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 § 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 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, 6-8, 10, 14-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0329238 to Tang in view of US 2022/0093388 to Nakatani in view of US 2022/0119939 to Noh in view of US 2018/0190489 to Li.
Tang teaches a method for using ALD to gapfill during STI [0030]. The variant ALD cycle includes a first step of supplying a nitrogen (ammonia) plasma [0033] followed by standard silica ALD (Id.) (i.e., a first silicon reactant, purge, a second oxygen reactant, purge [0042]). The cycle is repeated until the desired thickness is achieved [0042]. The nitrogen plasma does form a gradient within the trench (Fig. 4), which causes the silica film to grow at a greater rate within the portion of the trench that has the least nitrogen functionalization (Fig. 5A-5D).
Tang does not teach the inhibitor includes organic aminosilane molecules or thermal ALD.
However, Nakatani teaches a substantially identical process wherein the inhibitor includes organic aminosilane molecules [0144-0148]. Nakatani does go on to describe a thermal scheme for performing the process [0107], a plasma scheme [0108], and under these schemes supplying the aminosilane [0110-0114]. The oxygen containing reactant can be ozone or water [0181; 0093]
Noh teaches a gapfill process substantially similar to that of Tang. Noh also states the process is applicable to all vapor deposition, including thermal ALD [0046; 0134] where the modifications related to thermal vs. plasma are known [0140].
Regarding the surface chemistry involved including the inhibitor binding to hydroxylated sites on the substrate to suppress film nucleation, it is noted that Nakatani does teach a SiO surface has a good reactivity with the inhibitor [0056-0058]. It is the position of the examiner that SiO surfaces have reactive hydroxylated sites, and by attaching an inhibitor to these sites the film nucleation of later steps is suppressed. For example, Li teaches a method where an inhibitor species reacts with -OH terminated (i.e., hydroxylated) dielectric SiO2 surfaces [0019] to inhibit nucleation of precursors at a downstream process [0010].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Tang and include organic aminiosilane molecules as an inhibitor because Nakatani teaches organic aminiosilane molecules are suitable for this purpose and substitute the plasma process for a thermal process which requires a higher temperature but does not require the added complication of plasma generation. The surface chemistry is shown to be an inhibitor occupying reactive -OH sites on a SiO dielectric surface.
Claims 6-7, 14:
Noh explicitly states deposition may take varying lengths of time. Deposition continues as long as deemed necessary to produce a film with necessary properties [0145]. Therefore, time amount of time the substrate is exposed to inhibitor material is a result effective variable, inclusive of the values from 2-20 seconds, and would have been obvious through routine optimization. Additionally, the film thickness varies from several angstroms to several hundred microns (Id.).
Claim(s) 9, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0329238 to Tang in view of US 2022/0093388 to Nakatani in view of US 2022/0119939 to Noh in view of US 2018/0190489 to Li in view of US 2007/0275166 to Thridandam.
Previously cited prior art is discussed above but does not teach the claimed aminosilane precursors. However, Thridandam teaches a method for forming a silica layer on a substrate by CVD using an organoaminosilane precursor, such as diisopropylaminosilane (abstract). CVD is meant to encompass ALD [0023]. The oxygen source is ozone [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Tang and use the silicon precursors of Thridandam in order to form a silica layer. Thridandam demonstrates that these silicon precursors are suitable for the formation of a silica layer in vapor deposition processes such as ALD.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/15/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of co-filed claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further search.
The above discussed Tang reference teaches the oxygen-containing precursors and the Li reference teaches the hydroxylated sited on the surface.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
