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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission of an RCE filed on 03/10/26 has been entered.
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.
Claims #1-4, 7, 12-17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0358719), hereinafter referred to as "Hwang" as modified by Hwang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0111391), hereinafter referred to as "Hwang(2)" and in further view of Dhas et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0203967), hereinafter referred to as "Dhas".
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #1, substrate processing method comprising: providing a substrate (fig. #12, item S1) (paragraph 0074), having a gap structure (surface of substrate, fig. #12, item S1) thereon, into a reaction space of a reaction chamber of a reactor (paragraph 0012); forming a first layer comprising the steps of (paragraph 0004, 0086): supplying a first source gas into the reaction space (paragraph 0013); activating the first source gas (paragraph 0013); supplying a reactant into the reaction chamber (paragraph 0004, 0012); activating the reactant during the first layer deposition; and optionally repeating the steps of supplying the first gas source, activating the first source gas, and activating the reactant (paragraph 0004, 0013); and forming a second layer (paragraph 0004) comprising the steps of: supplying a second source gas into the reaction space (paragraph 0004, 0028-0029); supplying the reactant into the reaction space after the step of supplying the second source gas has ceased; activating the reactant during the second layer deposition; and repeating the steps of supplying a second source gas and activating the reactant (paragraph 0004, 0118, 0013-0014).
The Examiner notes, with respect to claim #1, that Hwang does not explicitly identify a specific area on the substrate (fig. #12, item S1) structure that possesses a gap structure/area. However, the Examiner takes the position that Hwang provides a method for filling any gap areas (paragraph 0004, 0086) within a substrate structure; thus fulfilling the method requirements of claim #1. For this reason, the Examiner takes the position that the rejection is proper.
Hwang substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Hwang fails to show, with respect to claim #1, method wherein while supplying a first source, activating the first source gas in the reaction space; supplying a reactant into the reaction space chamber; activating the reactant within the reaction space during the first layer deposition.
Hwang(2) teaches, with respect to claim #1, method wherein while supplying a first source, activating the first source gas in the reaction space; supplying a reactant into the reaction space chamber; activating the reactant within the reaction space during the first layer deposition (paragraph 0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified by the invention of Hwang(2), which teaches, method wherein while supplying a first source, activating the first source gas in the reaction space; supplying a reactant into the reaction space chamber; activating the reactant within the reaction space during the first layer deposition, to incorporate a structural condition that allows a further tuning of the plasma deposition process, as taught by Hwang(2).
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2), fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a method wherein activating the first source gas comprises applying a pulsed first layer plasma power to the reactor.
Dhas teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method wherein activating the first source gas comprises applying a pulsed first layer plasma power to the reactor (paragraph 0102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified by the invention of Hwang(2), with the invention of Dhas, which teaches, a method wherein activating the first source gas comprises applying a pulsed first layer plasma power to the reactor, to incorporate a structural condition with a reduction of ion bombardment with the substrate surface, as taught by Dhas.
