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 .
(RCE)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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of an RCE filed on 06/11//26 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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 #1-4, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narwankar (U.S. Pat. No, 6,136,685), hereinafter referred to as "Narwankar" and in view of KHANDELWAL et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0040279), hereinafter referred to as "Khandelwal".
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #1, a method for forming a silicon-containing film (column #3, line 45-59) in a recess (fig. #7a, item 701) (column #13, line 18-31) formed on a surface of a substrate (Below; fig. #Ex1, item Sb1), the method comprising:(a) forming a flowable film (SiF4) (column #13, line 64-67; column #14, line 1-7) in the recess (fig. #7a, item 701) by exposing the substrate (column #13, line 18-31), which is adjusted to a first temperature (column #1, line 19-34; column #3, line 60-67), to plasma generated from a processing gas including a halogen-containing silane (column #2, line 55-62) and a halogen-free silane (column #3, line 49-59); and (b) curing the flowable film by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature (column #16, line 21-28) wherein the oligomer is generated by polymerizing the halogen-containing silane and the halogen-free silane with plasma (column #3, line 45-59; column #14, line 8-30).
The Examiner’s notes that Narwankar does not state explicitly that his results produce an oligomer product (a polymer whose molecules consist of relatively few repeating units). However, the Examiner notes that Narwankar’s invention incorporates all the conditions shown in the presently claimed invention and therefore must produce the same products. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
[AltContent: textbox (Ex1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Substrate; Sb1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
393
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narwankar substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Narwankar fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising an oligomer in a liquid state and curing the oligomer to form a silicon containing film in a solid state.
Khandelwal teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising an oligomer in a liquid state and curing the oligomer to form a silicon containing film in a solid state (paragraph 1011-1037).
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 Narwankar as modified by the invention of Khandelwal, which teaches, a method comprising an oligomer in a liquid state and curing the oligomer to form a silicon containing film in a solid state, to incorporate a structural condition to provide increasingly fine-tuned molecular precursors which are required to meet the requirements of volatility (for vapor deposition processes), lower process temperatures, reactivity with various oxidants and low film contamination, in addition to high deposition rates, conformality and consistency of films produced, as taught by Khandelwal.
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the step (a) and the step (b) are continuously performed under a vacuum atmosphere (column #13, line 51-63).
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the halogen-containing silane is one or a plurality of gases represented by SinHxZ2n+2-x (where Z is F, Cl, Br or I, n is a natural number of 1 or more, and x is 1 to 2n+2-1) (column #3, line 45-59; column #14, line 8-30).
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the halogen- containing silane is at least one selected from a group consisting of SiHxZ4.x (where Z is F, Cl, Br or I, and x is 1, 2 or 3) and Si2HxZ6-x (where Z is F, Cl, Br or I, and x is 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) (column #3, line 45-59; column #14, line 8-30).
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein the halogen-containing silane is one or a plurality of gases represented by SinHxZ2n+2-x (where Z is F, Cl, Br or I, n is a natural number of 1 or more, and x is 1 to 2n+2-1) (column #3, line 45-59; column #14, line 8-30).
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the halogen-containing silane is at least one selected from a group consisting of SiHxZ4-x (where Z is F, Cl, Br or I, and x is 1, 2 or 3) and Si2HxZ6-x (where Z is F, Cl, Br or I, and x is 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) (column #3, line 45-59; column #14, line 8-30).
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #20, a film forming apparatus that forms a silicon-containing film (column #3, line 45-59) in a recess (fig. #7a, item 701) (column #13, line 18-31) formed on a surface of a substrate, the film forming apparatus comprising: a film former configured to form a flowable film (SiF4) (column #13, line 64-67; column #14, line 1-7; column #3, line 45-59) in the recess (fig. #7a, item 701).
Narwankar substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #20 above.
Narwankar fails to show, with respect to claim #20, a film forming apparatus comprising, an oligomer in a liquid state and a thermal processor configured to cure the oligomer the flowable film by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature; and a controller configured to perform a process including: by the film former, forming the oligomer in the recess by exposing the substrate, which is adjusted to a first temperature, to plasma generated from a processing gas including a halogen-containing silane and a halogen-free silane: and by the thermal processor, curing the oligomer to form the silicon-containing film in a solid state by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature.
