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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 18-30, in the reply filed on 01/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "wherein after each of operation vi, an angle of a sidewall of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material increases from a previous operation vi". This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear how this limitation could be applied, or what is required by the limitation, following the first operation vi when there is no “previous operation vi” that could be referenced.
Claim 27 is indefinite due to being dependent upon claim 26.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, Claim 26 will be examined as if it read “wherein after each operation vi after the first operation vi…” such that there are no requirements on the claimed “angle” following the first operation vi.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 18-21 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly et al. (US-20170114459-A1) in view of Ho et al. (US-20230025645-A1) and Zhang et al. (CN-115863409-A, machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Saly teaches A semiconductor processing method (Paragraph [0005] methods of processing a substrate. Paragraph [0023] substrate can be a semiconductor wafer) comprising:
i) providing a nitrogen-containing inhibitor to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber (Paragraph [0056] NH3 can be provided to the chamber and with the use of plasma, can create of poisoning gradient in a trench), wherein a substrate is disposed within the processing region of the semiconductor processing chamber (Paragraph [0070] substrate is positioned in a processing chamber and then exposed to a reactant in the chamber), wherein the substrate defines one or more features along the substrate, and wherein each of the one or more features has a top, a bottom, and sidewalls connecting the top and the bottom (Paragraph [0068] Figure 6A substrate comprises a trench that has a top (element 332), bottom (element 336), and sidewalls (element 334));
ii) absorbing the nitrogen-containing inhibitor on the top of the one or more features to a greater extent than on the bottom of the one or more features (Paragraph [0056] NH3 can be provided to the chamber and with the use of plasma, can create of poisoning gradient, that is stronger at the top than the bottom);
iii) depositing a silicon-containing material on the substrate after operation ii (Paragraph [0071] Figure 6C a film is deposited on the substrate and trench. Paragraph [0056] the deposition can be of SiO2. Paragraph [0055-57] process of film deposition can be ALD that includes a step where bis(diethylamino)silane is first supplied and adsorbs on the substrate);
iv) exposing the silicon-containing material to an oxygen plasma to convert the silicon-containing material to a silicon-and-oxygen-containing material (Paragraph [0055-57] process of film deposition can be ALD that includes a step of O2 plasma after the adsorption of bis(diethylamino)silane to form SiO2); and
v) repeating operations i through iv iteratively to deposit about 50 A to about 500 A of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material on the one or more features on the substrate (Paragraph [0058] teaches in an example that the process can be repeated in a cycle 100 times to deposit from 70.7-156 Å);
Saly fails to teach the method further comprises vi) exposing the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material to an etching agent to remove some of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material; and vii) repeating operations v through vi iteratively ending with the operation v to fill the one or more features with the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material.
Ho teaches a method that includes a multi-step deposition process to fill a recess (Paragraph [0046]). Ho teaches that the recess can be filled with a dielectric material that can include silicon (Paragraph [0047]). Ho teaches the process comprises a cycle where material is first deposited and then the material is partially etched before more material is deposited, and that this cycle can be repeated multiple times (Paragraph [0046]). Ho teaches that the cyclic process can end with a deposition step (Paragraph [0060]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Saly by further including the steps of etching the deposited material after the first deposition process and then repeating the cycle of deposition and etching, and ending with a deposition step to fill the recess as taught by Ho.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have had the predictable result of providing a cyclic method that would suitably fill a recess. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The method of modified Saly as outlined above fails to teach that about 10 Å to about 100 Å of the silicon-and-oxygen containing material is removed during operation vi.
Zhang teaches methods related to forming semiconductor devices (Paragraph [0001]). Zhang teaches a method that includes an anisotropic plasma etching process that utilizes NF3 as an etchant to etch through a dielectric layer that can be silicon oxide and is 30 to 50 angstroms thick (Paragraph [0064] anisotropic plasma etching process using NF3 can be used to etch the etching stop layer. Paragraph [0060] etch stop layer can be dielectric material such as silicon oxide and is 3-5nm, equivalent to 30-50 angstroms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Saly by removing 30-50 angstroms of silicon oxide during the etching step as taught by Zhang.
This modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art as it could be considered the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Ho teaches that some material is removed by the etching step, but is silent on the amount of material that is to be remove while Zhang teaches an amount of material that can be removed with a similar etching process. The combination would have resulted in the predictable result of providing a suitable amount of material that could be removed by the etching process outlined by Ho. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. Ho further teaches wherein the etching agent comprises products of a plasma produced using a halogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0053] the etching process is a plasma etching process that uses NF3).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. Saly further teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing inhibitor is a product of a plasma of a nitrogen-containing precursor (Paragraph [0056] NH3 can be provided to the chamber and with the use of plasma, can create ion that result in the poisoning gradient).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claims 18 and 20 as outlined above. Saly further teaches wherein the nitrogen-containing precursor comprises ammonia, nitrogen, or a combination thereof (Paragraph [0059] NH3 (ammonia), N2, and combinations can be used to poison the surfaces).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claims 18 and 20 as outlined above. Saly further teaches wherein the plasma is at a plasma power of about 500 W or less (Paragraph [0057] in an example plasma power was 400W).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above.
Saly fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between the substrate and where the nitrogen-containing inhibitor enters the processing region is about 4 mm to about 50 mm.
However, Saly further teaches that the distance between the substrate and where the nitrogen-inhibitor enters the processing region can be 0.1-5.0mm (Paragraph [0031] Figure 1 a processing chamber for film deposition processes is taught. Processing chamber (element 100) include a gas distribution assembly (element 120) that provides gas to the chamber and a susceptor assembly (element 140). Paragraph [0034] susceptor assembly supports the wafer. Paragraphs [0036-0037] the gap (element 170) between the susceptor assembly and the gas distribution assembly can be 0.1-5.0mm)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a distance between the substrate and where the nitrogen-containing inhibitor enters the processing region at a level within the disclosed range of 0.1-5.0mm, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of about 4 mm to about 50 mm. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claims 18 and 20 as outlined above. Saly further teaches wherein an exposure time to the plasma is about 60 seconds or less (Paragraph [0057] in an example exposure time was 3 seconds).
Regarding Claim 26, (Note this claim is being examined under the interpretation outlined in the 112 rejection section above) modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. Ho further teaches wherein after each of operation vi, an angle of a sidewall of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material increases from a previous operation vi (Paragraph [0055-0058] Figures 12, 13, 14 after the first etching process that the sidewall has an angle (angle ß) with the bottom surface that can be between 90-135° and after the second etching process the sidewall has an angle (angle γ) with the bottom surface that can be greater than 90° (angle γ increases after the etching process and before the etching step angle γ is around 90°). Additionally, as outlined in Paragraph [0060] and shown in Figure 12 and 14, as examples of the state of the substrate following successive etching operations, after multiple deposition-etch cycles, the depth of the recess would become shallower, therefore through each deposition-etch cycle the sidewalls of the recess would less vertical and more horizontal, which would result in the angle formed by the sidewall and the bottom on the recess to increase).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claims 18 and 26 as outlined above.
Ho fails to explicitly teach wherein the angle increases by about 5° or greater from the previous operation vi.
