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 1-7 of R. Ridgeway et al., US 18/409,373 (Jan. 10, 2024) are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
§ 102(a)(1) Rejection over R. West, 76 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 6012-6014 (1954) (“West”)
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by R. West, 76 Journal of the American Chemical Society, 6012-6014 (1954) (“West”). West discloses cyclopentamethylenedimethoxysilane (VII) and its homolog (XV). West at page 6013, Table II. Compounds VII and XV have the following structures.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compounds VII and XV each meet the chemical structure requirements of claim 1, Formula (I). West teaches preparation of these compounds followed by fractional distillation as follows:
Cyclopentamethylenedimethoxysilane (VII).—Sodium (9.2 g., 0.40 mole) was dissolved in 200 ml. of methanol. Over a period of 90 minutes, 32 g. (0.19 mole) of I was added, followed by 30 ml. of ethyl ether. The mixture was then refluxed for an hour. After removal of the precipitated NaCl by vacuum filtration, the solution was fractionally distilled to give 21.6 g. (71%) of VII, a colorless oil with an irritating camphor-like odor, boiling at 171-173°.
A similar method was used to prepare XV.
West at page 6014, col. 1 (emphasis added).
Compounds VII and XV each meet the claim 1 purity limitation:
Claim 1 . . . wherein the compound is substantially free of one or more impurities selected from the group consisting of a halide, water, and combinations thereof.
because they were fractionally distilled.1 Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant. MPEP § 2112(V) (citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
The claim 1 preamble recitation of “A composition for chemical vapor deposition of a dielectric film” does not distinguish over West’s disclosure of the above prior art compounds. This preamble does not impose any structural limitations on the claimed composition and therefore is interpreted as a statement of suggested use that cannot distinguish over the art. See MPEP § 2111.02(II). Further, the claim 1 preamble language “A composition” does not distinguish over West. Neither claim 1 nor the specification require that a “composition” comprise materials or components in addition to the claimed “an alkoxysilacyclic or an acyloxysilacyclic compound having the following Formula I”. See for example, specification at page 4-5, [0011].
Thus, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, a “composition” encompasses a one-component composition (i.e., a composition that consists only of the claimed compound of Formula (I)). MPEP § 2111.
West’s fractionally distilled compounds VII and XV each anticipate the composition of claim 1.
Claim 2 is anticipated because claim 2 lists 1,1-dimethoxy-1-silacyclopentane (prior art compound XV) and 1,1-dimethoxy-1-silacyclohexane (prior art compound VII) as alternatives.
The limitations of claim 3 are clearly met. See footnote 1.
The limitation of claims 4 and 5 are met for the following reasons. West teaches fractional distillation of compounds VII and XV (presumably at atmospheric pressure) which would result in the vapor phase mixing of these compounds with ambient air. Ambient air comprises oxygen and a carrier gas.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R. Vrtis et al., US 2015/0364321 (2015) (“Vrtis”).
R. Vrtis et al., US 2015/0364321 (2015) (“Vrtis”)
Vrtis teaches formation of silicon oxide films on a substrate. Vrtis at page 7, [0066]. Vrtis teaches that the films are suitable for a variety of uses, for example suitable for deposition on a semiconductor substrate, and are particularly suitable for use as, e.g., an insulation layer, an interlayer dielectric layer and/or an inter metal dielectric layer. Vrtis at page 7, [0073].
Vrtis teaches that the electronics industry utilizes dielectric materials as insulating layers between circuits and components of integrated circuits (IC) and associated electronic devices. Line dimensions are being reduced in order to increase the speed and memory storage capability of microelectronic devices (e.g., computer chips). As the line dimensions decrease, the insulating requirements for the interlayer dielectric (ILD) become much more rigorous. Vrtis at page 1, [0003]. Vrtis teaches that conventional silica (SiO2) CVD dielectric films produced from SiH4 or TEOS (Si(OCH2CH), tetraethylorthosilicate) and O2 have a dielectric constant k greater than 4.0. Vrtis at page 1, [0003].
Vrtis teaches a composition for a vapor deposition of a dielectric film comprising alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compound having the Formula I. Vrtis at page 1, [0011].
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Vrtis at page 3, [0024]. The genus of Vrtis Formula (I) does not overlap with the instantly claimed genus of Formula (I) because Vrtis variable R1 cannot meet either of instant claim variables X or Y. However, as discussed in more detail below, in Comparative Example 2, Vrtis discloses use of an instantly claimed compound (i.e., 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB)) in its disclosed dielectric film-forming method, which is the basis for the instant obviousness rejection.
With respect to purity of the compounds of Formula I, Vritis teaches the following:
[0035] The alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compounds described herein and methods and compositions comprising same are preferably substantially free of one or more impurities such as without limitation, halide ions and water. As used herein, the term “substantially free” as it relates to an impurity means 100 parts per million (ppm) or less, 50 ppm or less, 10 ppm or less, and 5 ppm or less of the impurity.
[0036] In one particular embodiment, the alkyl-alkoxysila cyclic compounds contain halide ions (or halides) Such as, for example, chlorides and fluorides, bromides, and iodides, means 100 parts per million (ppm) or less, 50 ppm or less, 10 ppm or less, and 5 ppm or less of the impurity or 0 ppm. Chlorides are known to act as decomposition catalysts for alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compounds as well as potential contaminate to detrimental to performance of electronic device.
Vrtis at page 5, [0035]-[0036] (emphasis added). Vrtis teaches that the silacyclic compounds can be made substantially free of one or more impurities such as without limitation, halide ions and water as follows:
The crude product may also be treated by various purification methods to render the final product substantially free of halides such as chlorides. Such methods are well described in the prior art and, may include, but are not limited to, purification processes such as distillation, or adsorption. Distillation is commonly used to separate impurities from the desire product by exploiting differences in boiling point. Adsorption may also be used to take advantage of the differential adsorptive properties of the components to effect separation such that the final product is substantially free of halide. Adsorbents such as, for example, commercially available MgO Al2O3 blends can be used to remove halides Such as chloride.
Vrtis at page 5, [0037].
Vrtis teaches Comparative Example 2 wherein 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane, was used as the structure former precursor. Vrtis at page 10, [104] (emphasis added).
Comparative Example 2
Deposition of Porous OSG Films from 1,1-Diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB) and Cyclooctane
[0101] A composite layer of the structure former DEMS2 and porogen precursor cyclooctane was deposited using the following process conditions for 200 mm processing.
The precursors were delivered to the reaction chamber via direct liquid injection (DLI) at a flow rate of 1120 milligrams/ minute (mg/min) cyclooctane and 280 mg/min using 200 standard cubic centimeters (Scem) CO carrier gas flow, 20 sccm O2, 350 milli-inch showerhead/wafer spacing, 250° C. wafer chuck temperature, 8 Torr chamber pressure to which a 700 W plasma was applied.
The resulting film was then UV annealed to remove the cyclooctane porogen and mechanically enhance the film. Various attributes of the film (e.g., dielectric constant (k), modulus (GPa) and atomic weight percent carbon (% C)) were obtained as described above and are provided in Table 1.
Vrtis at page 9, [0101]. 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane has the following structure.
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Vrtis teaches a composition of 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB), where DESCB meets the structural limitations of claim 1 Formula (I). Vrtis teaches that this composition was used to prepare a useful dielectric film having the following properties.
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Vrtis at page 10, col. 1 (Table 1) (pointing arrow added by the Examiner).
Differences between Vrtis and Claim 1
The composition of Vrtis Comparative Example 2 differs from the claim 1 composition only in that it does not teach, one way or the other, whether the Comparative Example 2 compound 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB) meets the claim 1 limitation of:
Claim 1 . . . wherein the compound is substantially free of one or more impurities selected from the group consisting of a halide, water, and combinations thereof.
Obviousness Rationale
One of ordinary skill seeking to the prepare the useful dielectric film of Vrtis Comparative Example 2, in view of its low dielectric constant (k) of 2.33, is motivated to purify the 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB) to 5 ppm or less of each of the impurities halide and water in order to arrive at a dielectric film suitable for its intended use in electronic devices. One of ordinary skill is motivated to reduce the level of halide and water to 5 ppm or less because Vrtis specifically teaches this range. Vrtis at page 5, [0035]-[0036].
One of ordinary skill thereby arrives at a claim 1 composition meeting the claim 1 “substantially free”3 limitation of:
Claim 1 . . . wherein the compound is substantially free of one or more impurities selected from the group consisting of a halide, water, and combinations thereof.
The limitations of claim 2 are met because claim 2 lists 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane as an alternative.
The limitations of claim 3 are met because Vrtis specifically motivates one of ordinary skill to lower the levels of chloride ions. Vrtis at page 5, [0036] (“[c]hlorides are known to act as decomposition catalysts for alkyl-alkoxysilacyclic compounds as well as potential contaminate to detrimental to performance of electronic device”).
The limitations of claim 4 and 5 are met because Vrtis employes the 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB) in Comparative Example 2 as a composition with oxygen, which is an oxidant. Vrtis at page 9, [0101].
Claims 6 and 7 are obvious because Vrtis teaches that the structure forming precursor may further comprises a hardening additive, which will increase the mechanical strength, where examples of hardening additives are tetraalkoxysilanes, such as for example, tetrethoxysilane (TEOS) or tetramethoxysilane (TMOS). Vrtis at page 5, [0040]. One of ordinary skill is therefore motivated to modify Comparative Example 2 by including a hardening additive (e.g., tetrethoxysilane (TEOS) or tetramethoxysilane (TMOS)) to increase the mechanical strength of the dielectric film, thereby meeting the further limitations of claim 6 and 7.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejections
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection over U.S. Patent No. 11/158,498 (2021)
Instant claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over conflicting claims 1-4 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11/158,498 (2021), US 16/443,978 (filed Jun. 19, 2018). Conflicting claim 1 claims:
Conflicting claim 1. A chemical vapor deposition method for producing a dielectric film, the method comprising: providing a substrate into a reaction chamber; introducing gaseous reagents into the reaction chamber wherein the gaseous reagents comprise a silicon precursor comprising a silicon compound having the following Formula I:
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[where conflicting claim 1 defines variables X, Y, and R4 that the Formula (I) falls within the scope of (anticipates) instant claim 1 Formula (I)]
optionally at least one oxygen source, and optionally a hardening additive, wherein the gaseous reagents do not include a porogen; and applying energy to the gaseous reagents in the reaction chamber to induce reaction of the gaseous reagents to deposit a film on the substrate.
Conflicting claim 2 lists the same compounds as listed in instant claim 2.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the hardening additive comprises tetraethoxysilane.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the hardening additive comprises tetramethoxysilane.
Conflicting claim 11. The method of claim 1 wherein the silicon compound included in the gaseous reagents includes less than 100 ppm of any halide ion impurities.
Instant claim 1-7 are patentably indistinct from conflicting claims 1-4 and 11 because the conflicting claim teach a composition meeting each and every limitation of instant claims 1-7.
Terminal Disclaimer
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PAGANO whose telephone number is (571)270-3764. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
ALEXANDER R. PAGANO
Examiner
Art Unit 1692
/ALEXANDER R PAGANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
1 The specification defines “substantially free” as follows:
As used herein, the term "substantially free" as it relates to each impurity means 100 parts per million (ppm) or less, 50 ppm or less, 10 ppm or less, and 5 ppm or less, 1 ppm of less of each impurities such as without limitation, chloride or water.
Specification at page 14. Similar to Vrtis (discussed in the § 103 rejection below), the specification teaches that:
The crude product may also be treated by various purification methods to render the final product substantially free of halides such as chlorides. Such methods are well described in the prior art and, may include, but are not limited to, purification processes such as distillation, or adsorption. Distillation is commonly used to separate impurities from the desired product by exploiting differences in boiling point.
Specification at page 15, [0038]; Vrtis at page 5, [0037].
2 DEMS is diethoxymethylsilane. Vrtis at page 2, [0009]. Recitation of “DEMS” here is clearly a typographical error. Based the title/heading of Comparative Example 2, it is clear that 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane (DESCB) was intended rather than “DEMS”. That DEMS is a typographical error is also clear because Vrtis subsequently states that “Table 1 also includes data for Comparative Example 2 wherein 1,1-diethoxy-1-silacyclobutane, a symmetric silacyclic compound was used as the structure former precursor and had a higher % C than the DEMS-deposited films but lower mechanical properties”. Vrtis at page 10, [104] (emphasis added).
3 See footnote 1.
Prosecution Insights