Khandelwal teaches, with respect to claim #20, a film forming apparatus comprising, an oligomer in a liquid state and a thermal processor configured to cure the oligomer (paragraph 0006, 1136, 1141) the flowable film by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature (paragraph 1161-1164); and a controller configured to perform a process including (paragraph 1163): by the film former, forming the oligomer in the recess by exposing the substrate, which is adjusted to a first temperature (paragraph 1161-1164), to plasma generated from a processing gas including a halogen-containing silane and a halogen-free silane (paragraph 0003, 0006): and by the thermal processor, curing the oligomer to form the silicon-containing film in a solid state by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature (paragraph 1011-1037) wherein the oligomer is generated by polymerizing the halogen-containing silane and the halogen-free silane with plasma (column #3, line 45-59; column #14, line 8-30).
The Examiner’s notes that Narwankar does not state explicitly that his results produce an oligomer product (a polymer whose molecules consist of relatively few repeating units). However, the Examiner notes that Narwankar’s invention incorporates all the conditions shown in the presently claimed invention and therefore must produce the same products. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #20, to modified the invention of Narwankar as modified by the invention of Khandelwal, which teaches, a film forming apparatus comprising, an oligomer in a liquid state and a thermal processor configured to cure the oligomer the flowable film by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature; and a controller configured to perform a process including: by the film former, forming the oligomer in the recess by exposing the substrate, which is adjusted to a first temperature, to plasma generated from a processing gas including a halogen-containing silane and a halogen-free silane: and by the thermal processor, curing the oligomer to form the silicon-containing film in a solid state by thermally processing the substrate at a second temperature higher than the first temperature, to incorporate a structural condition to provide increasingly fine-tuned molecular precursors which are required to meet the requirements of volatility (for vapor deposition processes), lower process temperatures, reactivity with various oxidants and low film contamination, in addition to high deposition rates, conformality and consistency of films produced, as taught by Khandelwal.
//
Claim #5. 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narwankar (U.S. Pat. No, 6,136,685), hereinafter referred to as "Narwankar" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Tsai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0105589), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai".
Narwankar substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Narwankar fails to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the halogen- containing silane is dichlorosilane (DCS).
Tsai teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein the halogen- containing silane is dichlorosilane (DCS) (paragraph 0020-0021).
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 Narwankar as modified by the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein the halogen-containing silane is dichlorosilane (DCS), to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a higher silicon crystal growth rate and decomposition at lower temperatures, as taught by Tsai.
Narwankar fails to show, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the halogen-free silane is one or a plurality of gases represented by SixH2+2x (where x is a natural number of 1 or more).
Tsai teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the halogen-free silane is one or a plurality of gases represented by SixH2+2x (where x is a natural number of 1 or more) (paragraph 0020-0021).
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 Narwankar as modified by the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein the halogen-free silane is one or a plurality of gases represented by SixH2+2x (where x is a natural number of 1 or more), to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a higher silicon crystal growth rate and decomposition at lower temperatures, as taught by Tsai.
Narwankar fails to show, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the halogen-free silane is monosilane (SiH4).
Tsai teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein the halogen-free silane is monosilane (SiH4) (paragraph 0020-0021).
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 Narwankar as modified by the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein the halogen-free silane is monosilane (SiH4), to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a higher silicon crystal growth rate and decomposition at lower temperatures, as taught by Tsai.
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the processing gas includes at least one of H2, He, N2 or Ar (column #11, line 55-64).
//
Claim #10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narwankar (U.S. Pat. No, 6,136,685), hereinafter referred to as "Narwankar" as modified by Tsai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0105589), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above, and in further view of Yang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0160210), hereinafter referred to as "Yang".
Narwankar as modified by Tsai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #9 above.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai fail to show, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein the first temperature is 80 degrees C or lower, and wherein the second temperature is 150 degrees C or higher and 750 degrees C or lower.
Yang teaches, with respect to claim #10, a method wherein the first temperature is 80 degrees C or lower (paragraph 0012, 0042), and wherein the second temperature is 150 degrees C or higher and 750 degrees C or lower (paragraph 0074).
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 Narwankar as modified by Tsai, with the modification of the invention of Yang, which teaches, a method wherein the first temperature is 80 degrees C or lower, and wherein the second temperature is 150 degrees C or higher and 750 degrees C or lower, to incorporate a structural condition wherein volatile products are removed from surface areas, as taught by Yang.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai and Yang, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #10 above.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai, fail to show, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein in the step (b), the substrate is exposed to plasma generated from H2.
