Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) #1 has 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim #1, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee".
Chang shows, with respect to claim #1, a method of processing a substrate having a gap (fig. #3B, item 310) (paragraph 0045), the method comprising: loading the substrate (fig. #710, item 7) onto a substrate support unit (fig. #715, item 7) (paragraph 0066); supplying an oligomeric silicon precursor (silanes; paragraph 0011) and a nitrogen-containing gas onto the substrate on the substrate support unit through a gas supply unit (paragraph 0011, 0043, 0070); and generating a direct plasma (CCP or RF system; paragraph 0019, 0030, 0043) in a reaction space by applying a voltage to at least one of the substrate support unit and the gas supply unit (paragraph 0066), wherein a plurality of sub-steps are performed during the supplying of the oligomeric silicon precursor and the nitrogen-containing gas and the generating a direct plasma (CCP or RF system; paragraph 0019, 0030, 0043, 0069), and different process parameters are applied during the plurality of sub-steps (paragraph 0011, 0028-0031).
Chang substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Chang fails to teach, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising wherein the oligomeric silicon precursor comprises 2 to 10 repeating units.
Chatterjee teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising wherein the oligomeric silicon precursor comprises 2 to 10 repeating units.
The Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature of having the silicon precursor comprise of 2 to 10 repeating units, be critical to the method of operation. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by the invention of Chatterjee, which teaches, a method comprising wherein the oligomeric silicon precursor comprises 2 to 10 repeating units, to incorporate a structural condition that would modify the material properties for specific processing steps and create a better interface (which would include, improving surface smoothness for better wafer bonding, creating a hydrophilic surface, forming a better barrier for dopant diffusion and enable selective etching, as taught by Chatterjee.
Chang shows, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein a flowable silicon nitride film is formed on the substrate during the generating a direct plasma (CCP or RF system; paragraph 0019, 0030, 0043).
//
Claim #3, 9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee", as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee, fail to show, with respect to claim #3, a method further comprising: converting the silicon nitride film into a silicon oxide film.
Fukazawa teaches, with respect to claim #3, a method further comprising: converting the silicon nitride film into a silicon oxide film (paragraph 0018, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee, with the modifications of Fukazawa invention, which teaches, a method further comprising: converting the silicon nitride film into a silicon oxide film, to incorporate a structural condition that would modify the material properties for specific processing steps and create a better interface (which would include, improving surface smoothness for better wafer bonding, creating a hydrophilic surface, forming a better barrier for dopant diffusion and enable selective etching, as taught by Fukazawa.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee, fails to show, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps comprises a first sub-step and a second sub-step subsequent to the first sub-step.
Fukazawa teaches, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps comprises a first sub-step and a second sub-step subsequent to the first sub-step (fig. #3; paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #9, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee, with the modification of f Fukazawa invention, which teaches, a method a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps comprises a first sub-step and a second sub-step subsequent to the first sub-step, to incorporate a structural condition that would modify the material properties for specific processing steps and create a better interface (which would include, improving surface smoothness for better wafer bonding, creating a hydrophilic surface, forming a better barrier for dopant diffusion and enable selective etching, as taught by Fukazawa.
Chang shows, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein a silicon nitride film for filling the gap is formed during the generating a direct plasma (CCP or RF system; paragraph 0019, 0030, 0043).
Chang shows, with respect to claim #12, a method wherein the silicon nitride film comprises a first portion (deposition of silicon layer) and a second portion ( exposure to nitrogen or oxygen) formed on the first portion, and the first portion is formed by the first sub-step, and the second portion is formed by the second sub-step (paragraph 0009, 0011).
Chang shows, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein first RF power is applied during the first sub-step (deposition of silicon layer), and second RF power (deposition of silicon layer) less than the first RF power is applied during the second sub- step (paragraph 0009, 0011).
//
Claim #4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above and in view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0359311), hereinafter referred to as "Chen".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fails to show, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps are performed at a first temperature and the converting is performed at a second temperature higher than the first temperature.
Chen teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps are performed at a first temperature (paragraph 0032) and the converting is performed at a second temperature higher than the first temperature (paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, as modified by the invention of Chen , which teaches, wherein the plurality of sub-steps are performed at a first temperature and the converting is performed at a second temperature higher than the first temperature, to incorporate a structural condition that would allow the complete conversion of the silicon nitride layer, as taught by Chen.
///
Claim #5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above and in view of Tanaka et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,333,547), hereinafter referred to as "Tanaka".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fail to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein, during the converting, the silicon oxide film has an oxygen concentration within a preset deviation across a depth of the gap, and the oxygen concentration within the preset deviation is caused by the plurality of sub-steps to which different process parameters are applied.
Tanaka teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein, during the converting, the silicon oxide film has an oxygen concentration within a preset deviation across a depth of the gap, and the oxygen concentration within the preset deviation is caused by the plurality of sub-steps to which different process parameters are applied (column #24, line 19-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, as modified by the invention of Tanaka, which teaches, a method wherein, during the converting, the silicon oxide film has an oxygen concentration within a preset deviation across a depth of the gap, and the oxygen concentration within the preset deviation is caused by the plurality of sub-steps to which different process parameters are applied, to incorporate a structural condition that would enhance the purity of the conversion process, as taught by Tanaka.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fails to show, with respect to claim #7, a method further comprising: densifying the silicon oxide film.
Tanaka teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method further comprising: densifying the silicon oxide film (column #24, line 19-51).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, as modified by the invention of Tanaka, which teaches, a method further comprising: densifying the silicon oxide film, to incorporate a structural condition that would enhance the purity of the conversion process, as taught by Tanaka.
///
Claim #8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" and Tanaka et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,333,547), hereinafter referred to as "Tanaka" as shown in the rejection of claim #7 above and in further view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0359311), hereinafter referred to as "Chen".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee, Fukazawa and Tanaka, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #7 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee, Fukazawa and Tanaka, fail to show, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps are performed at a first temperature, and the densifying is performed at a third temperature higher than the first temperature.
Chen teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps are performed at a first temperature, and the densifying is performed at a third temperature higher than the first temperature (paragraph 0032, 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee, Fukazawa and Tanaka, with the modification of the invention of Chen, which teaches, a method wherein the plurality of sub-steps are performed at a first temperature, and the densifying is performed at a third temperature higher than the first temperature, to incorporate a structural condition that would allow the complete conversion of the silicon nitride layer, as taught by Chen.
////
Claim #6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above and in further view of Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0247830), hereinafter referred to as " Lei ".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #3 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fails to show, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the converting is performed by using remote oxygen plasma.
Lei teaches, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the converting is performed by using remote oxygen plasma (paragraph 0075, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #6, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, with the modification of Lei, which teaches, a method wherein the converting is performed by using remote oxygen plasma, to incorporate a structural condition that would allow for damage-free surface modification (etching, cleaning), as taught by Lei.
/////
Claim #10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above and in further view of Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0142192), hereinafter referred to as "Li".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fail to show, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein a first process parameter is set to prevent pores from being formed in a film filling a gap during the first sub-step, and a second process parameter is set to prevent the film filling the gap from being polymerized during the second sub- step.
Li teaches, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein a first process parameter is set to prevent pores from being formed in a film filling a gap during the first sub-step, and a second process parameter is set to prevent the film filling the gap from being polymerized during the second sub- step (paragraph 0023, 0026, 0048).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #10, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, with the invention of Li, which teaches, a method wherein a first process parameter is set to prevent pores from being formed in a film filling a gap during the first sub-step, and a second process parameter is set to prevent the film filling the gap from being polymerized during the second sub-step, to incorporate a structural condition that would modify the material properties for specific processing steps and create a better interface (which would include, improving surface smoothness for better wafer bonding, creating a hydrophilic surface, forming a better barrier for dopant diffusion and enable selective etching, as taught by Li.
//////
Claim #14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above and in further view of Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0247830), hereinafter referred to as "Lei".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fail to show, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein argon plasma and helium plasma are generated during the generating a direct plasma, and a ratio of an argon gas to a helium gas during the first sub-step is less than a ratio of the argon gas to the helium gas during the second sub-step.
Lei teaches, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein argon plasma and helium plasma are generated during the generating a direct plasma, and a ratio of an argon gas to a helium gas during the first sub-step is less than a ratio of the argon gas to the helium gas during the second sub-step (paragraph 0080, 0143).
The Examiner notes that Lei discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly stating that there is a difference in ratio between the first and second subset. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to allow a difference in ratio between the first and second subset, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re A11er, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #14, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by the invention of Chatterjee and Fukazawa, with the modification of Lei, which teaches, a method wherein argon plasma and helium plasma are generated during the generating a direct plasma, and a ratio of an argon gas to a helium gas during the first sub-step is less than a ratio of the argon gas to the helium gas during the second sub-step, to incorporate a structural condition that would lower film dielectric constant and boost the damage resistance to following plasma process, as taught by Lei.
Chang shows, with respect to claim #15, a method wherein the reaction space is maintained at a first pressure during the first sub-step, and the reaction space is maintained at a second pressure higher than the first pressure during the second sub-step (paragraph 0052, 0073-0074).
///////
Claim #16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0189781), hereinafter referred to as "Chang" as modified by Chatterjee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0073144), hereinafter referred to as "Chatterjee" and Fukazawa et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0118667), hereinafter referred to as "Fukazawa" as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above and in further view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0359311), hereinafter referred to as "Chen".
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fail to show, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein a flow rate of the oligomeric silicon precursor supplied during the first sub-step is less than a flow rate of the oligomeric silicon precursor supplied during the second sub-step.
Chen teaches, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein a flow rate of the oligomeric silicon precursor supplied during the first sub-step is less than a flow rate of the oligomeric silicon precursor supplied during the second sub-step (paragraph 0032, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #16, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by the invention of Chatterjee and Fukazawa, with the modification of Chen, which teaches, a method wherein a flow rate of the oligomeric silicon precursor supplied during the first sub-step is less than a flow rate of the oligomeric silicon precursor supplied during the second sub-step, to incorporate a structural condition that would have accurate material delivery to reduce kinks and pores in deposited layer, as taught by Chen.
Chang as modified by Chatterjee and Fukazawa, fail to show, with respect to claim #17, a method wherein a flow rate of the nitrogen-containing gas supplied during the first sub-step is greater than a flow rate of the nitrogen-containing gas supplied during the second sub-step.
Chen teaches, with respect to claim #17, a method wherein a flow rate of the nitrogen-containing gas supplied during the first sub-step is greater than a flow rate of the nitrogen-containing gas supplied during the second sub-step (paragraph 0032, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #17, to modified the invention of Chang as modified by the invention of Chatterjee and Fukazawa, with the modification of Chen, which teaches, a method wherein a flow rate of the nitrogen-containing gas supplied during the first sub-step is greater than a flow rate of the nitrogen-containing gas supplied during the second sub-step, to incorporate a structural condition that would have accurate material delivery to reduce kinks and pores in deposited layer, as taught by Chen.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
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 Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
06/09/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights