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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 17-22 withdrawn
Claims 1-16 pending and elected
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 03/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallagher (PG Pub 2004/0137728 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Gallagher teaches the process of gap filling (abstract), teaches the process of filling the gaps within pattern using sacrificial materials (20) (fig. 1A-1B), where the sacrificial material is made from cross-linked polymer composition [0008]. Gallagher teaches the cross-linking polymer composition include monomer and cross-linking agents [0021], where the monomer (a second monomer) include alkyl methacrylate [0021], and the cross-linking agent include glycidyl methacrylate [0035], as crosslinking monomer. Gallagher teaches the process of applying gap-filling composition (cross-linking polymer composition) followed by curing step [0010], then the process of depositing a porous overlayer on the sacrificial layer (20) ([0010], fig 1-1C) as an additional semiconductor processing step, then the step of removing of the sacrificial layer ([0010], figure 1D) by heating to a decomposition temperature [0067].
Consider Claim 3, Gallagher teaches the decomposition temperature is from 150-450℃ [0067], for a duration of 60 min [0082].
Consider Claim 4, Gallagher teaches the complete (100%) removal of the sacrificial layer (20), as the cross-linked polymer composition (fig. 1D).
Consider Claim 5, Gallagher teaches the additional semiconductor process include the coating of porous overlayer (60) as photoresist layer (fig. 4B), then the patterning in figure 4D.
Consider Claim 6, Gallagher teaches the patterning process for forming micro-electronic device [0019].
Consider Claims 7-8, Gallagher teaches the additional semiconductor process include the copper barrier layer (41) as support layer prior to deposition the porous overlayer/as photoresist layer [0070], and the step of removal of the sacrificial layer forming air-gap (36) (fig. 3, [0070]).
Consider Claims 10-12, Gallagher teaches the cross-linking polymer composition include monomer and cross-linking agents [0021], where the monomer (a second monomer) include alkyl methacrylate [0021], and the cross-linking agent include glycidyl methacrylate [0035], as crosslinking monomer.
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.
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (PG Pub 2004/0137728 A1).
Consider Claim 3, Gallagher teaches the decomposition temperature is from 150-450℃ [0067], for a duration of 60 min [0082]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher (PG Pub 2004/0137728 A1) in view of Park (PG Pub 2015/0132921 A1).
Consider Claims 2, 9 and 15-16, Gallagher teaches the previously disclosed in claim 1, including the using of heating for curing [0038], [0067].
Gallagher does not teach the claimed curing temperature.
However, Park is in the prior art of gap filling process (abstract), teaches the cross-linking process using 200-300℃ [0043], using gap filling composition comprising crosslinking polymer [0014], where the crosslinking polymer include alkyl acrylate [0016], and where the crosslinking polymer process is performed using reversible addition fragmentation chain transfer (RAFT) polymerization [0030], and within gap with aspect ratio of 2 or more and gap width of 1-50 nm [0040]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Gallagher with Park to provide with a process of manufacture of semiconductor devices for the filling of high aspect ratio gaps [0006], such as electronic devices [0002].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights