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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-26 and 28 in the reply filed on 12/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10-11 are duplicate claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-12, 19 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10-11 are duplicate claims, making them indefinite.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the film fills". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the gapfill operation is not described in the claim from which claim 19 depends.
In claim 28, the second, third and fourth stations are not initially defined in the claim, making it unclear how there can be a shared intermediate space between the four stations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Reilly et al. (US 2015/0118862 A1; hereafter Reilly).
As to claim 1, Reilly teaches a method for flowable gap-fill deposition (abstract), the method comprising: (a) placing a substrate in a first station (303 in Fig. 3) ;(b) depositing a flowable material on the substrate in the first station by a vapor deposition process at a first temperature (305, in Fig. 3, para 0074, 0096, temp: -20 to 100 deg C in para 0106) ;(c) placing the substrate in a second station (para 0043); (d) performing a thermal and ultraviolet treatment on the substrate by heating a surface of the substrate to a second temperature in the second station and exposing the substrate to ultraviolet light emitted by an ultraviolet light source (307 in Fig. 3, para 0108-0110, 0113, temp 100-400 deg C in para 0113) ;and repeating (a)-(d) in a cycle until a film of desired thickness is deposited on the substrate (Fig. 3).
As to claim 2, Reilly teaches wherein the flowable material is formed by a silylamine precursor in para 0122.
As to claim 7, the first temp is -20 to 100 deg C in para 0106.
As to claim 8, the second temp is 100-400 deg C in para 0113.
As to claim 18, the film comprises SiN (para 0022) with a carbon dopant in para 0058, 0074, 0122, thus ‘comprising’ SiCN.
As to claim 19, the gaps are filled as broadly claimed as shown in Fig. 9.
As to claim 20, the substrate is as claimed in para 0036.
As to claim 21, the gases are included in the first station deposition as in para 0122 with inert carrier gases in para 0094.
As to claim 22, Reilly further teaches wherein the cycle further comprises plasma curing the substrate after step (b) or (d) (para 0109-0111, plasma treatment as a post-deposition treatment which would be after Step D; para 0108, multiple discrete treatments may occur as part of the post-treatment step), wherein the plasma curing comprises micro- pulsing radio frequency (RF) plasma into the first
station or the second station (para 0111, remote plasma exposure; para 0131, RF plasma
generators disclosed).
As to claim 23, the substrate is plasma cured in the second station after the substrate is annealed in the second station (para 0109-0111, plasma treatment as a post-deposition treatment which would be after Step D; para 0108, multiple discrete treatments may occur as part of the post-treatment step).
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) 3, 9-13 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly et al. in view of Liang et al. (US 2018/0330980 A1; hereafter Liang)
As to claim 3, Reilly does not teach hexamethyldisilazane. Liang teaches hexamethyldisilazane as a precursor for a flowable gap fill film (para 0023, abstract) to achieve a preferred ratio of silicon to oxygen atoms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to modify Reilly to include the hexamethyldisilazane of Liang to achieve a preferred ratio of silicon to oxygen atoms.
As to claims 9-13 and 26, Reilly does not teach the particulars of the UV exposure. Liang teaches excimer lamps with the claimed excimer molecules in para 0033 and a low pressure mercury lamp in para 0033, both with the UV range claimed and under vacuum in para 0008, 0048-0050. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to modify Reilly to include the particulars of the UV exposure as Laing teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly et al. in view of Tang et al. (US 2016/0314964 A1)
As to claim 5, Reilly does not teach tetramethyldisilazane. Tang et al. teaches 1,1,3,3- tetramethyldisilazane in para 0027 to be used as the Si precursor in a gap fill application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of filing to modify Reilly to include 1,1,3,3- tetramethyldisilazane as a Si precursor during gapfill deposition as Tang teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly et al. in view of Kawahara et al. (US 2017/0029947 A1; hereafter Kawahara)
As to claim 14, Reilly does not teach a first station with an upper and lower chamber where the lower chamber comprises a shared intermediate space between the first and second stations. Kawahara teaches an intermediate space that comprises an upper and lower chamber as in Fig. 16-17 that permits substrate transfer in between stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art at the time of filing to modify Reilly to include the shared intermediate space as claimed as taught by Kawahara to facilitate substrate transfer.
As to claim 28, Reilly includes a method for flowable gap-fill deposition (abstract), the method comprising: (a) placing a substrate in a first station (303 in Fig. 3). Reilly does not teach a first station with an upper and lower chamber where the lower chamber comprises a shared intermediate space between the first and second stations. Kawahara teaches an intermediate space that comprises an upper and lower chamber as in Fig. 16-17 that permits substrate transfer in between stations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art at the time of filing to modify Reilly to include the shared intermediate space as claimed as taught by Kawahara to facilitate substrate transfer.
(b) depositing a flowable material on the substrate in the first station by a vapor deposition process at a first temperature (305, in Fig. 3, para 0074, 0096, temp: -20 to 100 deg C in para 0106) ;(c) placing the substrate in a second station (para 0043); (d) performing a thermal and ultraviolet treatment on the substrate by heating a surface of the substrate to a second temperature in the second station and exposing the substrate to ultraviolet light emitted by an ultraviolet light source (307 in Fig. 3, para 0108-0110, 0113, temp 100-400 deg C in para 0113) ;and repeating (a)-(d) in a cycle until a film of desired thickness is deposited on the substrate (Fig. 3).
Though Reilly does not teach repeating steps a-d in third and fourth stations before repeating the entire cycle a-h as claimed, Kawahara teaches repeating processing steps in different cycles as part of an overall repeated cycle in Fig. 4a or 6, for example. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill I the art at the time of filing to modify Reilly to include the configuration of stations as claimed as Kawahara teaches the art recognized and suitability of such.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly et al.
As to claim 15, Reilly teaches the method of Claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein the first station and the second station comprise a shared pressure system such that the first station and the second station are maintained at a common pressure during the cycle. Reilly discloses multi-module chambers (para 0124) each equipped with pressure sensors (para 0113) and a system controller to control pressures throughout the multiple modules (para 0134-0135). The system controller is common to, and therefore shared by, all chambers in the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
or filed to have modified the invention of Reilly to use the system controller to control individual chamber pressures to any desired pressure, e.g. the same pressure in both chambers.
As to claim 16, Reilly teaches that the common pressure during the cycle is between 300 Pa and 2800 Pa (para 0060, treatment chamber pressure 10 Torr which is 1333.224 Pa).
As to claim 17, both stations have separate temperatures as discussed above, indicating they are controlled independently, but Reilly does not expressly teach wherein the first station comprises a first station heating unit configured to control a temperature of the first station independently of a temperature of the second station, and wherein the second station comprises a second station heating unit configured to control the temperature of the second station independently of the temperature of the first station (para 0042, separate chambers; para 0106 and para 0112, each process may comprise a heating element). The use of separate heating units as opposed to a single heating unit is prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. See further MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
As to claim 24, Reilly teaches rapid thermal processing anneal at a third temperature above the first two temperatures in para 0113. Reilly further teaches that one or more post treatment processes such as the anneal and thermal/uv treatment may be performed, each in a chamber other than the deposition chamber. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Reilly contemplates the inclusion of a rapid thermal anneal then thermal/uv treatment. Multiple chambers are prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts. See further MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
As to claim 25, Reilly teaches that the film is deposited per cycle, including the treatment after every cycle as in Fig. 3 and paras 0106-0107. Thicknesses per cycle are dependent upon reaction conditions such as temperature and precursor choice in this section. Further, the deposition rates are given in para 0106. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the thickness of each cycle as that claimed, 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 Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach the divinyldisilazane precursors as claimed.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at 571-272-1423. 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 1715
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718