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #2, a method further comprising at least one of: during forming a first layer, purging the reaction chamber after the step of activating the first source gas; during forming a first layer, purging the reaction chamber after the step of activating the reactant; during forming the second layer, purging the reaction chamber after the step of supplying the second source gas; and during forming the second layer, purging the reaction chamber after the step of activating the reactant (paragraph 0044, 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #3, wherein a purge gas is continuously supplied into the reaction chamber during the steps of forming the first layer and forming the second layer (paragraph 0044, 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #4, wherein the reactant is continuously supplied into the reaction chamber during the steps of forming the first layer and forming the second layer (paragraph 0044, 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein activating the reactant during the second layer deposition comprises applying a second layer plasma power to the reactor (paragraph 0044, 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #12, a method, wherein a cycle ratio of forming the first layer steps to forming the second layer steps 1:10 or less (paragraph 0004, 0118, 0013-0014, 0044, 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #13, a method, wherein the first source gas and the second source gas comprise silicon (paragraph 0056).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #14, a method, wherein the first source gas and the second source gas comprise one of more of an aminosilane, an iodosilane, or a halide-based silicon source (paragraph 0056).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #15, a method, wherein the first source gas and the second source gas are at least one of TSA, (SiH3)3N; DSO, (SiH3)2; DSMA, (SiH3)2NMe; DSEA, (SiH3)2NEt; DSIPA, (SiH3)2N(iPr); DSTBA, (SiH3)2N(tBu); DEAS, SiH3NEt2; DTBAS, SiH3N(tBu)2; BDEAS, SiH2(NEt2)2; BDMAS, SiH2(NMe2)2; BTBAS, SiH2(NHtBu)2; BITS, SiH2(NHSiMe3)2; DIPAS, SiH3N(iPr)2; TEOS, Si(OEt)4; SiCI4; HCD, Si2CI6; 3DMAS, 24 SiH(N(Me)2)3; BEMAS, Si H2[N(Et)(Me)]2; AHEAD, Si2(NHEt)6; TEAS, Si(NHEt)4; Si3H8; DCS, SiH2Cl2; SiH13; SiH212, a derivative thereof, or a mixture thereof (paragraph 0056and 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #16, a method, wherein the reactant comprises an oxygen reactant gas (paragraph 0057).
Hwang shows, with respect to claim #17, a method, wherein the reactant comprises a nitrogen reactant gas (paragraph 0057).
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2), fails to show, with respect to claim #19, a method further comprising a step of chamber conditioning.
Dhas teaches, with respect to claim #19, a method further comprising a step of chamber conditioning (paragraph 0009, 0046)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #19, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified Hwang(2), with the modification Dhas’s invention, which teaches, a method further comprising a step of chamber conditioning, to incorporate a structural condition that would deposit a smart pre-deposition coat that allows a chamber to process multiple recipes without having to fully clean the reaction chamber, thereby saving time and increasing throughput, as taught by Dhas.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2), fails to show, with respect to claim #20, a method wherein the chamber conditioning is carried out by forming activated species from an inert gas to harden a film formed on a wall inside the reaction chamber.
Dhas teaches, with respect to claim #20, a method wherein the chamber conditioning is carried out by forming activated species from an inert gas to harden a film formed on a wall inside the reaction chamber (paragraph 0008, 0046-0047, 0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #20, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified by Hwang(2), with the modification of the Dhas’s invention, which teaches, a method wherein the chamber conditioning is carried out by forming activated species from an inert gas to harden a film formed on a wall inside the reaction chamber, to incorporate a structural condition that would deposit a smart pre-deposition coat that allows a chamber to process multiple recipes without having to fully clean the reaction chamber, thereby saving time and increasing throughput, as taught by Dhas.
//
Claim #5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0358719), hereinafter referred to as "Hwang" as modified by Hwang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0111391), hereinafter referred to as "Hwang(2)" and Dhas et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0203967), hereinafter referred to as "Dhas" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 and in further view of Lin et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0302065), hereinafter referred to as "Lin".
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein applying the pulsed first layer plasma power generates neutral molecules by neutralizing the active species, and moving the neutral molecules in a direction toward a lower surface of a recess extending between the first step and the second step and excites the neutral molecules that moved in the direction toward the lower surface.
Lin teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein applying the pulsed first layer plasma power generates neutral molecules by neutralizing the active species, and moving the neutral molecules in a direction toward a lower surface of a recess extending between the first step and the second step and excites the neutral molecules that moved in the direction toward the lower surface (fig. #3, 7) (paragraph 0009, 0021, 0025).
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 Hwang as modified Hwang(2) and Dhas, with the modification of Lin’s invention, which teaches, a method wherein applying the pulsed first layer plasma power generates neutral molecules by neutralizing the active species, and moving the neutral molecules in a direction toward a lower surface of a recess extending between the first step and the second step and excites the neutral molecules that moved in the direction toward the lower surface, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein electrons are allowed to pass through the plasma to the bottom of the trench area and twisting or bowing profile of the trenches can be prevented, as taught by Lin.
