wider than the top and bottom are useful in the industry and operably filled using processes with inhibition layers intended to allow improved gap-fill.
Claims 1, 8, 12-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui (2022/0108915) in view of Xie (2016/0358835).
Lui teaches a substrate processing method comprising:
- providing a wafer with a gap in a chamber, see Figs. 1 step 101 and Fig. 2 (gap),
- providing a deposition inhibiting gas in the chamber, see step 102 [0083], and purges are generally taught [0036-38],
- providing a source gas and a reaction gas in the reaction chamber, see steps 105 and 106. The claim does not limit the steps from being sequential and the teachings include the use of purge steps after such applications [0036]. See interpretation as above: the claimed source gas and claimed reaction gas are not limited, both gases applied in 105 and 106 of Lui are taught to be a “precursor”, so it is held that the second precursor meets the requirements of the source gas and the first precursor meets that of the reaction gas. The second precursor is applied with an RF plasma [0068, 96].
The teachings, while teaching that exposure to the second precursor (i.e. claimed source gas as defined above) effects at least partial removal of the inhibition layer, do not include an (additional) exposure to the source gas (second precursor of Lui).
The second precursor (source gas) is defined as such as oxygen or nitrogen [0066-67]. Xie teaches that in a cyclic process, it is useful to control the amount of compounds such as oxygen or nitrogen in a layer by including additional pulses [0055]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply an additional pulse(s) of the second precursor (i.e. oxygen / nitrogen) of Lui as Xie teaches that such a step is useful in controlling the amount of the element/material in the film. In combining the teachings, it follows that the additional pulse, the claimed providing the source gas without substantial reaction gas in the reaction chamber, would be carried out in the same manner as above, including the plasma and purge step.
In regard to the at least partial removal of the deposition inhibition region – the teachings of Lui include that the second precursor (i.e. source gas) acts to at least partially remove the inhibition layer [0070-72]. As per the teachings, some removal of the inhibition layer necessarily occurs during exposure to the source gas (second precursor) and it is considered an acceptable portion of the process (the inhibition layer is optionally readded as needed), therefore, the combination of Xie with Liu for the reasons of record is held to necessarily result in some removal of the inhibiting region.
Regarding claim 8, the teachings of Xie are open to any number of cycles of additional application of the desired material and therefore the range is overlapped and made obvious [0055].
Regarding claim 12, as per Fig. 1, the steps are repeated and per Fig. 2 the gap if filled, also as taught in the related text [0063].
Regarding claim 13, all elements are met as per above.
The first operation of forming the deposition inhibiting region
- providing a deposition inhibiting gas in the chamber, see step 102 [0036-38] performed on a wafer with a gap in a chamber, see Figs. 1 step 101 and Fig. 2 (gap),
- then a second operation of providing a source gas, and a reaction gas in the reaction chamber, see steps 105 and 106, wherein the source gas is the second precursor of Liu as above and is applied with a plasma [0068];
- the step of removing the inhibition layer is also taught as per above by the combination of Lui with Xie in regard to the additional source gas (second precursor) steps of removing the inhibition layer (understood therefore of being reactive with the same) and the purge steps noted above. In regard to the supplying second RF power, the teachings as above include plasma, there are no claim limitations that the second RF power is different than the first, and therefore all limitations are met.
Regarding claim 14, all claim elements are taught as per above:
- Liu teaches the first operation is per Fig. 1 steps 102 and 103, description above includes the substate (step 101) with a gap,
- the second operation, steps S105 and S106 include forming a thin film in the gap (the claim does not require differentiation of the precursors as required above),
- in regard to the third operation, the combination with Xie teaches the desire to repeated the source gas application as noted. In this case, the claim only requires one of the gases to be reactive with the deposition inhibiting gas but in any case this is the second precursor [0070-72].
Regarding claims 17 and 18, as per Fig. 1 and also the combination with Xie, the cycles and portions of the super cycle (see super cycle as per the multiple loops of Fig.1) are operably repeated as needed. As Liu teaches optional decisions on both the inhibition layer and film deposition, the teachings further make obvious the adjustment of the cycles as needed to property fill the gap without voids [0005, 91].
Claims 9-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lui and Xie in view of Abel (2020/0017967).
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the teachings of Lui and Xie are described above, Lui teaches filling a gap as noted, but not of the claimed shape. Abel teaches however that an effective semiconductor structure is formed either with uniform sidewalls or with a gap wherein the middle region gap is wider than the upper and lower regions, see Figs. 1-3. The teachings include forming a deposition inhibiting region in order to fill such gaps in addition to gaps with a common width, see particularly [0023-30]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to combine the teachings of Lui and Abel as Lui teaches a process of filling gaps using an inhibition layer and alternatively Abel teaches that devices including gaps with middle sections that are wider than the top and bottom are useful in the industry and operably filled using processes with inhibition layers intended to allow improved gap-fill.
Regarding claim 10, Lui teaches the use of RF power, and further a range of 20 W to 2 kW. The teachings therefore make obvious apply multiple such powers such as “low” and a “high” power as claimed. It is prima facie obvious to combine two elements each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Exparte Rubin 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp1959).
Regarding claim 11, to select any power from the range as taught by Lui for the step of providing the source gas would have been obvious based on the teaching of the range of 20W to 2 kW, wherein any of the power would be considered “HRF”. The other elements of the claim are addressed as per claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 16, 20, 21, and 23 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.
Regarding claims 2-7, the teachings of Lui as presented above necessarily include the silicon gas as the reaction gas and nitrogen or oxygen as the claimed source gas, as such, the elements of claims 2-7 are not met by the prior art. While not applied to claim 1, the teachings of Cho require the same interpretation and would not be applicable to claims.
Regarding claim 16, there is no particular guidance in the prior art that the source compound with the gaseous form of the residual deposition inhibiting gas as claimed.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, as per claims 2-7, the source gas of the prior art is nitrogen or oxygen gas and therefore the requirement of the source gas being Si-based and/or the reactive gas being oxygen or nitrogen based is patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is patentable over the prior art because initially it is not clear that the prior art includes the same stoichiometric defect as the claim. If such art was applied, it is not necessarily true that the prior art would provide the same benefits of the instant method, particularly as the correction of the defect can not be guaranteed without the source gas as claimed (see claims 2-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax 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).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712