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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart [US 20210020431] in view of Babayan [US 20190088457].
Claim 1: Blanquart teaches a deposition process method [title], wherein the method comprises selectively depositing a film onto a structure of a semiconductor substrate disposed in a processing region of a semiconductor processing chamber, the film comprising a carbon material (supplying a precursor to a reaction space where the substrate is placed and exposing the patterned recess of the substrate to a plasma to deposit the Si-free C (carbon) containing film in the patterned recess) [0038]; exposing the semiconductor substrate to a pulse bias plasma treatment (exposing pattern recess to plasma which is conducted intermittently in a manner pulsing the plasma, which can be done in as PEALD or cyclical) [0038-0038; 0057]; selectively etching the film from a sidewall of the structure (subjecting the structure to plasma ashing (etching) to leave primarily only a bottom portion of the film [0023; Fig. 9b], wherein the term “selectively” will be given its broadest most reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and in this case, since the bottom of the structure was not etched, the etching was performed selectively.
As for the prior art not teaching the pulsed bias plasma is performed to densify the carbon material of the film deposited, Babayan is provided.
Babayan teaches pulsing RF bias in a pulse mode can increase film density by enhancing carbon ion energy [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the act of providing a pulsing plasma in the presence of carbon material would naturally increase film density as suggested by Babayan.
Claim 2: Blanquart teaches forming a plasma from carbon containing precursor in the processing region, and depositing film onto the structure with plasma effluents of the carbon containing precursor, wherein the film is deposited into one or more gaps of the structure (supplying a precursor to a reaction space where the substrate is placed and exposing the patterned recess of the substrate to a plasma to deposit the Si-free C (carbon) containing film in the patterned recess) [0038].
Claim 9: Blanquart teaches the selectively etching comprises exposing the structure to a plasma based etch (plasma ashing) [0023; Fig. 9b].
Claim 10: Blanquart teaches forming a plasma with carbon containing precursor and depositing a flowable film onto a structure of the semiconductor substrate in the processing region with plasma effluents of the carbon containing precursor, wherein the flowable film flows into one or more gas of the structure (depositing Si Free C-containing film having filling capability on patterned recess of the substrate by plasma [0008], wherein the film is amorphous polymer film that is flowable [0037], and the flowability is obtain when volatile hydrocaron precursor is activated or fragmented by energy [0059]. Blanquart further teaches the process comprises sublayer deposition cycles [0057], which would comprise of multiple plasma processing steps.
As for the prior art not teaching the pulsed bias plasma is performed to densify the carbon material of the film deposited, Babayan teaches pulsing RF bias in a pulse mode can increase film density by enhancing carbon ion energy [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the act of providing a pulsing plasma in the presence of carbon material would naturally increase film density as suggested by Babayan.
Blanquart teaches a variety of plasma can be used such as in-situ plasma types and remote plasma [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plasma in place or remotely since Blanquart teaches either plasma generating technique can be used operably with the taught method.
Claim 15: Blanquart teaches the second plasma precursor may include argon [0017].
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Babayan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Vrtis [US 20040197474].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using aliphatic hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon with vinyl group or norbornene as the carbon containing precursor. Vrtis is provided.
Claims 3 and 11: Vrtis teaches it is already known and operable to use aliphatic hydrocarbons as precursors for vapor depositing organic films using PECVD [0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aliphatic hydrocarbons since Vrtis teaches these are well known in the vapor art field.
Claims 5 and 12: Vrtis teaches cyclic hydrocarbons can also be act as organic precursors [0050-0051], wherein hydrocarbons comprising vinyl groups are also operable for vapor deposition [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aliphatic hydrocarbons since Vrtis teaches these are well known in the vapor art field.
Claim 13: Vrtis teaches norbornene compounds are also well known as organic precursors for depositing organic films using PECVD [0007; 0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aliphatic hydrocarbons since Vrtis teaches these are operable carbon compounds used in the vapor art field.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Babayan and Vrtis as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Teff [US 20090291210].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned which Vrtis teaches another operable precursor includes norbornene [0060] but does not appear to teach the precursor specifically comprises 5 vinyl 2 norbornene. Teff is provided.
Claims 6 and 14: Teff teaches that cyclic alkene can also include norbornene or 5 vinyl 2 norbornene [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use 5 vinyl 2 norbornene since Teff teaches this compound is another operable substitution to norbornene.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Babayan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rubshtejn [RU2656312].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, which teaches forming a biasing plasma with the precursors in the processing region [Blanquart 0038-0038; 0057], but does not appear to teach the biased plasma effluents convert carbon-hydrogen bonds of the films to carbon-carbon bonds. Rubshtejn is provided.
Claim 7: Rubshtejn teaches discharge plasma contains products of the destruction of the hydrocarbon containing gas and inert gas ions which contributes to a more complete destruction of hydrocarbons, the removal of weak carbon-hydrogen bonds and formation of strong carbon-carbon bonds, which increases adhesion and wear resistance of the coating [pg 4, para 8]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide plasma mixed with hydrocarbon and inert gas as the precursor gas and biased with a plasma to convert carbon-hydrogen bonds to carbon-carbon bonds so as to yield better adhesion and wear resistance.
Claim 8: Rubshtejn teaches argon as the inert gas [pg 4, para 6].
Claim 15: Rubshtejn teaches argon as the inert gas [pg 4, para 6].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart [US 20210020431] in view of Babayan [US 20190088457] and Ridgeway [US 20190376178].
Claim 16: Blanquart teaches forming a plasma with carbon containing precursor and depositing a flowable film onto a structure of the semiconductor substrate in the processing region with plasma effluents of the carbon containing precursor, wherein the flowable film flows into one or more gas of the structure (depositing Si Free C-containing film having filling capability on patterned recess of the substrate by plasma [0008], wherein the film is amorphous polymer film that is flowable [0037], and the flowability is obtain when volatile hydrocaron precursor is activated or fragmented by energy [0059]. Blanquart further teaches the process comprises sublayer deposition cycles [0057], which would comprise of multiple plasma processing steps.
As for the prior art not teaching the pulsed bias plasma is performed to densify the carbon material of the film deposited, Babayan teaches pulsing RF bias in a pulse mode can increase film density by enhancing carbon ion energy [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the act of providing a pulsing plasma in the presence of carbon material would naturally increase film density as suggested by Babayan.
Blanquart teaches a variety of plasma can be used such as in-situ plasma types and remote plasma [0041]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the plasma in place or remotely since Blanquart teaches either plasma generating technique can be used operably with the taught method.
As for the first plasma being formed remotely and the second plasma being formed in-situ, Ridgeway teaches that a combination of both a remote plasma source and in-situ plasma source is already known in the vapor art [0043] and yield deposition and post-cure films with best gap fill properties such as being free of visible voids [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of a remote plasma source and in-situ plasma source to yield the best possible gap fill results. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select from a finite number of combinations for using a dual plasma source, for example the first plasma is a remote source and second plasma is an in-situ source, or the first plasma is a in-situ source and the second plasma is a remote source.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Babayan and Ridgeway as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Vrtis [US 20040197474].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach using aliphatic hydrocarbon or hydrocarbon with vinyl group or norbornene as the carbon containing precursor. Vrtis is provided.
Claim 17: Vrtis teaches it is already known and operable to use aliphatic hydrocarbons as precursors for vapor depositing organic films using PECVD [0007]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aliphatic hydrocarbons since Vrtis teaches these are well known in the vapor art field.
Claim 18: Vrtis teaches cyclic hydrocarbons can also be act as organic precursors [0050-0051], wherein hydrocarbons comprising vinyl groups are also operable for vapor deposition [0056]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aliphatic hydrocarbons since Vrtis teaches these are well known in the vapor art field.
Claim 19: Vrtis teaches norbornene compounds are also well known as organic precursors for depositing organic films using PECVD [0007; 0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use aliphatic hydrocarbons since Vrtis teaches these are operable carbon compounds used in the vapor art field.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart in view of Babayan and Ridgeway and Vrtis as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Teff [US 20090291210].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned which Vrtis teaches another operable precursor includes norbornene [0060] but does not appear to teach the precursor specifically comprises 5 vinyl 2 norbornene. Teff is provided.
Claim 20: Teff teaches that cyclic alkene can also include norbornene or 5 vinyl 2 norbornene [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use 5 vinyl 2 norbornene since Teff teaches this compound is another operable substitution to norbornene.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kalutarage [US 20190333760]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights