DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16, 18-20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (2018/0166270) in view of Werkhoven (2001/0041250).
Cho teaches a method of:
- supply a modifying agent to a substrate, see Fig. 5A and related text wherein a deposition suppressing gas is supplied [0047], in regard to the region of the second surface having smaller adsorption site region than a first surface, the teachings include that the deposition suppressing gas is relatively less in the inner region of the pattern [0048], see also Fig. 5B particularly;
- forming a film on the second surface, see also Fig. 3 where a precursor and reaction gas are cyclically applied (s211/213), producing the layer in Fig. 5B, and
- in regard to the film forming step including without supplying the modifying agent, the teachings include that the deposition suppressing gas is removed after any number of cycles to expedite deposition of the layer [0049].
In regard to the process conditions being changed and the precursor and reactant in each cycle being the same – the teachings of Cho include forming a first film and a second film [0027-42] as well as teaching forming a silicon oxide and/or a silicon nitride film (this is understood by the silicon gas along with the oxygen and/or nitrogen gases, particularly [0028]. The teachings therefore include either or both of silicon oxide and silicon nitride.
Werkhoven teaches that one method of changing from silicon oxide to silicon nitride includes forming a graded silicon oxynitride film therebetween [0068]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to form the graded silicon oxynitride film of Werkhoven for example in between the silicon oxide and silicon nitride films of Cho as Cho does not provide many details of the deposited layers but teaches that silicon and oxidizing and/or nitriding reactants are useful in the process.
Further, in regard to applying the silicon oxynitride, beyond the guidance of Werkhoven, “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In general, the transposition of process steps…where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Exparte Rubin 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp1959).
As such, in combination of the teachings one would apply the precursor (silicon based gas) and the reactant (the combination of oxygen and nitrogen gases) at least to form the oxynitride layers. Per the further teachings of Werkhoven, one modifies the level of the nitrogen and oxygen gases to form the graded film, as such changing the process conditions during the cycles and also the precursor and reactants remain the same throughout the cycles. The claim is comprising so even if one forms a silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride film a portion of the prior art process meets the claim requirements and forms the claimed film.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the reactant (in this case the deposition suppressing gas) is supplied in a lower amount in later steps, as the gas is filled. The claim is comprising and not limited from the suppression gas being supplied during step (b). In
regard to claim 3 the teachings of Cho include that the amount of deposition suppressing gas is reduced – one of ordinary skill in the art has a limited number of options, including either decreasing the flow rate or the exposure time, as such, the claim is likewise anticipated by the teachings of Cho.
Regarding claims 3-5, the teachings generally teach, as per claims 2 and 3 above, making the amount of deposition suppressing gas smaller, but is silent on flow rate or exposure time and therefore it would have been obvious, with limited options, in controlling either of the flow rate or exposure time. Further to claim 4, there is no special meaning of which reactant is the reactant or precursor, all elements supplied to the surface may be considered either a reactant or precursor.
Further/alternatively to claims 4 and 5, the control of amounts of any reactants is subject to control as per the process of forming a desired thickness. It is well settled that "where the principal difference between the claimed process and that taught by the reference is a temperature difference, it is incumbent upon applicant to establish criticality of that temperature difference", see Ex Parte Khusid 174 USPQ 59. This principle clearly is analogous to other process parameters such as amounts of precursors/gas flows, particularly wherein the teachings of Cho include controlling layers through the thickness in a different manner to fully fill the gap.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 12, in regard to the pressure, the selection of such variables is obvious particularly in view of the criticality of process variables as mentioned above. To control the process pressure as claimed would have been further obvious wherein the teachings generally teach controlling process conditions different through gap fill. The different claims to the pressure suggest a lack of criticality of the value and obviousness of selection higher or lower as the process proceeds.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, further to claims 2 and 3 above, the teachings generally include that the amount of the deposition suppressing gas (i.e. reactant or precursor) is decreased, a decrease on partial pressure would achieve the same.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as above, the precursor or reactant meet the requirement of deposition suppressing gas (as it is not limited by the claim) and the decrease is argued above wherein supply time also meets the requirements in the same manner as exposure time and/or flow rate.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the process continues until the gap is filled as described – wherein the process of Cho is described as iterative depending on the gap, it would have been further obvious to control the cycles as claimed if that resulted in an effectively filled gap.