Yang teaches, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein in the step (b), the substrate is exposed to plasma generated from H2 (paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #11, to modified the invention of Narwankar as modified by Yang, with the modification of the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein in the step (b), the substrate is exposed to plasma generated from H2, to incorporate a structural condition with enhanced oxidation characteristics, as taught by Yang.
///
Claim #12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narwankar (U.S. Pat. No, 6,136,685), hereinafter referred to as "Narwankar" as modified by Tsai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0105589), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" and Yang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0160210), hereinafter referred to as "Yang", as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above, and in further view of CITLA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0351969), hereinafter referred to as "Citla".
Narwankar as modified by Tsai and Yang, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #11 above.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai and Yang, fail to show, with respect to claim #12, a method wherein in the step (b), the plasma is generated by RF power having a frequency band of 100 MHz or more and 1 GHz or less.
Citla teaches, with respect to claim #12, a method wherein in the step (b), the plasma is generated by RF power having a frequency band of 100 MHz or more and 1 GHz or less (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #12, to modified the invention of Narwankar as modified by Tsai and Yang, with the modification of the invention of Citla, which teaches, a method wherein in the step (b), the plasma is generated by RF power having a frequency band of 100 MHz or more and 1 GHz or less, to incorporate a structural condition wherein volatile products are removed from surface areas, as taught by Citla.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai, Yang and Citla, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #12 above.
Narwankar as modified by Yang and Citla, fail to show, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein in the step (b), the substrate is irradiated with ultraviolet rays.
Tsai teaches, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein in the step (b), the substrate is irradiated with ultraviolet rays (paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #13, to modified the invention of Narwankar as modified by Yang and Citla, with the modification of the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein in the step (b), the substrate is irradiated with ultraviolet rays, to incorporate a method that would provide rapid curing times, higher production speeds, and increased energy efficiency compared to traditional methods, as taught by Tsai.
///
Claim #14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narwankar (U.S. Pat. No, 6,136,685), hereinafter referred to as "Narwankar" as modified by Tsai et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0105589), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai", Yang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0160210), hereinafter referred to as "Yang" and CITLA et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0351969), hereinafter referred to as "Citla", as shown in the rejection of claim #13 above, and in further view of Goto et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0209005), hereinafter referred to as "Goto".
Narwankar as modified by Tsai, Yang and Citla, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #13 above.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai, Yang and Citla, fail to show, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein the processing gas includes a metal-containing gas.
Goto teaches, with respect to claim #14, a method a method wherein the processing gas includes a metal-containing gas (paragraph 0027, 0143).
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 Narwankar as modified by Tsai ,Yang and Citla, with the modification of the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein the processing gas includes a metal-containing gas, to incorporate a device wherein it is possible to form an insulating film, which has a high dielectric constant and is low in oxygen deficiency, easily, and at a low cost, as taught by Goto.
Narwankar as modified by Tsai, Yang and Citla, fail to show, with respect to claim #15, a method wherein the metal-containing gas is trimethylaluminum (TMA).
Goto teaches, with respect to claim #15, a method a method wherein the metal-containing gas is trimethylaluminum (TMA) (paragraph 0128-0129, 0173).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #15, to modified the invention of Narwankar as modified by Tsai ,Yang and Citla, with the modification of the invention of Tsai, which teaches, a method wherein the metal-containing gas is trimethylaluminum (TMA), to incorporate a device wherein it is possible to form an insulating film, which has a high dielectric constant and is low in oxygen deficiency, easily, and at a low cost, as taught by Goto.
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein the step (b) is performed within 60 seconds after the step (a) (column #16, line 21-28). .
The Examiner notes that Narwankar does not explicitly state a time duration between processes. However, the Examiner notes that Narwankar shows (column #16, line 21-28) that the heating process is within the cycle of the deposition and that other variations of the steps can be implemented at the discretion of those persons of skill in the art. Furthermore, Narwankar shows no movement of the target, that might account for time between process, but demonstrated that the cycles are performed in same environment. For these reasons, the Examiner takes the position the time period shown in the above claim is taught by Narwankar.
Narwankar shows, with respect to claim #17, a method comprising repeating the step (a) and the step (b) (column #16, line 21-28, column #11, line 16-25).
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
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
06/23/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights