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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-23, in the reply filed on 6/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected.
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.
Claims 15-17 are 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.
Claim 15 includes “without hardly thermally decomposing” however the scope of this requirement is unclear as it’s a relative term and it is unclear how much thermal decomposing is within the scope of the claims.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 18, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20180294154 by Manna et al.
Claim 1: Manna discloses a processing method comprising: (a) forming a non-flowable film on a surface of a substrate on which a recess is provided and an oxygen-containing film is exposed by supplying a first material to the substrate at a first temperature (Figure 1 and accompanying text, 0021-0023); and (b) forming a flowable film on the non-flowable film by supplying a second material to the substrate at a second temperature (0025-0027). While the reference fails to explicitly disclose the second temperature lower than the first temperature, the ranges as taught by Manna for the first temperature (0C to 400C) and the ranges for the second temperature (-100C to 50C) would make obvious the second temperature lower than the first temperature. At the very least, the temperature is a result effective variable, directly affecting the deposition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum temperature for the pretreatment and flowable film deposition to achieve the deposition.
Claim 2: Manna fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the flowable film to be more than the thickness of the non-flowable film; however, the reference generally discloses the varying aspect ratios (0017) and depositing a non-flowable film to coat the substrate features and thereafter flowing a non-flowable film to fill the remaining space of the features and therefore, taking the references for its entire teaching and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum thickness for the flowable and non-flowable films to achieve the desired gap filling.
Claim 3: Manna discloses a thickness of the non-flowable film is set to be 0.2 nm or more and 10 nm or less (0028). Additionally, the thickness is a result effective variable directly affecting the gap filling. Thereafter, taking the references for its entire teaching and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum thickness for the flowable and non-flowable films to achieve the desired gap filling.
Claim 4: Manna discloses the oxygen-containing film comprises a film containing silicon and oxygen (0035).
Claim 5: Manna discloses the non-flowable film comprises an oxygen-free film (see Si-N at 0035).
Claim 6: Manna discloses the non-flowable film comprises a film containing silicon and nitrogen (see Si-N at 0035).
Claim 8-9: Manna discloses the pretreatment will enhance the flow of the deposited material and discloses an oxygen containing film as claimed and a non-hydrophobic film as claimed (as evidenced by claim 4 and 6) and therefore since the prior art discloses the same materials as claimed and disclosed, the prior art will necessarily have the same results as claimed by the applicant, i.e. the hydrophilicity of the non-flowable film (Si-N) is set to be lower than that of the oxygen-containing film and the oxygen-containing film is a hydrophilic film and the non-flowable film is a non-hydrophilic film (see also Applicant’s specification that supports the position that Si-N meets this claim requirement when on an “oxygen containing film”)
Claim 10: Manna makes obvious a conformal coating via a first source and first reactant as claimed (0023 “at least one of aminosilane and chlorosilane”) and discloses passivation via these chemicals to modify the surface to contain an oxynitride or nitrogen termination silicon, which would meet the claimed requirement of chemical absorption or thermal decomposition.
Claim 11: Manna discloses a process that can be divided into two sub parts as claimed, each that comprises a first source and first reactant (0023), the predetermined number of times is undefined and can be any number of times, e.g. 1.
Claim 13: Manna discloses the first material contains an alkyl group (0023, see APTES).
Claim 14: Manna discloses the first material contains an alkyl group (0023, see APTES).
Claim 18: Manna discloses further comprising (c) modifying the flowable film by performing a post-treatment to the substrate after the flowable film is formed on the non-flowable film at a third temperature (0029) and while the reference fails to disclose the third temperature is higher than the second temperature, as Manna discloses curing or annealing operation to increase density, the prior art discloses the temperature is a result effective variable and determination of the optimum temperature, for cure and/or anneal, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim 21: Manna discloses (a) and (b) are performed in a same process chamber. (Figure 3, 0030-0033).
Claim 22: Manna discloses wherein the non-flowable film is formed on the surface of the substrate and a surface of the recess in (a), and the recess is filled with the flowable film by forming the flowable film on the non-flowable film formed on the surface of the substrate and inside the recess in (b) (see Figure 1, 2B, 2C and accompanying text).
Claim 23: Manna discloses A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device and makes obvious the claim requirements of claim 1 as set forth above (0006).
Claim(s) 1-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20110217851 by Liang in view of Manna et al.
Claim 1: Liang discloses a processing method for gap-filling comprising: (a) forming a non-flowable film on a surface of a substrate on which a recess is provided is exposed by supplying a first material to the substrate at a first temperature (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0022); and (b) forming a flowable film on the non-flowable film by supplying a second material to the substrate at a second temperature (Figure 3 and accompanying text, 0030).
Liang fails to disclose the oxygen containing film; however, Manna, also in the art of gap-filling semiconductor substrate discloses the substrate including a recess and a oxygen containing material (0021-0023) and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have gapfilled a substrate with a recess and a oxygen-containing film as claimed with a reasonable expectation of predictable results, as one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Manna, would desire to provide gapfilling of a recess in a substrate that includes an oxygen containing material.
Liang disclose transitioning from conformal to flowable film by adjusting the process conditions (0030); however, fails to the second temperature lower than the first temperature. However, the temperature of deposition is a well-recognized result effective variable directly affecting the deposition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum temperature for the pretreatment and flowable film deposition to achieve the deposition.
Additionally, Manna, in the art of a conformal coating prior to a flowable CVD for semiconductor gap filling, discloses conformal coating as a first temperature (0C to 400C) and the ranges for the second temperature (-100C to 50C) for flowable film and therefore it would make obvious the second temperature lower than the first temperature.
Claim 2: Liang fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the flowable film to be more than the thickness of the non-flowable film; however, the reference generally discloses depositing a non-flowable film to coat the substrate features and thereafter flowing a non-flowable film to fill the remaining space of the features (0002, 0022) and therefore, taking the references for its entire teaching and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum thickness for the flowable and non-flowable films to achieve the desired gap filling.
Claim 3: Liang discloses a thickness of the non-flowable film is set to be within the range as claimed (“The thickness of the conformal silicon-and-nitrogen-containing film may be below one of 30 nm, 20 nm, 15 nm, 10 nm and 5 nm, in different embodiments” 0022). Additionally, the thickness is a result effective variable directly affecting the gap filling. Thereafter, taking the references for its entire teaching and the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum thickness for the flowable and non-flowable films to achieve the desired gap filling.
Claim 4: Manna discloses the oxygen-containing film comprises a film containing silicon and oxygen (0035).
Claim 5: Liang discloses the non-flowable film comprises an oxygen-free film (see 0016, “systems are described for forming conformal dielectric layers containing silicon and nitrogen (e.g., a silicon-nitrogen-hydrogen (Si--N--H) film”, 0018).
Claims 6-7: Liang discloses the non-flowable film comprises a film containing silicon and nitrogen (see 0016) and also include carbon (0031, “ Carbon contaminants may be present in the precursor materials that find their way into the deposited silicon-and-nitrogen precursor. The amount of these carbon impurities however are much less than would be found in a silicon precursor having a carbon moiety (e.g., TEOS, TMDSO, etc.).”)
Claim 8-9: Liang discloses the pretreatment will enhance the flow of the deposited material and discloses an oxygen containing film as claimed and a non-hydrophobic film as claimed (as evidenced by claim 4 and 6, see 0030 stating “The wetting properties of the conformal layer assist the penetration of the flowable layer into the gap”) and therefore since the prior art discloses the same materials as claimed and disclosed, the prior art will necessarily have the same results as claimed by the applicant, i.e. the hydrophilicity of the non-flowable film (Si-N) is set to be lower than that of the oxygen-containing film and the oxygen-containing film is a hydrophilic film and the non-flowable film is a non-hydrophilic film (see also Applicant’s specification that supports the position that Si-N meets this claim requirement)
Claim 10: Liang discloses conformal layer by supplying a first source and first reactant (0017-0022), and the conditions are such that the layer is deposited as noted at 0020.
Claim 11: Liang discloses a process that can be divided into two sub parts as claimed, each that comprises a first source and first reactant (0017-0020), the predetermined number of times is undefined and can be any number of times, e.g. 1.
Claim 12: Liang discloses such at 0017-0020, additionally while the reference fails to explicitly disclose adsorbing the silicon precursor and thereafter reacting with the nitrogen, the examiner notes the prior art disclose the prior art discloses the same process steps and uses the same process gases and parameters as claimed and described by the applicant and therefore the claimed mechanism would have followed unless the applicant is using specific process gases or process parameters that are neither discloses or claimed as being required.
Claims 13-14: Liang discloses using TEOS and TMDSO are predictable silicon precursors and therefore using these precursors would have been obvious to provide a film as claimed, and a film that includes carbon due to the carbon moiety (0031).
Claim 15: Liang discloses the second material includes the second source, second reactant and third reactant (0030, 0017-0020) and discloses the flowability conditions (0031) and thus meets the claimed required of physical absorption over chemical adsorption/thermal decomp. Additionally, the examiner notes the prior art disclose the prior art discloses the same process steps and uses the same process gases and parameters as claimed and described by the applicant and therefore the claimed mechanism would have followed unless the applicant is using specific process gases or process parameters that are neither disclosed or claimed as being required.
Claims 16: Liang discloses a process that can be divided into three sub parts as claimed, each that comprises a second source and third reactant as claimed (0017-0020, 0030), the predetermined number of times is undefined and can be any number of times, e.g. 1.
Claim 17: Liang discloses flowability generated from oligomeric polymer from elements contained in the second source (0031 “short chained polysilazane polymers” would read on the claimed oligomeric polymer).
Claim 18: Liang discloses the curing and annealing as claimed (0032) while the reference fails to disclose the third temperature is higher than the second temperature, as Liang discloses curing or annealing operation, the prior art discloses the temperature is a result effective variable and determination of the optimum temperature, for cure and/or anneal, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim 19: Liang discloses such at (0017-0020, 0030).
Claim 20: Liang discloses the source material includes silicon and the reactants include nitrogen and hydrogen as claimed (0017-0020, 0030).
Claim 21: Liang discloses the same process chamber (0030).
Claim 22: Liang discloses wherein the non-flowable film is formed on the surface of the substrate and a surface of the recess in (a), and the recess is filled with the flowable film by forming the flowable film on the non-flowable film formed on the surface of the substrate and inside the recess in (b) (0029-0030 “conformal layer refers to a generally uniform layer of material on a surface in the same shape as the surface”).
Claim 23: Liang discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device and makes obvious the claim requirements of claim 1 as set forth above (0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is cited on the attached PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights