DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 7/1/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims. Claims 1-34 remain pending with claim 15 withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements, specifically addressed hereinafter.
Applicant’s arguments relative to the microwave plasma is noted, but not persuasive as the references explicitly disclose plasma is known to be generated by microwaves (0015 of Kalutarage) and also discloses plasma post treatment and thus using microwaves to generate plasma during the post treatment would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and the Applicant’s have failed to provide any specific factual rebuttal evidence to the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-20, 22-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20200243323 by Kalutarage et al. taken collectively with US Patent Application Publication 20130183835 by Nguyen et al.
Claim 1: Kalutarage discloses a method for flowable gap-fill deposition (abstract), the method comprising:
(a) placing a substrate in a first station (0054 related to cluster tool, and multiple chambers);
(b) depositing a flowable material on the substrate in the first station by a vapor deposition process at a first temperature (Figure 1 and accompanying text, see e.g. 0035-0041);
(c) placing the substrate in a second station (0054 related to cluster tool, and multiple chambers);
(d) heating a surface of the substrate to a second temperature in the second station and exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a plasma gas source (see 0015 related to plasma annealing process, thermal annealing, curing); and
repeating (a)-(d) in a cycle until a film of desired thickness is deposited on the substrate (Figure 1 and accompanying text).
Kalutarage generally discloses plasma anneal and ammonia anneal; however, fails to provide the claimed hydrogen containing gas. However, Nguyen, also in the art of depositing SiN using silazane (0030) and nitrogen precursors (0031, see ammonia, hydrazine), similar to that as specifically taught by Kalutarage, discloses SiN deposited is plasma treated within the cycle that is repeated (0011), where the plasma treatment directly affects the properties of the deposited film (0038-0043). Nguyen disclose plasma treatment using gases such as hydrazine, ammonia and hydrogen are known to be applied to control the properties of the SiN film (0038-0043). Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have modified Kalutarage to use the post treatment plasma process as suggested by Nguyen to reap the benefits of adjusting the properties and one would expect predictable results in the combination as both references disclose plasma post treatment of a SiN film deposited via silicon/nitrogen precursors.
Kalutarage with Nguyen fails to explicitly disclose the plasma anneal is microwave generated however, Kalutarage discloses generating plasma using microwave plasma (0015) and therefore as Kalutarage and Nguyen discloses plasma annealing and Kalutarage discloses plasma as known to be generated using microwave, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the invention to have used microwaves to generate the plasma as such is taught by Kalutarage as a known and suitable power to generate a plasma. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 2-3: Kalutarage discloses a temperature of less than 200C (0050) and therefore makes obvious the claimed ranges. Additionally, Kalutarage discloses the adjusting the temperature of the substrate is a result effective variable, directly affecting the treatment (0050 stating “The properties of the specific substrate, chemical precursors, and other attributes may be evaluated using methods known in the art, allowing selection of appropriate temperature and pressure for the reaction”) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature for the deposition and anneal through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of the deposition of a flowable film and post treatment anneal.
Claim 4: Kalutarage discloses supplying a gas as claimed (0059, stating “The carrier gas, the purge gas, the deposition gas, and/or other process gas can be or include nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, neon, helium, or any combination or mixture thereof”, where other gases include the plasma gases). At the very least, using these known gases for plasma would have been obvious as predictable. Kalutarage discloses using a cluster tool for the various treatment steps (0053-0054) which would include not providing the plasma reactive gas during the step of deposition (as they are in different chambers of the cluster tool). Additionally, Nguyen discloses the precursor gases will be such off during the plasma treatment (0038) and therefore not supplying the plasma treatment gas during the deposition would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim 5: Kalutarage discloses the cluster tool with a shared intermediate space (0054, see transfer chamber). As for the spatial relationship, such would have been a result effective variable, directly affecting the apparatus footprint and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the chambers in the desired spatial relationship including vertical arrangement. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to vertically arrange the chambers, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 6: Kalutarage discloses shared pressure system (0055) and using such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired pressure control, including a common pressure during the cycle (see e.g. 0056 as it relates to carousel processing)
Claim 7: Kalutarage discloses a pressure that overlaps and makes obvious the claimed pressure (0050, see In some embodiments, the pressure within the processing chamber (e.g., vapor deposition chamber) is less than 6 Torr, such as about 5 Torr, about 4 Torr, about 3 Torr, about 2.6 Torr, about 2 Torr, or about 1.6 Torr.)
Claim 8: Kalutarage discloses the substrate can be heated or cooled (0057), including among other things a heater/cool positioned within the chamber or using a substrate support in the chamber. While the reference does not explicitly disclose independent control in the first and second chamber, the prior art discloses multiple chambers and heating/cooling within the individual chambers and therefore, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to have to control each chamber independently as such would have provided the increase control over the individual processes and chambers.
Claim 9: Kalutarage discloses SiN (0040).
Claim 10: Kalutarage fails to explicitly disclose the fill %; however, discloses filling the gap and adjusting the number of cycles to achieve the desired deposition and therefore it would have been obvious to adjust the cycle to achieve the desired fill %, including the claimed amounts, through continually cycling, as such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11: Kalutarage discloses carrier gases that meet the claimed requirement (0059, “ The carrier gas, the purge gas, the deposition gas, and/or other process gas can be or include nitrogen, hydrogen, argon, neon, helium, or any combination or mixture thereof. In one example, the carrier gas contains nitrogen”). Kalutarage also discloses ammonia or oxygen supplied during contacting/deposition and argon, helium, nitrogen, hydrogen during contacting/deposition (0081-0082)
Claim 12: Kalutarage discloses after a film of desired thickness is deposited on the substrate: transferring the substrate to an annealing chamber (see 0015, 0052, 0053-0054). As for the temperature, Kalutarage discloses annealing and curing, including thermal annealing and discloses that the temperature is a result effective variable, directly affecting the substrate and process (0050) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the temperature of the curing/thermal/plasma anneal through routine experimentation to deposit the SiN film.
Claims 13-14: Kalutarage discloses each layer deposited in step (b) has a thickness in the range as claim (0040, see e.g. 60 Angstroms or 10 Ang to 50 Ang) and thus makes obvious the claimed range.
Claim 16: Kalutarage discloses a method of processing a substrate having gaps, comprising: providing a substrate to a reactor, forming a SiN film by supplying a silicon-containing precursor with fluidity and a nitrogen-containing gas to the reactor; and performing post-treatment for treating the SiN film, wherein post-treatment comprises a first treatment step and a second treatment step (abstract, Figure 1, 0037-0044, 0053-0056, 0052 related to annealing in first and second treatment step as claimed). The combination of Kalutarage and Nguyen make obvious the microwave plasma treatment as claimed as set forth with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 17: Kalutarage discloses RF power to reactor during nitrogen supply (0046, 0081-0082)
Claim 18: Kalutarage fails to disclose the power as claimed; however, there exists a power and the power is a well known result effective variable for plasma processing, too high of a power will be detriment and too low will not generate a plasma, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the optimum and desired power through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of plasma processing.
Claim 19: Kalutarage discloses N2 and ammonia (0081-0082) and discloses using a cluster tool for the various treatment steps which would include not providing the nitrogen reactive gas during the step of post-treatment. Additionally, Nguyen discloses the precursor gases will be such off during the plasma treatment (0038) and therefore not supplying the precursor gases during the post treatment would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim 20: Kalutarage discloses what can reasonably be considered an oligomeric precursor (0006).
Claim 22: Kalutarage discloses temperature of 0C or about 25C, about 100C, that explicitly reads on the claims as drafted. Kalutarage discloses a temperature of less than 200C (0050) and therefore makes obvious the claimed ranges. Additionally, Kalutarage discloses the adjusting the temperature of the substrate is a result effective variable, directly affecting the treatment (0050 stating “The properties of the specific substrate, chemical precursors, and other attributes may be evaluated using methods known in the art, allowing selection of appropriate temperature and pressure for the reaction”) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature for the deposition and anneal through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of the deposition of a flowable film and post treatment anneal.
Claim 23: Kalutarage discloses the first and second treatment step comprises e.g. UV treatment (0052, stating “In one or more examples, the intermediate film containing the flowable silicon nitride material is cured by UV, followed by ammonia anneal to generate or otherwise produce a film containing the solid silicon nitride material.”)
Claim 24: Kalutarage discloses microwave plasma treatment and Kalutarage fails to explicitly disclose the plasma anneal is microwave generated however, the reference discloses generating plasma using microwave plasma (0015) and therefore as Kalutarage discloses plasma annealing and also discloses plasma as known to be generated using microwave. The selection of something based on its known suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07. Here, the claimed first and second treatment can be the same treatment process divided into multiple sub treatments (i.e. the first part of the microwave plasma treatment is the first treatment and the second part is the claimed second treatment, as the broadly drafted claims fail to quantify any treatment distinction between the first and second treatment step.)
Claim 25: Kalutarage discloses a combination of post-treatment (0015 “The additional treatment can be or include curing (e.g., O.sub.3 and/or UV), a thermal annealing (e.g., steam or NH.sub.3), a plasma annealing process, and/or a UV annealing process.”), and discloses curing and thereafter annealing (0052) and thus using the curing followed by microwave plasma annealing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, as noted above, the thermal treatment can reasonably be a result of microwave plasma as the scope of “thermal” treatment is not defined by the claims to differentiate from treatment via microwave plasma.
Claim 26 and 27: Kalutarage discloses a temperature of less than 200C (0050) and therefore makes obvious the claimed ranges. Additionally, Kalutarage discloses the adjusting the temperature of the substrate is a result effective variable, directly affecting the treatment (0050 stating “The properties of the specific substrate, chemical precursors, and other attributes may be evaluated using methods known in the art, allowing selection of appropriate temperature and pressure for the reaction”) and therefore it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum temperature for the deposition and anneal through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of the deposition of a flowable film and post treatment anneal.
Claim 28: Kalutarage fails to disclose the power as claimed; however, there exists a power and the power is a well-known result effective variable for plasma processing, too high of a power will be deteriment and too low will not generate a plasma, and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to determine the optimum and desired power through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of plasma processing.
Claim 29-30: Nguyen explicitly discloses plasma treatment using gases such as hydrazine, ammonia and hydrogen or combinations therefore and using these claims is made obvious for the reasons set forth above, i.e. to control SiN film properties.
Claim 31: Kalutarage discloses a low wet etch rate (0014, 0051); however, fails to disclose the claimed value. However, the wet etch rate is lowered by post treatment (0051) and therefore it would have been obvious to have provided the desired post treatment to provide a wet etch ratio as claimed (i.e. a low wet etch ratio). Additionally, the WER of the layer is a property and the WER achieved by the applicant is taught as a property that flows from the process steps as claimed and thus, as the prior art discloses each and every step as required by claim 16 and disclosed by the applicant as required, the prior art will necessarily have the same results, unless the applicant is performing additional process steps or using specific process conditions that are neither claimed nor disclosed as required to achieve the claimed WER.
Claim 32: Kalutarage discloses a cluster tool for each of the process steps (0053-0055) and thus using different chambers (i.e. ex situ) for the deposition, thermal and plasma anneal would have been obvious in view of the complete disclosure of Kalutarage to reap the benefits as outlined for the cluster tool.
Claim 33: Kalutarage discloses a remote plasma and using such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (0015).
Claim 34: Kalutarage discloses a cluster tool, i.e. a multi-reactor chamber, and using a single chamber of each of the individual processes and transferring the substrate between the chambers (0053-0054) and therefore using a first reactor, a second reactor, and a third reactor, and transferring the substrate therebetween would have been obvious in view of the fully disclosure of Kalutarage as well as all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 18 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage with Nguyen taken collectively with US Patent Application 20120149213 by Nittala et al.
Kalutarage with Nguyen discloses all that is taught above and discloses the use of a plasma and the examiner maintains the obviousness of the power for the reasons set forth above; however, the reference fails to explicitly disclose the power. However, Nittala, also in the art of FCVD for gap-filling and discloses generating a microwave or RF plasma using the power that encompasses the claimed range (0054) and therefore using the power as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve the desired plasma processing.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage with Nguyen taken collectively with CN 109585264, hereinafter CN 264.
Kalutarage with Nguyen discloses all that is taught above and discloses the use of a silicon-nitrogen precursor for a FCVD deposited film. CN 264, also in the art of SiN deposition using FCVD and discloses known precursors include “TRISILYLCYCLOTRISILAZANE is one kind of or several kinds. and said ring silane molecules in the H: Si ratio of 2: 1, before comparing the TSA, TSA or TSA trimer precursors” and therefore using TSA trimer would have been obvious as predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights