DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Applicant's amendment filed on November 3, 2025 was received. Claim 1 was amended. No claim was canceled. No claim was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35. U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action Issued August 13, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on November 13, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn, because the claims have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Utsuno (US20210151348) in view of Blanquart (US20200013612).
Regarding claim 1, Utsuno teaches a method for filling a recess on a surface of a substate with carbon containing material (abstract, paragraph 0008) (forming a layer on a pattern region where recesses are formed, in which the region is formed on a surface of a substate to be processed). Utsuno teaches to supply a material precursor gas and a carrier gas to the surface of the substate to be processed on the side where the recesses are provided, and applying a high frequency voltage to the gases to form plasma, a first layer is formed in the first recesses to be higher that the top of the recesses (Utsuno’s step 108 of forming the second carbon layer, paragraph 0038-0041, 0055, 0066, see figure 3d). Utsuno teaches to etch the carbon layer such that a surface until a surface of the second carbon layer within the recess is below the top surface or not below the top surface (paragraphs 0056 and 0058). Utsuno teaches a second step to supply a material precursor and a carrier gas to the surface of the substate to be processed on the side where the recesses are provided, and apply a high frequency voltage to the gases to form plasma, a third layer is formed on the layer formed on the pattern region so as to be higher than the top of the second recess (Utsuno’s step 112 of forming the third carbon layer, paragraph 0038-0041, 0059, 0066, see figure 3f).
Utsuno does not explicitly teaches the pattern region with first recesses formed at relatively low density and the pattern region with second recesses formed at relatively high density. However, Blanquart teaches a method of forming semiconductor (paragraph 0115) comprising filing trenches with insulating material with carbon material (paragraph 0002- 0003), which is the same as Utsuno (paragraphs 0002- 0003). Blanquart teaches to fill the trenches with carbon containing layer on the substate wherein the substrate comprises the low density pattern region with first recesses formed at relatively low density and the high density pattern region with second recesses formed at relatively high density (see figure 6, paragraph 0008). Since the structure density patterns of Blanquart are the same with the claimed invention, it would be expected the etching of Utsuno would result in the first layer on the first recesses higher than the second layer on the second recesses. Since Utsuno teaches to etch the carbon layer such that a surface until a surface of the second carbon layer within the recess can be below the top surface or not below the top surface (paragraphs 0056 and 0058), thus, the method of Utsuno apply to Blanquart’s substrate would include the result of a first layer being etched so as to be higher than the top of the first recesses and a second layer is etched so as to be lower than the top of the second recesses, depending on the density of the recesses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the substrate with the density pattern regions as suggested by Blanguart in the method of Utsuno, because Blanquart teaches such substrate with the recess pattern is suitable to be filled with carbon layer in forming semiconductor devices (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 2, Utsuno does not explicitly teaches the distance as claimed.
However, it is well settled changes is proportion/size would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the proportion/size of the claimed feature was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of the distance in light of the teaching of Utsumo.
Regarding claim 3, Utsuno teaches the etching gas is oxygen or hydrogen (paragraph 0052, 0058).
Regarding claim 4, Utsuno teaches the layer is carbon layer (paragraph 0008), and the precursor gas is CxHyNz, wherein x is 2 or more, y is natural number, including 2 or more, and z is zero), which is the same structure as the claimed structure (I) (paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 5, Utsuno teaches the first step and second step are performed while heating the substrate at a temperature of about 20ºC to about 100ºC (paragraphs 0036, 0055, 0057, 0059), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Utsuno teaches the etching step is preformed while heating the substrate to be processed at a temperature of about 20ºC to about 100ºC (paragraphs 0054, 0057), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Utsuno teaches the first step and second step are performed under a pressure of 200 to 1250 pa (paragraphs 0057 and 0059), which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Utsuno teaches the width (diameter) of the features about 10 to about 100nm and the depth is about 30 nm to about 1000nm and the aspect ratio is about 3 to 20 (paragraph 0023), which overlap with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Utsuno teaches the frequency of the high frequency voltage in the first step, etching step and second step is in a range from about 2MHz to about 27.12 MHz (paragraphs 0053, 0057), which overlap the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Utsuno teaches the layer is carbon layer (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claims 11-12, Blanquart teaches to fill the trenches with carbon containing layer on the substate wherein the substrate comprises the low density pattern region with first recesses formed at relatively low density and the high density pattern region with second recesses formed at relatively high density (see figure 6, paragraph 0008). Since the structure density patterns of Blanquart are the same with the claimed invention, it would be expected the etching of Utsuno would result in the first layer on the first recesses higher than the second layer on the second recesses. Since Utsuno teaches to etch the carbon layer such that a surface until a surface of the second carbon layer within the recess can be below the top surface or not below the top surface (paragraphs 0056 and 0058), thus, the method of Utsuno apply to Blanquart’s substrate would include the result of a first layer being etched so as to be higher than the top of the first recesses and a second layer is etched so as to be lower than the top of the second recesses. Thus, Utsuno in view of Blanquart teaches the height difference between the first layer and the second layer after etching. The height of the layers would depend on the density of the recess as more material would be required to fill up more recess (high density), thus, causing the height (thickness) to be lower in a uniform depositing process; and the differences in the height would remain during an uniform etching process. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize the height of the layers (first and second, and also the difference of the layers) in the process to have the proper thickness covering the recess with desired density. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In particular, both the prior art and the claimed invention intended to form a top layer (second step of forming both third and fourth layer) to cover all the recesses, thus, the height difference between the first and second layers after intermediate etching does not appear to be critical to the final result of the process (covering of all the recesses) without being specified in the claim; therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize such height of the first and second layers (and also the height difference) so to ensure the following second step would achieve the covering of all the recesses. Blanquart also teaches the final thickness of the layers to be 200nm or less (claim 9), thus, the height difference of the two layers would be reasonably expected to be less than 200nm. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exist. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler,116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05. It is noted that applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Utsuno does not teach the pattern region with first recesses and second recess with different density, thus does not teach the etching steps resulting in the height difference of first and second layers.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Utsuno teaches everything of the claim, including the first layer is formed in the first recesses to be higher than the top of the recesses (see figure 3d), and to etch the carbon layer such that a surface until a surface of the second carbon layer within the recess is below the top surface or not below the top surface (paragraphs 0056 and 0058). Blanquart is used to show that the recesses can be formed with the pattern region with first recesses formed at relatively low density and the pattern region with second recesses formed at relatively high density, and such substrate with is suitable to be filled with carbon layer in forming semiconductor devices (paragraph 0008) in Utsuno’s method. Since the structure density patterns of Blanquart are the same with the claimed invention, it would be expected the etching of Utsuno would result in the first layer on the first recesses higher than the second layer on the second recesses. Since Utsuno teaches to etch the carbon layer such that a surface until a surface of the second carbon layer within the recess can be below the top surface or not below the top surface (paragraphs 0056 and 0058), thus, the method of Utsuno apply to Blanquart’s substrate would include the result of a first layer being etched so as to be higher than the top of the first recesses and a second layer is etched so as to be lower than the top of the second recesses, depending on the density of the recesses. In particular, both prior art and the claimed method provide the same results of all the recesses being covered (see the second step), thus, the height difference provided by the intermediate etching steps does not appear to be critical (affecting the final product) and would be obvious to be optimized for facilitating the following second step of covering all the recesses.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1717