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 1-4, 6-12, 14-20 are pending in this application. Amended claims 1, 6, 14-16, 20 and canceled claims 5, 13 are noted.
The amendment dated 11/18/2025 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendments to the claims. In view of said amendment, the previous art rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-12, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (6,239,002) in view of Han et al. (2018/0233356).
Jang teaches a thermal oxidizing method for forming silicon oxide dielectric layer (title) in which a silicon oxide trench fill layer is formed with enhanced gap filling properties by ozone-TEOS thermal chemical vapor deposition method (col.4 lines 32-53). However, the reference fails to teach plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition having a dual frequency RF bias having a low frequency RF signal and a high frequency RF signal.
Han teaches a method for depositing silicon oxide or silicon nitride containing stacks including a first layer and a second layer on a substrate wherein the first layer is silicon oxide and the second layer is silicon nitride (abstract) by a PECVD process (0033). The silicon oxide/nitride layer can be formed using a dual-frequency RF system in which the low frequency range is from 10 KHz to about 2 MHz and the high frequency range is from 10 to 30 MHz (0008, 0064). In addition, the ratio of the second RF power to the total mixed power is less than 0.6 to 1.0, which overlaps the claimed range.
With respect to the hardness, since the references teaches the claimed deposition steps, the hardness requirements must be inherent in the cited reference.
Regarding claim 2, Jang teaches silicon oxide (col.4 lines 32-53).
Regarding claim 4, the applicant requires a specific Young’s modulus. Since the references teach the claimed deposition steps, the Young’s modulus must be inherent in the cited references.
Regarding claim 6, Jang teaches TEOS (col.4 lines 32-53).
Regarding claim 7, the applicant requires a specific flow rate. It is noted that Jang teaches a flow rate of 1000 to about 1400 sccm (col.7 lines 52-63). To vary flow rate would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 10, Jang teaches a helium carrier gas (col.7 lines 52-63).
Regarding claim 11, the applicant requires a specific flow rate for the carrier gas. It is noted that Jang teaches a carrier flow rate of 3000 to about 6000 sccm (col.7 lines 52-63). To vary flow rate would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 12, Jang teaches ozone as an oxidant source (col.2 lines 1-30).
Regarding claim 14, Han teaches a power between 10 and 5000 Watts (0047).
Regarding claim 15, Han teaches a low frequency power between 0 and 1000 Watts and a high frequency power between 300 to 1500 Watts (0049), which meets the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 16, Han teaches of applying a first power 142 to a gas distributor 112 with openings 118 and a second power 150 to a substrate support 104 (0021-0024, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Han teaches a spacing of 500 to 1000 mils (0060).
Regarding claim 18, Jang teaches a temperature range from 430 to 500oC (col.7 lines 52-63).
Regarding claim 19, the applicant requires a specific pressure. Jang teaches of varying pressure (claim 1). To utilize the claimed pressure would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claims 3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (6,239,002) and Han et al. (2018/0233356) and further in view of Usami et al. (6,077,574). The combination of Jang/Han fails to teach a dopant.
Usami teaches a plasma CVD process for forming fluorine-doped silicon oxide dielectric film (title). To dope with fluorine in the combination would have been obvious depending on the desired use of the final product because Usami teaches doping with fluorine.
Regarding claim 8, Usami teaches doping with fluorine (title).
Regarding claim 9, the applicant requires a specific flow rate. It is noted that Jang teaches a flow rate of 1000 to about 1400 sccm (col.7 lines 52-63). To vary flow rate would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (6,239,002) and Han et al. (2018/0233356) and further in view of Yamada et al. (2004/0076068). The combination of Jang/Han fails to teach reducing thickness.
Yamada teaches of forming a silicon oxide film by CVD followed by a CMP step of polishing and planarizing (0118-0119). To utilize a CMP step after deposition in the combination would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Yamada teaches of using a CMP step after forming a silicon oxide film.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Jang fails to teaches plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition comprising a dual frequency RF bias comprising a low frequency RF signal and a high frequency RF signal (pp.6-7).
The examiner agrees and notes the new grounds of rejection. The examiner concedes that the references fail to teach the newly added limitation of a plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition comprising a dual frequency RF bias comprising a low frequency RF signal and a high frequency RF signal. Han has been cited to show a PECVD process having a dual frequency RF bias comprising a low frequency RF signal and a high frequency RF signal.
Applicant next argues that the hardness is not inherent to the references (pp.7-8).
The examiner disagrees. Since the prior art references teach the claimed method steps, the hardness requirement would be achieved. If not, the applicant is invited to demonstrate which of the claimed steps produces the difference in hardness and to provide factual evidence that the claimed step indeed results in the hardness difference. At the present time, the record is absent both showings.
Applicant next argues the Usami, Yamada fail to cure the deficiencies of Jang (pp.8-9).
The examiner agrees and notes the new grounds of rejection. Han has been cited to show a PECVD process having a dual frequency RF bias comprising a low frequency RF signal and a high frequency RF signal.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are deemed persuasive in overcoming the previous art rejection but are not sufficient in overcoming the present art rejection.
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 BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715 01/10/2026