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 1-20 are pending in this application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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 1-4, 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (2018/0135178) in view of Gupta et al. (WO 2023-230170).
Miura teaches a film deposition method (title) in which a contact holes in a semiconductor substrate is filled using silicon oxide by ALD or CVD in which an organic aminosilane gas is oxidized and subsequently exposed to an oxygen plasma (0007). However, the reference fails to teach a initiator compound forms an activated precursor and/or activated reactant.
Gupta teaches a hybrid atomic layer deposition method (title) for depositing silicon nitride or silicon oxide using an aminosilane precursor and oxidation techniques (abstract, 0043). Specifically, the reference teaches of introducing an aminosilane precursor and a nitrogen gas and exposing the substrate to a plasma (0038-0043) where the plasma can be oxygen, hydrogen or a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen such as hydrogen peroxide (0056-0058), It would have been obvious to utilize a hydrogen peroxide plasma in Miura with the expectation of success because Gupta teaches of using a hydrogen peroxide plasma to form a silicon oxide film.
Regarding claim 2, Gupta teaches precleaning (0141-0142).
Regarding claim 3, Miura teaches aminosilane (0007).
Regarding claim 4, the applicant requires a specific peroxide. It is noted that Gupta teaches a peroxide plasma (0056-0058) and other peroxides (0183). To utilize a different peroxide would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 6, Miura teaches CVD and ALD (0007).
Regarding claim 7, Miura teaches introducing an aminosilane gas and the oxidizing gas together with a plasma (0007).
Regarding claim 8, Mirua teaches 400oC (0127) and different pressures (0030) while Gupta teaches different times (0019).
Regarding claim 9, Miura teaches nitrogen purge gas (0067).
Regarding claim 10, Mirua teaches 400oC (0127)
In independent claim 11, the applicant requires a nitrogen containing reactant to deposit a silicon nitride layer. Miura teaches forming a silicon nitride film using a nitriding gas and a silicon containing gas (0124).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta teaches precleaning (0141-0142).
Regarding claim 13, Miura teaches aminosilane (0007).
Regarding claim 14, the applicant requires a specific peroxide. It is noted that Gupta teaches a peroxide plasma (0056-0058) and other peroxides (0183). To utilize a different peroxide would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, Gupta teaches amines (0122).
Regarding claim 16, Miura teaches CVD and ALD (0007).
Regarding claim 17, Miura teaches introducing an aminosilane gas and the oxidizing gas together with a plasma (0007).
Regarding claim 18, Mirua teaches 400oC (0127) and different pressures (0030) while Gupta teaches different times (0019).
Regarding claim 19, the applicant requires a reduced hydrogen content. It is first noted that the silicon nitride film does not disclose any hydrogen. Regardless, since the initiator compound is taught, it would inherently reduce the hydrogen content.
In independent claim 20, the applicant requires a nitrogen containing reactant and an oxygen containing reactant to deposit a silicon oxynitride layer. Gupta teaches forming a silicon oxynitride film (abstract) using a nitriding gas and an oxygen containing gas (0056-0058, 0124).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (2018/0135178) in view of Gupta et al. (WO 2023-230170) and further in view of Kang et al. (2014/0141542). The combination of Miura/Gupta fails to teach the claimed oxygen containing reactant.
Kang teaches a method for depositing films on substrates (title) in which a silicon oxide film (0090) can be deposited on a silicon substrate (0114) where an oxidizer can be a sulfoxide (claim 5). To utilize a sulfoxide as an oxidizer in the combination would have been obvious because Kang teaches of forming a silicon oxide film using a sulfoxide as an oxidizer.
Washio et al. (2009/0291232) teaches a plasma atomic layer method of depositing a silicon oxide layer on a silicon substrate by using an oxygen gas and a aminosilane layer and has been provided as relevant art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 06/18/2026
Prosecution Insights