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 .
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2016/0020092 (as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
i) iteratively repeating a deposition cycle x times on a substrate disposed within a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (as recited in step of figure 2A), and wherein the deposition cycle comprises:
i-a) depositing a silicon-containing material on the substrate (step 204 in figure 2A, [0058], and claim 1(a));
i-b) purging the processing region after operation i-a (step 206 in figure 2A and [0059]);
i-c) exposing the silicon-containing material to a first oxygen plasma to convert the silicon-containing material to a silicon-and-oxygen-containing material ,wherein the first oxygen plasma is generated at a first plasma power (2000-5000 W, , [0046]), and wherein the exposing is for a first time (0.5-1 seconds [0046]);
i-d) purging the processing region after operation i-c (step 212 in figure 2A and [0062]);
ii) optionally repeating operations i-a and i-b (step 214, when the layer is not sufficiently thick)
iii) performing a densification operation by exposing the silicon-and-oxygen- containing material to a second oxygen plasma to produce a densified silicon-and-oxygen- containing material (step 213 in figure 2A, [0063], and claim 1(b) as “exposing the surface to plasma”);
wherein the second oxygen plasma is generated at a second plasma power (1000-5000 Watts [0065]), wherein the exposing is for a second time (10-100 seconds, [0066]), and
iv) iteratively performing operations i through iii y times [0064],
Kang fails to teach 3 ≤ x ≤100 and 2 ≤ y≤ 50 and the first plasma power is lower than the second plasma power.
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and the oxygen plasma power of the deposition process is 2000-5000 W and the oxygen plasma power for the densification process is 1000-5000W, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable oxygen plasma powers in the deposition and densification process in the method of Kang
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claims 2-3, Kang fails to teach 5 < x < 50, 3 < y < 10.
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and the oxygen plasma power of the deposition process is 2000-5000 W and the oxygen plasma power for the densification process is 1000-5000W, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable oxygen plasma powers in the deposition and densification process in the method of Kang
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 4, Kang teaches the deposition cycle is 3 seconds or less (Claim 7).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "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). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
Regarding claim 5, while Kang teaches the second plasma power is about 1500 W to about 2500 W (1000-5000 Watts [0065]), Kang fails to teach the first plasma power is about 100 W to about 2500 W.
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and the oxygen plasma power of the deposition process is 2000-5000 W and the oxygen plasma power for the densification process is 1000-5000W, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable oxygen plasma powers in the deposition and densification process in the method of Kang
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 6, Kang teaches the first time is about 0.1 seconds to about 1 second (0.5-1 second, claim 7), and wherein the second time is about 1 second to about 30 seconds (10-100 seconds, [0066]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "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). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches the substrate defines one or more features (trenches) along the substrate, and wherein the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material extends within the one or more features along the substrate (figure 7A).
Regarding claim 8, Kang fails to teach a pressure within the processing region is maintained at greater than or about 100 Torr while depositing the silicon-containing material on the substrate.
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as pressure of the processing region, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of pressure of the processing claimed and Kang discloses this process being performed in a processing region, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable processing pressure in the method of Kang
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed processing pressure or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches the semiconductor processing method of claim 1, wherein the silicon- containing material is or is derived from a silicon-containing precursor that comprises one or more of: silane (SiH4), dislane (Si2H6), silicon tetrachloride (SiCl4), tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS), and aminosilane [0072]
Regarding claim 10, Kang teaches the silicon-and- oxygen-containing material after operation i has a thickness of about 3 Å to about 100 Å [0035].
Regarding claim 11, Kang fails to teach the silicon-and- oxygen-containing material has a compressive stress of about -225 MPa to about -50 MPa, and the densified silicon-and-oxygen-containing material has a compressive stress of about -350 MPa to about -200 MPa, and wherein the compressive stress of the silicon-and-oxygen- containing material is greater than the compressive stress of the densified silicon-and-oxygen- containing material.
However, MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Regarding claim 12, Kang fails to teach the silicon-and- oxygen-containing material has a wet etch rate ratio (WERR) (in 1% HF) relative to thermal oxide of about 1.5 to about 4, and the densified silicon-and-oxygen-containing material has a WERR (in 1% HF) relative to thermal oxide of about 0.1 to about 2, and wherein the WERR of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material is greater than the WERR of the densified silicon- and-oxygen-containing material.
However, MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Regarding claim 13, Kang fails to teach the silicon-and- oxygen-containing material has a refractive index of about 1 to about 1.5, and the densified silicon-and-oxygen-containing material has a refractive index of about 1.1 to about 2, and wherein the refractive index of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material is less than the refractive index of the densified silicon-and-oxygen-containing material.
However, MPEP 2112.01 stated that when the structure recited is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Therefore, these limitations are held to be a matter of obviousness. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al, US Patent Application Publication 2016/0020092 in view of Dole, US Patent 10,170,324 (both as cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 14, Kang teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising:
i) iteratively repeating a deposition cycle x times on a substrate in a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (as recited in step of figure 2A), wherein the deposition cycle comprises:
i-a) depositing a silicon-containing material on the substrate (step 204 in figure 2A, [0058], and claim 1(a));
i-b) purging the processing region after operation i-a (step 206 in figure 2A and [0059]);
i-c) exposing the silicon-containing material to a first oxygen plasma to convert the silicon-containing material to a silicon-and-oxygen-containing material, wherein the first oxygen plasma is generated at a first plasma power (6000-10,000 Watts, [0061]),, wherein the exposing is for a first time, and wherein in each iteration of the deposition cycle the first plasma power, and the first time is about 0.2 seconds to 3 seconds (2-5 seconds [0061] or 0.5-1 second in claim 7. See step 208/210 in figure 2A, [0060-0061], and claim 1(b));
i-d) purging the processing region after operation i-c (step 212 in figure 2A and [0062]);
ii) optionally repeating operations i-a and i-b (step 214, when the layer is not sufficiently thick);
iii) performing a densification operation by exposing the silicon-and-oxygen- containing material to a second oxygen plasma to produce a densified silicon-and-oxygen- containing material, wherein the second oxygen plasma is generated at a second plasma power, wherein the exposing is for a second time, wherein the first plasma power is lower than the second plasma power and/or the first time is shorter than the second time, and wherein in each iteration of the densification operation the second plasma power is about 1000 W to about 2500 W (1000-5000 Watts [0065]), and the second time is about 1 second to 40 seconds (10-100 seconds, [0066], (step 213 in figure 2A, [0063], and claim 1(b) as “exposing the surface to plasma”); and
iv) iteratively performing operations i through iii y times while the substrate is maintained in the processing region [0064].
Kang fails to teach the first plasma power is about 100 W to about 2500 W, independently choosing the plasma power and time for each iteration of both the deposition cycle and densification cycle, 3 ≤ x ≤100 and 2 ≤ y≤ 50, and the pressure within the processing region is maintained at greater than or about 100 Torr
However, Dole teaches that processing parameters such a reactant dosing time, and RF power may be different between two deposition operations, for example to achieve different levels of conformality of the protective film being deposited in each operation (column 11, lines 6-22). By changing the deposition conditions for additional deposition iterations are performed, the processing conditions for each iteration can be tailored/optimized for the instant feature shape necessary, thereby improving the semiconductor device formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dole with that of Kang because the processing conditions for each iteration can be tailored/optimized for the instant feature shape necessary, thereby improving the semiconductor device formed.
Kang and Dole fail to teach 3 ≤ x ≤100 and 2 ≤ y≤ 50 and the pressure within the processing region is maintained at greater than or about 100 Torr
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the pressure in the processing region, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the pressure of the processing region claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and this process being performed in a processing region under pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable processing region pressure in the method of Kang.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the processing region pressure or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claims 15-16, Kang fails to teach 5 < x < 50 and 3 < y < 20.
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the pressure in the processing region, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the pressure of the processing region claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and this process being performed in a processing region under pressure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable processing region pressure in the method of Kang.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the processing region pressure or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 17, Kang teaches the deposition cycle is 1.5 seconds or less (Claim 7).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "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). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
Regarding claim 18, while Kang teaches the second plasma power is about 1500 W to about 2500 W (1000-5000 Watts [0065]), Kang fails to teach the first plasma power is about 500 W to about 2500 W.
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and the oxygen plasma power of the deposition process is 2000-5000 W and the oxygen plasma power for the densification process is 1000-5000W, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable oxygen plasma powers in the deposition and densification process in the method of Kang
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 19, Kang teaches the first time is about 0.1 seconds to about 0.7 second (0.5-1 second, claim 7), and wherein the second time is about 3 second to about 25 seconds (10-100 seconds, [0066]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "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). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
Regarding claim 20, Kang teaches a semiconductor processing method comprising
:i) iteratively repeating a deposition cycle x times on a substrate in a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (as recited in step of figure 2A), wherein the deposition cycle comprises:
i-a) depositing a silicon-containing material on the substrate (step 204 in figure 2A, [0058], and claim 1(a));
i-b) purging the semiconductor processing chamber after operation i-a (step 206 in figure 2A and [0059]);
i-c) exposing the silicon-containing material to a first oxygen plasma to convert the silicon-containing material to a silicon-and-oxygen-containing material, wherein the first oxygen plasma is generated at a first plasma power (6000-10,000 Watts, [0061]), wherein the exposing is for a first time (2-5 seconds [0061] or 0.5-1 second in claim 7. See step 208/210 in figure 2A, [0060-0061], and claim 1(b));
i-d) purging the semiconductor processing chamber after operation i-c (step 212 in figure 2A and [0062]);
ii) optionally repeating operations i-a and i-b (step 214, when the layer is not sufficiently thick);
iii) performing a densification operation by exposing the silicon-and-oxygen- containing material to a second oxygen plasma to produce a densified silicon-and-oxygen- containing material, wherein the second oxygen plasma is generated at a second plasma power between 1500W and about 2500 W [0065], wherein the exposing is for a second time (10-100 seconds, [0066]), and wherein the first plasma power is lower than the second plasma power and/or the first time is shorter than the second (step 213 in figure 2A, [0063], and claim 1(b) as “exposing the surface to plasma”); and
iv) iteratively performing operations i through iii y times while the substrate is maintained in the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber [0064], wherein each iteration of the operations i through iii produces a layer of the densified silicon- and-oxygen-containing material having a thickness of about 3 Å to about 100 Å [0035]
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).
Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. "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). See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g).
Kang fails to teach in each iteration of the deposition cycle the first plasma power and the first time can vary; in each iteration of the densification operation the second plasma power and the second time can vary, 3 ≤ x ≤100 and 2 ≤ y≤ 50
However, Dole teaches in each iteration of the deposition cycle the first plasma power and the first time can vary; in each iteration of the densification operation the second plasma power and the second time can. Dole teaches that processing parameters such a reactant dosing time, and RF power may be different between two deposition operations, for example to achieve different levels of conformality of the protective film being deposited in each operation (column 11, lines 6-22). By changing the deposition conditions for additional deposition iterations are performed, the processing conditions for each iteration can be tailored/optimized for the instant feature shape necessary, thereby improving the semiconductor device formed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dole with that of Kang because the processing conditions for each iteration can be tailored/optimized for the instant feature shape necessary, thereby improving the semiconductor device formed.
Kang and Dole fail to teach 3 ≤ x ≤100 and 2 ≤ y≤ 50
However, it has been held that certain process parameters, such as the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process, will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process claimed and Kang teaches that the deposition and densification process may be repeated and the oxygen plasma power of the deposition process is 2000-5000 W and the oxygen plasma power for the densification process is 1000-5000W, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and suitable oxygen plasma powers in the deposition and densification process in the method of Kang.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed the number of iterations of the deposition and densification processes and the oxygen plasma power used in the deposition and densification process or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments concerning claims 9 and 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 9, while Applicant has argued that the using a pressure of 5X greater than the discussed pressures of Kang would not be an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art, it is maintained that the originally-filed Specification fails to recite the criticality of the processing region pressure being 100 Torr or any unexpected result from having the processing region pressure being 100 Torr. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 is maintained.
Regarding claim 14, while Applicant has argued that the second power, as taught by Kang, would ultimately be between 250 Watts and 1250 Watt and that this limitation is different than the second plasma power of about 1500-2500 Wall, it is maintained that Kang still teaches 1000-5000W for the second power processing. Tt is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., in one processing chamber) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, this rejection is maintained.
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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899