However, as outlined above with regards to claim 26, Ho teaches an example where after the first etch operation an angle of the sidewall is 90-135° and after the second etch operation the angle of the sidewall is greater than 90° and that the angle of the sidewall increases after each successive etch operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an angle of a sidewall after a second etch operation at a level within the disclosed range of greater than 90°, including at amounts such change in the angle when compared to the angle after the first etch operation overlaps with the claimed range of an angle increase of 5° or greater. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated an angle of a sidewall after each successive etch operation such that the change in the angle would be at a level within the disclosed range of greater than 0°, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of an angle increase of 5° or greater. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. Ho further teaches wherein exposing the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material to the etching agent nonconformally removes a portion of the silicon-and-oxygen-containing material (Paragraph [0054] the etching process has a non-uniform etch rate on the dielectric material).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claims 18 and 19 as outlined above. Ho further teaches wherein the halogen-containing precursor comprises one or more of: nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), hydrogen bromide (HBr), fluoromethane (CH3F), difluoromethane (CH2F2), trifluoromethane (CHF3), carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), and boron trichloride (BCl3) (Paragraph [0053] the plasma etching process that uses NF3).
Regarding Claim 30, modified Saly teaches all the limitations of claims 18 and 19 as outlined above.
Ho fails to explicitly teach wherein the plasma is at a plasma power of about 500 W or less.
However, Ho teaches that the power of the plasma etching process may be about 500-8000W (Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a plasma power at a level within the disclosed range of about 500-8000W, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of about 500W or less. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saly in view of Ho and Zhang, as applied to claims 18 and 10 above, and further in view of Gupta et al. (WO-2022027016-A1).
Modified Saly as outlined above fails to teach wherein a gas used to produce the plasma comprises 5 mol% to 75 mol% of the nitrogen-containing precursor.
Saly does teach that the gas supplied for the plasma can include other components besides the nitrogen-containing inhibitor (such as Ar, H2) and the poisoning agent can be included at a sub-saturative amount (Paragraphs [0059] and [0075-0075]), but fails to teach any ratios for the gas supplied.
Gupta teaches methods of semiconductor device fabrication that can include deposition of a silicon-containing film (Paragraphs [0002-0005]). Gupta teaches that deposition can include an initial step where an inhibitor chemistry is non-conformally applied to the substrate (Paragraph [0062] substrate is exposed to inhibition chemistry to selectively inhibit top of a recessed feature compared to bottom of the recessed feature). Gupta teaches that ammonia is a suitable inhibition gas (Paragraph [0086]). Teaches that the inhibition gas can comprise 0.5-10% of the total volumetric flow of the gas supplied to during the inhibition process, where the remaining flow can be an inert gas such as Ar (Paragraph [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of modified Saly by utilizing the gas supply ratio taught by Gupta for the operation of supplying a nitrogen-containing inhibitor to the processing region.
This modification would have been obvious as it can be considered the combination of prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results. This combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a suitable ratio of gases for an operation of supplying a inhibition gas for a selective inhibition of a recess process. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In an embodiment where the gas supplied for the operation of providing the nitrogen-containing inhibitor to the processing region uses the ratios taught by Gupta, where the nitrogen-containing inhibitor is ammonia and the additional gas supplied is argon then, the teachings of Gupta can be calculated to be equivalent to suppling a gas that has 0.51-10.12 mol% ammonia (10 (volume %) * 0.771 (g/L) / 17.031 (g/mol) = 0.4527 mol, 90 (volume %) * 1.7837 (g/L) / 39.948 (g/mol) = 4.0185 mol , 0.4527/(0.4527+4.0185)= 0.1012 = 10.12 mol % ammonia, 0.5 (volume %) * 0.771 (g/L) / 17.031 (g/mol) = 0.0226 mol, 99.5 (volume %) * 1.7837 (g/L) / 39.948 (g/mol) = 4.4427 mol, 0.0226/(0.0226+4.4427) = 0.0051 = 0.51 mol % ammonia. See reference documents “Ammonia – PubChem” and “Argon – PubChem” for densities and molar masses used in calculation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and incorporated a mole percent of ammonia within the gas used to produce the plasma at a level within the disclosed range of 0.51-10.12 mol %, including at amounts that overlap with the claimed range of 5-75 mol %. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW KEELAN LAOBAK whose telephone number is (703)756-5447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at 571-270-3176. 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.
/A.K.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713