Regarding claim 15, the inhibitor is removed as needed [0038, 49].
Regarding claim 16, there is no claimed distinction between a first and second surface, or requirement that the layers are not formed on either, the two surfaces as claimed are therefore each respective side surface of the gap.
Regarding claim 18, the teachings include a semiconductor device [0002].
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the teachings include a chamber [0017] but wherein it is held that the structure and computer program are not implicit, Examiner takes Official Notice that such an apparatus and computer control would have been obvious to carry out the claimed controller steps that are taught as method steps above.
Alternatively, the teachings include a chamber [0017] and, as per above, the claimed controller steps. In regard to the controller and the supply systems, the teachings includes include the supply of the 3 noted gases and the execution of the noted controller steps (addressed per claim 1). But per MPEP 2144.01, it is proper to take into account both explicit and implicit teachings of a reference – in order to supply the 3 gases as claimed, there is necessarily some type of “supply system” (broadly claimed) to supply the modifying agent, precursor and reactant. Additionally, it would likewise be understood that a controller of some type would have been present to control the process steps as it pervasively known in the art, such controller comprising at least a computer or controller with some type of instructions such as a recipe and/or program (regarding claim 20).
Regarding claim 22, per the combined art oxygen is applied.
Regarding claim 23, it is understood per the teachings that the inhibitor layer prevents the precursor from being absorbed (see Figures).
Claims 1-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani (2021/0272803) in view of Werkhoven.
Nakatani teaches a process comprising:
- supplying a modifying agent to a first and second surface to form an inhibitor layer on the surfaces – see particularly Figs. 4 and 5 – as per the teachings Si and then F layers are formed on the surfaces 200a and 200b, but preferentially on 200a [0061],
- forming a film on the second surface by repeating precursor and reactant exposures, see cited Figures wherein SiO and/or SiN is deposited on 200b (2nd surface), and
- in regard to the film forming step including without supplying the modifying agent, the teachings include that the deposition suppressing gas is not supplied throughout the entire process;
In regard to the precursor and the reactive gas remaining the same, the teachings beyond the above noted SiN and SiO include that a silicon oxynitride film is deposited [0178]. As such, any of SiO, SiN, and SiON are formed. The teachings of Werkhoven are applied to Nakatani in the same manner as above to Cho and will not be repeated. The SiON film is operable formed in addition to or in lieu of either and/or both of the layers. A portion of the process in formed such a graded film would therefore include a change of the process condition as claimed without a change in the precursor (Si based) or reactant (either oxygen and/or nitrogen based gas).
Regarding claim 2, for forming the graded film as described the amounts of the reactant gases would vary as claimed.
Regarding clams 3-5, 7, and 9-11 as a matter of effecting the gradient, it would have been obvious to adjust the supply rates and/or times as claimed. Further to claims 7 and 9, it is understood that controlling a partial pressure is an alternative manner of controlling a flow amount of a gas.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 12, the claims are rejected similarly to over Cho above, the arguments of criticality of the process variable are applied but not repeated.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the process continues until a point at which the switch of processes is desired, there is no criticality demonstrated by using a particular number of steps in either and would have been an obvious modification to have the nth cycles less than the n+1 and the nth to be 10 or less.
Regarding claim 15, the process includes removal / etching of undesired film [0126-129].
Regarding claim 17, the teachings include the claimed films as above.
Regarding claim 18, the teachings include a semiconductor device [0002].
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the teachings include the noted process (i.e. controller) steps and also teach the claimed apparatus (see fig. 1 and related text) and also the controller and program/memory of claim 20 [0036-37].
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the teachings include a Si and halogen (Cl) gas [0022] and per the art oxygen is applied.
Regarding claim 23, it is understood per the teachings that the inhibitor layer prevents the precursor from being absorbed [0172].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the further teachings of Werkhoven applied to both Cho and Nakatani as presented above. The Office agrees that the teachings as previously applied did not meet the instant claim limitations, however, in view of the formation of an SiON layer, one would reasonably apply the graded film of Werkhoven thereby meeting the limitations. The entire process of filling the gap per the combined art is not required to meet the claim limitations as the clamed is comprising.
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 JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5825. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 (Flex).
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, Micheal Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712