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 with traverse of Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that some overlap exists among the identified groups of inventions (see Response at Pg. 1). This is not found persuasive because search and examination of one group is not necessarily coextensive with the remaining groups, due in part to the diverse statutory classes of inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to due to a minor informality: Line 2 should read “… substrate comprises a plurality of …” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
1. Claim 3 is 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.
With regard to Claim 3, the compound Si3H8 is not contemplated by the halosilane formula recited by Claim 2, from which Claim 3 depends. Accordingly, the claim is ambiguous. For purposes of examination, Claim 3 is understood as directed to currently recited halosilanes conforming with the formula of Claim 2.
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.
2. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0073144 to Chatterjee et al. (“Chatterjee”) in view of US 6,440,860 to DeBoer et al. (“DeBoer”).
With regard to Claims 1 and 5-6, Chatterjee teaches a method of forming a silicon oxide dielectric gap-filling material within a substrate gap feature comprising placing the substrate into a reaction chamber, introducing an oxygen-free halogenated silicon precursor and an oxygen-free co-reactant comprising a noble gas into the chamber, and generating a plasma within the chamber to form a silicon containing gap-filling material which flows into substrate gaps (see Abstract; FIG. 1; ¶¶ [0007]-[0008]; [0018]-[0020], [0023]). According to Chatterjee, exclusion of oxygen during film formation yields increased flowability and improved material properties (see ¶¶ [0018], [0020]).
Chatterjee is noted as disclosing oxidizing agents (see ¶¶ [0007], [0036]). To the extent that Chatterjee does not expressly teach subsequently contacting the substrate with a an oxidizing agent within the context of previously-conducted oxygen-free reaction schemes as claimed, DeBoer is similarly directed to semiconductor processing techniques, and teaches vapor deposition of silicon-based dielectric layer materials (see Abstract; Col. 5, Lns. 3-8). According to DeBoer, such deposited layers can be oxidized to comprise silicon dioxide via exposure to an oxidizing agent (see Col. 4, Lns. 46-57). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have obtained a post-flow dielectric material residing in substrate gaps in the method of Chatterjee via subsequent exposure to an oxidizing agent as taught by DeBoer, in order to obtain silicon oxide dielectric material.
With regard to Claims 2-3, Chatterjee taches halosilanes of the claimed formula (see ¶ [0019]).
With regard to Claim 4, Chatterjee teaches subsequent heating at temperatures within the claimed range without transferring the substrate from the reaction chamber (see ¶ [0029]).
With regard to Claim 7, Chatterjee teaches repeated cycles as claimed (see ¶ [0030]).
With regard to Claim 8, Chatterjee teaches transferring the substrate from the reaction chamber to an ex-situ curing chamber containing moisture (see ¶¶ [0030], [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Michael 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights