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 1-25 are pending in this application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-23 in the reply filed on 10/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc . In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. It is noted that the abstract begins with “Disclosed is”. The examiner suggests deleting said phrase. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 2 , 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention . In claim 2 lines 1-2, the phrase “the fully filling of the gap with a flowable silicon nitride film” lacks antecedent basis and/or is confusing as to what it is referring to. It is noted that independent claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, requires “ partially filling a gap with a flowable silicon nitride film” or “fully filling a gap with a [flowable] silicon nitride film”. The same issue applies to claim 5. 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. Claims 1 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart (2020/0140995) in view of Kalutarage et al. (2020/0243323) . Blanquart teaches a method of selectively depositing an amorphous silicon film on a substrate (title) having a gap (0039) or feature (0060) . Specifically, the amorphous silicon film may be deposited selectively over a metallic nitride surface relative to a metallic oxide surface (0061, Figure 1) in which the metallic nitride surface may comprise silicon nitride and the metallic oxide surface may comprise silicon dioxide (0067). The amorphous silicon film is contacted with a plasma generated from an oxygen containing gas and converting the amorphous silicon nitride film to a silicon oxide film (0063). However, the reference fails to teach a flowable silicon nitride film. Kalutarage teaches of depositing silicon nitride (title) on substrate for gap fill applications (abstract) in which flowable silicon nitride material is used (0015). To utilize flowable silicon nitride films in Blanquart would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Kalutarage teaches of using flowable silicon nitride for gap fill applications. Regarding claim 2, the applicant requires a thickness percentage. Blanquart teaches of varying thickness (0056, 0060). To utilize the claimed ratio would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality. Regarding claim 3, Blanquart teaches an additional silicon oxide film (0067-0069). Regarding claim 4, Kalutarage teaches an addition al treatment such as thermal annealing ( 0015). Regarding claim 5, Blanquart teaches of varying thickness (0056, 0060). To utilize the claimed thickness would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality. Regarding claim 6, Kalutarage teaches partially filling to a thickness (0035, 0086). Regarding claim 7, Kalutarage teaches a silicon-nitrogen precursor and a nitrogen secondary process gas and a plasma (0015). Regarding claim 8, Blanquart teaches silicon iodide precursor with hydrogen (0044). Regarding claim 9, Blanquart teaches H 3 SiI (0044). Regarding claim 10, Kalutarage teaches NH 3 or N 2 (0015). Regarding claim 11, Blanquart teaches an oxygen containing gas (0063). Regarding claim 12, Blanquart teaches oxygen radicals (0065). Regarding claim 13, Blanquart teaches a plasma free environment (0048). Regarding claim 14, Blanquart teaches the same reaction conditions (0050). Regarding claim 15, the applicant requires a specific time ratio. Blanquart and Kalutarage teaches a specific deposition time (0053, 0059 respectively). To utilize the claimed ratio would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality. Regarding claim 16, Blanquart teaches CVD and ALD (00 35 ). In independent claim 17, the applicant requires performing a second step. Kalutarage teaches of repeating one or more times (0043). Regardless, it is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Regarding claim 18, the applicant requires a thickness percentage. Blanquart teaches of varying thickness (0056, 0060). To utilize the claimed ratio would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality. Regarding claim 19, Blanquart teaches an additional silicon oxide film (0067-0069). Regarding claim 20, Kalutarage teaches an additional treatment such as thermal annealing (0015). Regarding claim 21, Kalutarage teaches of repeating one or more times (0043). Regarding claim 22, Kalutarage teaches partially filling to a thickness (0035, 0086). Regarding claim 23, Blanquart teaches a plasma free environment (0048). Pierreu x (2019/0301014) teaches a substrate processing method (title) in whic h a silicon nitride layer is converted into a silicon oxide layer by a thermal treatment in an oxidizing atmosphere in which not plasma is recited (0067) and has been cited as relevant art . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT BRET CHEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1417 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Gordon Baldwin can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 1715 11/24/2025