///
Claim #6, 8-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HWANG (U.S. Pub. No, 2021/0358719), hereinafter referred to as "Hwang" as modified by Hwang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0111391), hereinafter referred to as "Hwang(2)" and Dhas et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0203967), hereinafter referred to as "Dhas" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 and in further view of Tjandra et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2010/0120245), hereinafter referred to as "Tjandra".
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is applied in a duty ratio of between 10 percent and 70 percent.
Tjandra teaches, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is applied in a duty ratio of between about 10 percent and 70 percent (paragraph 0042, 0045, 0077).
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 Hwang as modified Hwang(2) and Dhas, with the modification of Tjandra’s invention, which teaches, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is applied in a duty ratio of between about 10 percent and 70 percent, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein the deposition of the material has reduced defects, higher density, better uniformity and conformal coverage, as taught by Tjandra.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is between about 100 W and 1,000 W.
Tjandra teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is between about 100 W and 1,000 W (paragraph 0042, 0045, 0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, with the modifications of the invention of Tjandra, which teaches, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is between about 100 W and 1,000 W, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein the deposition of the material has reduced defects, higher density, better uniformity and conformal coverage, as taught by Tjandra.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2), Dhas and Tjandra, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #8 above.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is the same as or lower than the second layer plasma power.
Tjandra teaches, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is the same as or lower than the second layer plasma power (paragraph 0042, 0045, 0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #9, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified Hwang(2) and Dhas, with the modification of the invention taught by Tjandra, which teaches, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power is the same as or lower than the second layer plasma power, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein the deposited material has characteristics that includes reduced defects, higher density, better uniformity and conformal coverage, as taught by Tjandra.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power has a frequency of 10 MHz or greater.
Tjandra teaches, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power has a frequency of 10 MHz or greater (paragraph 0042, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #10, to modified the invention of Hwang, Hwang(2) and Dhas, as modified by the invention of Tjandra, which teaches, a method wherein the pulsed first layer plasma power has a frequency of 10 MHz or greater, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein the deposited material has characteristics that includes reduced defects, higher density and better uniformity and conformal coverage, as taught by Tjandra.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2), Dhas and Tjandra, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein the second layer plasma power comprises dual frequencies comprising a high frequency of 10 MHz or greater and a low frequency of 500 kHz or below.
Tjandra teaches, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein the second layer plasma power comprises dual frequencies comprising a high frequency of 10 MHz or greater and a low frequency of 500 kHz or below (paragraph 0042, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #11, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified Hwang(2) and Dhas, with the invention as taught by Tjandra, which teaches, a method wherein the second layer plasma power comprises dual frequencies comprising a high frequency of 10 MHz or greater and a low frequency of 500 kHz or below, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein the deposited material has characteristics that includes reduced defects, higher density, better uniformity and conformal coverage, as taught by Tjandra.
Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, fails to show, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the second layer is higher than a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the first layer.
Tjandra teaches, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the second layer is higher than a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the first layer (paragraph 0042, 0045).
The Examiner notes that Tjandra fails to explicitly state wherein a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the second layer is higher than a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the first layer. However, the Examiner takes the position that Tjandra shows a method and suggested ranges to require the pressure to be maintained. Therefore, the Examiner takes the position that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the second layer is higher than a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the first layer, 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. Furthermore, the applicant has not established the critical nature of requiring a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the second layer being higher than a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the first layer, to the method of possessing the ability to perform/produce the regulation of the pressure. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. 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 #18, to modified the invention of Hwang as modified by Hwang(2) and Dhas, with the modification as taught by Tjandra, which teaches, a method wherein a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the second layer is higher than a pressure in the reaction chamber during the step of forming the first layer, to incorporate a structural delivery method wherein the deposited material has characteristics that includes reduced defects, higher density, better uniformity and conformal coverage, as taught by Tjandra.
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
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
04/01/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights