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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 24, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed December 24, 2025, claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1 through 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Instead of relying on Nakano, Waldfried (U.S. Patent # 6,756,085) is being relied upon to teach that it was known in the art to conduct a fist curing step using UV exposure along with hydrogen gas and a second/post-cure step using plasma along with hydrogen gas in order to lower the dielectric constant of a dielectric film and improve the elastic modulus and material hardness.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 16 and 17 disclose abbreviation CCP which has not been defined any of the previous claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 16, 17 and 20 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 16 is indefinite because the claim discloses “a frequency of the CCP” and it is not clear if “the CCP” refers to the capacitively coupled plasma of the first curing step or the second curing step.
Claim 20 is indefinite because claim 20 discloses that the curing gas comprised helium or argon while parent claim 19 requires that the curing gas just comprises hydrogen and argon. Claim 20 is therefore indefinite because it is not clear is helium is required by claim 20 or not.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0257213) in view of Waldfried et al (U.S. Patent # 6,756,085).
In the case of claim 1, Kikuchi teaches a method for forming a dielectric material layer on a surface of a substrate (Abstract). The method of Kikuchi comprised a deposition step at a deposition temperature comprising step 102 of providing a substrate within a first reaction chamber, step 104 of providing one or more precursors into the first reaction chamber, step 108 of providing one or more reactants into the first reaction chamber and step 106 of providing pulsed plasma powder into the first reaction chamber; and a curing step comprising a first curing step 116 and a second curing step in the form of treatment step 110 which comprised capacitively coupled plasma and/or UV exposure (Page 3 Paragraphs 0039 and Figure 1).
Kikuchi further teaches that during the curing step a curing gas provided to the substrate and that the first curing step 116 was conducted at a first curing temperature of less than 500 ℃ and that the second curing step 110 was conducted at a second curing temperature of less than 500 ℃ (Page 5 Paragraph 0053).
Kikuchi does not teach that the second curing temperature was higher than the first curing temperature. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal first and second curing temperatures for the curing step of Kikuchi through routine experimentation because the curing temperatures affected the densification of the dielectric material layer.
Kikuchi does not specifically teach that the first curing step comprised at least one of capacitively coupled plasma, inductivity coupled plasma or UV exposure and that the curing gas comprised a mixture of hydrogen and at least one of helium or argon and was provided during the first curing step and the second curing step.
Waldfried teaches a method for forming a dielectric material which was UV cured and subjected to a post-UV treatment resulting in a material with a reduced dielectric constant and an improved elastic modulus and material hardness (Abstract). Waldfried teaches that the dielectric material was formed by plasma assisted CVD (Column 4 Lines 25-48) and that the formed material was subjected to UV curing in the presence of a processing gas comprising hydrogen, argon, helium and combination thereof at temperature below 450 ℃ (Column 7 Lines 43-67). Furthermore, Waldfried teaches that the second curing/post-UV treatment step comprised exposing the material to plasma along with a process gas comprising hydrogen, argon, helium and combination thereof at temperature below 450 ℃ (Column 9 Lines 30-40).
Based on the teachings of Waldfried, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have conducted the curing step of Kikuchi to comprise a first curing step of UV exposure followed by a second curing step of plasma treatment with both steps provided with a curing gas of hydrogen mixed with argon or helium in order to reduce the dielectric constant and an improved elastic modulus and material hardness of the dielectric material layer.
As for claims 2-6, Kikuchi teaches that the deposition temperature was 200 or less (Pages 3-4 Paragraph 0041). Furthermore, Kikuchi teaches that the first curing step 116 and the second curing step 110 were both conducted at temperatures of 500 ℃ or less (Page 5 Paragraph 0053). All of these ranges overlapped with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
Kikuchi does not specifically teach that the deposition temperature was higher than the first curing temperature and lower than the second curing temperature but, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal temperatures values for each step of Kikuchi through routine experimentation.
As for claim 7, Kikuchi teaches that the steps of the taught process were performed in multiple reaction chambers (Page 3 Paragraph 0040) and therefore Kikuchi encompasses having conducted the first curing step in a second reaction chamber and having conducted the second curing step in a third reaction chamber.
As for claim 8, as was discussed previously, one of the curing steps of Kikuchi in view of Waldfried used capacitively coupled plasma.
As for claim 9, Kikuchi teaches that the power produced for the pulsed plasma power was less than 2000 W and that the RF on duty cycle was less than 50% (Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0049 and 0052).
As for claims 11 and 12, Kikuchi teaches that the precursor comprised the organosilicon compounds required by the claims including OMCTS and TMCTS (Page 4 Paragraph 0042).
As for claims 13 and 14, Kikuchi teaches that the reactant comprised the oxidants required by the claims including oxygen and ozone (Page 4 Paragraph 0046).
As for claim 18, Waldfried teaches that the curing was conducted at 1 to 10 Torr (Column 9 Lines 30-40) which is equal to 133 to 1333 Pa, and overlapped with the required range.
As for claim 19, as was discussed previously, the curing gas of Kikuchi in view of Waldfried comprised a mixture of hydrogen and argon.
As for claim 20, neither Kikuchi nor Waldfried teach that the volumetric ration of hydrogen to at least one of helium or argon was 20% to 100%. However, as was discussed previously, it would have been obvious to have determined optimal values for relevant process parameters through routine experimentation. Therefore, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal volumetric ratios between the hydrogen and the helium/argon of Kikuchi in view of Waldfried through routine experimentation because the volumetric ratio of gases affected the pressure within the reaction chamber.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al in view of Waldfried et al as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nakano (U.S. Patent # 8,551,892).
The teachings of Kikuchi in view of Waldfried as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 10, Kikuchi does not specifically teach that the deposition step was conducted at a pressure of 1 to 1,200 Pa. However, Kikuchi teaches that the dielectric material layer was formed by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (CVD) using organosilicon precursors Pages 3-4 (Paragraphs 0040, 0042 and 0048).
Nakano teaches a process for forming a dielectric film (Abstract) using organosilicon precursors (Column 5 Lines 5-35) by plasma CVD at a pressure in the range of 20 to 200 Pa (Column 6 Lines 4-29).
Based on the teachings of Nakano, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have performed the deposition step of Kikuchi in view of Waldfried at a pressure of 20 to 200 Pa because this was a known deposition pressure in the art for depositing a dielectric film by plasma CVD using organosilicon precursors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As was discussed previously, both Kikuchi and Waldfried teach having performed a first curing step and a second curing step wherein one of the curing steps was capacitively coupled plasma. However, neither reference fairly teaches or suggests that the first curing step used at least one or capacitively coupled plasma or inductively coupled plasma and that the second curing step used at least one or capacitively coupled plasma or inductively coupled plasma.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 14 and 16 through 20 have been rejected and claim 15 has been objected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, 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 WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712