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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Gaillard does not teach the claimed precursors, the claimed density or amount of oxygen in the film and that the claimed levels are only achieved by annealing in Gaillard. It is noted that the annealing step in Gaillard is optional, thus this does not teach away from the claimed density. In addition, the rejection is under Gaillard in view of Afzali-Ardakani et al. 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). The density of the film is a physical property that would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because Gaillard et al. and Afzali-Ardakani et al., in combination, teach the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and the film resulting from the claimed method will have the same properties. It is suggested that to overcome this rejection, amendments should be made showing that the reaction/method are different from the prior art combination in order to arrive at the preferred result.
Similarly, in claims 12 and 18, these are physical properties. The physical properties would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because Gaillard et al. and Afzali-Ardakani et al., in combination, teach the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and the film resulting from the claimed method will have the same properties. It is suggested that to overcome this rejection, amendments should be made showing that the reaction/method are different from the prior art combination in order to arrive at the preferred result.
As to claims 3-5, Gaillard teaches ammonia in col. 6 lines 44-51 and the dopant flow rate ratio is as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 7 lines 1-20. Further, 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Using ammonia as a nitrogen source is common in the art. As to claim 6, He is used in the claimed ratio in Gaillard et al. col. 6 lines 50-65. As to claim 7, the power is as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 7 lines 1-20. As to claims 8-9, the pressure and temperature are maintained as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 6 lines 52-65. As to claim 21, the deposition rate is as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 7 lines 1-20. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but rather whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“a court can take into account the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). Furthermore, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the techniques is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” See id. At 417.
As to claims 16 and 20, the physical properties would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because Gaillard et al. and Afzali-Ardakani et al., in combination, teach the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and the film resulting from the claimed method will have the same properties. It is suggested that to overcome this rejection, amendments should be made showing that the reaction/method are different from the prior art combination in order to arrive at the preferred result. 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).
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaillard et al. (US 6627532 B1) in view of Afzali-Ardakani et al. (US 2007/0173071 A1)
As to claim 1, Gaillard et al. teaches a semiconductor processing method (col.1) comprising: providing deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein the deposition precursors comprise a silicon-oxygen-and-carbon- containing precursor (col. 4, table), and wherein a substrate is disposed within the processing region; forming plasma effluents of the deposition precursors; and depositing a layer of silicon-oxygen-and-carbon-containing material on the substrate (col. 5 lines 54-67, apparatus shown in Fig. 1), wherein the layer of silicon-oxygen-and-carbon-containing material is characterized by a dielectric constant of less than or about 4.2 (abstract-3).
Gaillard teaches the similar compounds in its col. 4 Table for the precursor, but not those claimed. Afzali-Ardakani et al. is in the same field of endeavor and teaches the claimed precursors in para 0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gaillard to include the precursors of Afzali-Ardakani et al. as Afzali-Ardakani et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Gaillard et al. does not teach wherein the layer of silicon-oxygen-and- carbon-containing material is characterized by a density of greater than or about 2.0 g/cm3. However, the density of the film is a physical property that would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because the combination of the prior art teaches the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and the combination’s film will have the same properties, absent amendments showing reaction/method details that would distinguish the film created in the combination from the instant film.
Alternatively, in the instant specification para 0010, the density is modified by modifying the amount of oxygen in the film. Likewise, Gaillard teaches modifying the amount of oxygen in the film in column 5 et seq. which also includes annealing that would densify the film. Therefore, the density would be modified by routine experimentation. 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 3-4, Gaillard teaches ammonia in col. 6 lines 44-51.
As to claim 5, the dopant flow rate ratio is as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 7 lines 1-20. Further, 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 6, He is used in the claimed ratio in Gaillard et al. col. 6 lines 50-65.
As to claim 7, the power is as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 7 lines 1-20.
As to claims 8-9, the pressure and temperature are maintained as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 6 lines 52-65.
As to claims 10-11, the oxygen content and the nitrogen content is modified based on device requirements in Gaillard et al. col. 5 lines 25-40 and col. 7 lines 1-20.
As to claim 21, the deposition rate is as claimed in Gaillard et al. col. 7 lines 1-20.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaillard et al. (US 6627532 B1).
As to claim 12, Gaillard et al. teaches a semiconductor processing method (col.1) comprising: providing deposition precursors to a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, wherein the deposition precursors comprise a silicon-oxygen-and-carbon- containing precursor (col. 4, table), and wherein a substrate is disposed within the processing region; forming plasma effluents of the deposition precursors; and depositing a layer of silicon-oxygen-and-carbon-containing material on the substrate (col. 5 lines 54-67, apparatus shown in Fig. 1), wherein the layer of silicon-oxygen-and-carbon-containing material is characterized by a dielectric constant of less than or about 4.2 (abstract-3). Gaillard et al. does not teach the claimed oxygen content.
In the instant specification para 0010, the density is modified by modifying the amount of oxygen in the film. Likewise, Gaillard teaches modifying the amount of oxygen in the film in column 5 et seq. which also includes annealing that would densify the film. The oxygen content and the nitrogen content is modified based on device requirements in col. 5 lines 25-40 and col. 7 lines 1-20.
Therefore, the density and oxygen content would be modified by routine experimentation. 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 13, the precursor is taught in the col. 4 Table.
As to claims 14-15, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
As to claim 16, regarding the breakdown voltage of the material, the breakdown voltage of the film is a physical property that would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because the Gaillard et al. combination teaches the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and Gaillard’s film will have the same properties, absent amendments showing reaction/method details that would distinguish the film created in Gaillard from the instant film.
As to claim 17, the temperature is as claimed in col. 6 lines 52-65.
As to claim 18, these limitations are taught as discussed above regarding claim 12. In addition, Gaillard et al. does not teach wherein the layer of silicon-oxygen-and- carbon-containing material is characterized by a density of greater than or about 2.0 g/cm3.
However, the density of the film is a physical property that would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because the Gaillard et al. combination teaches the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and the combination’s film will have the same properties, absent amendments showing reaction/method details that would distinguish the film created in the combination from the instant film.
Alternatively, in the instant specification para 0010, the density is modified by modifying the amount of oxygen in the film. Likewise, Gaillard teaches modifying the amount of oxygen in the film in column 5 et seq. which also includes annealing that would densify the film. Therefore, the density would be modified by routine experimentation. 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 19, the deposition rate is as claimed in col. 7 lines 1-20.
As to claim 20, regarding the leakage current of the material, the leakage current of the film is a physical property that would naturally flow from the claimed method. Thus, because the Gaillard et al. combination teaches the claimed method, it follows that the result should be the same and the combination’s film will have the same properties, absent amendments showing reaction/method details that would distinguish the film created in the combination from the instant film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights