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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in disclosure indicating the thickness of the treated material within the recess with second recess is within about 10 percent of the thickness of the treated material within the first recess after removing the portion of the treated material. For examination purposes it is considered as the thickness of heated material in the first and the second recess are about the same and within about 1 or 10 percent of each other.
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 1-7, 9, 12-14, 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya Yoshimoto et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0119944, here after Yoshimoto.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected. Yoshimoto teaches a method of forming material
within a recess on a surface of a substrate, the method comprising:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber [0005];
forming a flowable material at a first temperature (less than 300C) within the
reaction chamber, the flowable material forming deposited material within the recess,
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the deposited material on a bottom of the recess to a
thickness of deposited material on a top surface of the recess is greater than or equal to
1.5[0070, fig. 1D, fig. 7a, 0010, 0082];
after forming the deposited material, treating the deposited material using
activated species within the reaction chamber to form treated material (cyclic
plasma treatment) by providing treatment gas such as H2(process gas) to the reaction chamber [0082, 0083, 0073, fig. 7a, fig. 1D]; and
after forming the treated material, heating (thermal annealing) the substrate
including the treated material at a second temperature (320-650C) [0082] to remove a
portion of the treated material (film shrinks and densified and looks like removing
material), wherein removing the portion of the treated material reduces a thickness of
the treated material within the recess (the film shrinks and thickness reduces) [fig. 8,
0093 last two sentences]. Yoshimoto teaches the thermal annealing time(heating) of
less than 10 sec via RTA (rapid thermal annealing) [0093], and not between about 30
seconds. However, an ordinary skill in art can replace regular annealing for RTA with
expectation of success which in fact increasing the annealing time. Therefore, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was
made to have a method of Yoshimoto and have regular annealing rather than RTA,
because substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation. In re Fount, 213
USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152, USPQ (CCPA 1967). It is also to the skill
of an ordinary person to adjust annealing time with annealing temperature to meet claim
annealing time.
Claim 2 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches forming the deposited material within the
recess comprises forming the deposited material to a thickness of the within the recess
between about 5 nm and about 30 nm [0016 last sentence].
Claim 3 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the step of heating the substrate
comprises providing a gas comprises one or more of argon, nitrogen (N2), helium,
and/or ammonia [0083 lines 17-19, 0082 limes 13-15].
Claim 4 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the step of treating the deposited material
comprises providing a treatment gas consist of hydrogen (H₂) [0073].
Claim 6 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches plasma treatment between and after
deposition pulses [0071, 0072] therefore a temperature (T3) during the step of treating
is closer to T1 and less than T2.
Claim 7 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches T1 is between about 50 °C and about
90°C [0076].
Claim 9 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the step of forming the flowable material
comprises a cyclical deposition process, and wherein a cycle of the cyclical deposition
process (ALD or CVD) for depositing silicon and nitrogen containing film [0005] which in
fact comprises:
providing a precursor comprising silicon and nitrogen to the reaction chamber for
a precursor pulse;
providing a reactant comprises nitrogen (N₂), to the reaction chamber; and
providing a plasma power for a deposition plasma power pulse period, and
wherein the cycle of the cyclical deposition process is repeated a plurality of times
[0013-0015].
Claim 12 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the reactant consist essentially of
nitrogen [0014].
Claim 13 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the precursor comprising
Hexamethylcyclotrisilazane(Si3C6H21N3) [0067].
Claim 14 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches pressure within the reaction chamber
during the step of heating is between about 300 Pa and about 2800 Pa [claim 8].
Claim 16 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches performing the steps of forming a
flowable material and treating the deposited material a plurality of times [abstract first
sentence].
Claim 17 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the step of heating the substrate
consists of providing the gas and heating the substrate [0083].
Claim 18 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches performing a first loop a plurality of
times, and performing a second loop a plurality of times,
wherein the first loop comprises the steps of forming a flowable material and
treating the deposited material, and wherein the second loop comprises the first loop
and the step of heating the substrate [0010, 0015, 0072, 0081].
Claim 19 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the step of heating the substrate
comprises providing a gas consisting essentially of one or more of argon, nitrogen (N2),
helium, and/or ammonia [0083].
Claim 20 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches the limitation of claim 1, and therefore a
structure formed (gap filled) by it.
Claim 21 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches a system comprising:
a reactor comprising a reaction chamber (ALD or CVD); and
a controller [0048] configured to perform a method according to claim 1.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya Yoshimoto et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0119944, here after Yoshimoto, further in view of Yunsang Kim et al (U. S. Patent: 2015/0340225, here after Kim).
Claim 11 is rejected. Yoshimoto teaches forming a film comprising silicon and
nitrogen when silicon precursor is hexamethylcyclotrisilazane[0014], but does not teach the silicon precursor is divinyltetramethyldisilazane. Kim teaches a method of depositing a film comprising silicon and nitrogen when silicon precursor is divinyltetramethyldisilazane [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of depositing as Yoshimoto teach, where the silicon precursor is divinyltetramethyldisilazane, because it is suitable precursor for depositing silicon containing film from vapor phase (ALD).
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinya Yoshimoto et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2022/0119944, here after Yoshimoto, further in view of Kang Hu et al (Korean Patent: 20150037662, here after Hu).
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason claim 1 is rejected above, and
Yoshimoto teaches repeating the steps of forming the flowable material, treating the deposited material and heating the substrate [fig. 7a, 0081-0082]. Yoshimoto
teaches densifying(shrinkage) the deposited film [0093], but does not teach the
substrate comprising features with different aspect ratio. Hu teaches with substrate
having features with varies of aspect ratio's, deposited film thickness in a gap with
higher aspect ratio is larger than deposited film thickness in lower aspect ratio gap [fig.
3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of depositing as Yoshimoto teach, where the thickness of the treated material within recess with higher aspect ratio is less than lower aspect ratio feature, because shrinkage would be more in higher thickness film.
Claim 23 is rejected. Hu teaches deposited film thickness in a gap with
higher aspect ratio is larger than deposited film thickness in lower aspect ratio gap [fig.
3] and does not teach the thickness of the treated material within the recess with second recess is within about 10 percent of the thickness of the treated material within the first recess after removing the portion of the treated material. However, since after heating shrinkage happens, the thickness of material in the second recess reduces much more than the first recess as the recess is narrower. This is to the skill of an ordinary skill in art to choose diameter of the first and the second recess to have the thickness of heated material in the first and the second recess are about the same and within 10% of each other.
Claim 24 is rejected as Yoshimoto teaches repeating the steps is performed until the gap is filled [fig. 1D].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/01/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Yoshimoto does not teach the new limitation of amended claim 1 such as used of hydrogen during the step of treating the deposited material, the examiner disagrees as fig. 7a teaches treating(plasma) happens when process gas(hydrogen) is flowing.
The applicant argues Yoshimoto does not teach limitation of claim 22, however since after heating shrinkage happens, the thickness of material in the second recess reduces much more than the first recess as the recess is narrower. This is to the skill of an ordinary skill in art to choose diameter of the first and the second recess to have the thickness of heated material in the first and the second recess are about the same and within 10% of each other.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights