CTNF 18/547,888 CTNF 101755 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claim(s) 16-33 , drawn to a film forming method in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 34 and 35 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/01/2026 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. Claims 16-17, 22-23, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sutanto et al. (US 7,078,312 B1). Regarding claim 16, Sutanto teaches a film forming method of embedding a film in a recess that is formed in a substrate and has a narrow portion (plasma-based chemical vapor deposition and etch processes for forming dielectric layers in high aspect ratio, narrow width recessed features; high aspect ratio gaps often exhibit reentrant features, including a narrowing at the top of the gap where the etched sidewalls slope inward near the top of the gap; and trench/gap 100 on semiconductor substrate 102 requires filling with dielectric; col. 1, lines 6-34; col. 3, line 65-col. 4, line 10). Sutanto teaches an operation (a) of forming the film in the recess under a condition that the film is formed thicker at an opening of the recess than at a bottom portion of the recess (most deposition methods deposit more material on the upper region than on the lower region of a sidewall or form cusps at the entry of the gap; during the initial HDP-CVD deposition, top and sidewall deposition results in an overhang/cusp 112 at the entry region 108 of the gap 100, corresponding to film being formed thicker at the opening/entry region than at a lower or bottom portion of the recess; col. 1, lines 20-34; col. 4, lines 16-34). Sutanto also teaches an operation (b) of forming the film in the recess under a condition that the film is formed with a same thickness at both the bottom portion of the recess and the opening of the recess, or a condition that the film is formed thicker at the bottom portion of the recess than at the opening of the recess (HDP-CVD is a directional, bottom-up CVD process that deposits more material at the bottom of a high aspect ratio structure than on its sidewalls by directing charged dielectric precursor species downward to the bottom of the gap; HDP-CVD deposition results in beneficial filling of the trench from the bottom 104 up; and hydrogen in the carrier gas promotes bottom-up gap fill; col. 1, lines 35-43; col. 4, lines 16-34; col. 11, lines 50-62). Sutanto continues to teach an operation (c) of partially etching the film formed in the recess (overhang 112 formed at the top of the trench during deposition is removed in an etch-back stage; the etch-back process removes dielectric from gap 100, removes overhang 112, widens gap 100, reduces the aspect ratio of the partially filled gap, and facilitates further filling by subsequent HDP-CVD dielectric deposition; col. 7, lines 14-30). Sutanto further teaches wherein multiple cycles, each of which includes the operation (b) and the operation (c), are performed (following the etch-back stage, an additional HDP-CVD deposition is performed to further fill the gap with dielectric, and the etch-back and deposition steps are repeated until the gap is filled; three to five iterations of the etch-back and deposition steps are typical to obtain void-free filling of the gap; col. 8, lines 35-46; col. 12, lines 27-56). Regarding claim 17, Sutanto teaches the method of claim 16 and further teaches at least some of the multiple cycles includes the operation (a) (dielectric is deposited in the gap to a desired thickness, generally at the point where the overhang forms at the gap entry point and prevents further effective filling; the dielectric is etched back; and the etch-back and deposition process is repeated until the gap is filled, such that at least some repeated deposition/etch-back cycles include formation of the overhang/cusp at the gap entry region corresponding to operation (a); col. 12, lines 3-6; col. 12, lines 27-56). Regarding claim 22, Sutanto teaches the method of claim 16 and further teaches the operation (a) includes forming the film by a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) (in an initial step of the multi-step gap fill process, the gap is partially filled with dielectric deposited by a high-density plasma chemical vapor deposition process, and top and sidewall deposition results in an overhang/cusp at the entry region of the gap; col. 4, lines 16-34). Regarding claim 23, Sutanto teaches the method of claim 16 and further teaches the operation (a) includes exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a silicon-containing gas and a nitrogen-containing gas (the initial deposition is performed by HDP-CVD; the deposition process gas includes a precursor for the deposition layer; when the dielectric is a silicon-containing dielectric, the process gas includes a silicon-bearing compound, and during deposition the process decomposes the silicon- containing reactant to form silicon-containing gas and plasma phase species; when the dielectric is to contain an oxynitride, such as silicon oxynitride, the process gas includes a nitrogen-containing reactant such as N2, NH3, NF3, NO, N2O, or mixtures thereof; col. 4, lines 16-50; col. 5, lines 54-60; col. 6, lines 3-9). Regarding claim 33, Sutanto teaches the method of claim 16 and further teaches the operation (a), the operation (b), and the operation (c) are continuously performed under a depressurized atmosphere (HDP-CVD reactors typically operate at relatively low pressures, in the range of 100 mTorr or lower; the etch-back process is carried out in the same reactor chamber as the deposition; and the entire dep-etch-dep process may be conducted in a single plasma reactor chamber; col. 3, lines 54-63; col. 4, lines 16-25; col. 7, lines 14-20). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al. as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Yamawaku et al. (WO 2019/225184 A1)(US 2021/0222296 A1 used for citations) . Regarding claim 18 , Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 17 as set forth above. Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (a) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD). Yamawaku teaches wherein the operation (a) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) (PEALD film formation in which a film-forming source gas and a reactant gas are alternately supplied to form a film; when a film is formed by PEALD on a substrate having a recess, the film may be excessively deposited at a top end opening of the recess, and an overhang portion of the film is formed at the top end opening; paragraphs [0029], [0048], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutanto’s operation (a) to form the film by ALD, as taught by Yamawaku, because Sutanto and Yamawaku both address filling recessed semiconductor features while addressing overhang/void problems at the opening of the recess, and Yamawaku teaches PEALD as a known film-forming technique that forms an opening overhang in a recess. Thus, using Yamawaku’s PEALD film formation in Sutanto’s deposition/etch-back gap-fill process would have been using a known deposition technique in a similar gap-fill process to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al. as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Yamawaku et al. (WO 2019/225184 A1)(US 2021/0222296 A1 used for citations) . Regarding claim 29, Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (a) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD). Yamawaku teaches wherein the operation (a) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) (PEALD film formation in which a film-forming source gas and a reactant gas are alternately supplied to form a film; when a film is formed by PEALD on a substrate having a recess, the film may be excessively deposited at a top end opening of the recess, and an overhang portion of the film is formed at the top end opening; paragraphs [0029], [0048], [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutanto’s operation (a) to form the film by ALD, as taught by Yamawaku, because Sutanto and Yamawaku both address filling recessed semiconductor features while addressing overhang/void problems at the opening of the recess, and Yamawaku teaches PEALD as a known film-forming technique that forms an opening overhang in a recess. Thus, using Yamawaku’s PEALD film formation in Sutanto’s deposition/etch-back gap-fill process would have been using a known deposition technique in a similar gap-fill process to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al. in view of Yamawaku et al . as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2017/0314123 A1) . Regarding claim 19, modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (a) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a gas containing N2. Shimizu teaches wherein the operation (a) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a gas containing N2 (forming an SiN film by ALD by repeating a sequence of adsorbing an Si precursor and nitriding by nitriding species; DCS is disclosed as the Si precursor; N2 gas and H2 gas may be used as the nitriding gas; and these gases are activated by plasma to generate nitriding species; paragraphs [0021], [0034]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to modify Sutanto by Yamawaku to use Shimizu’s ALD SiN gas sequence because Yamawaku and Shimizu both teach ALD/PEALD film formation in recessed semiconductor features, and Shimizu teaches a known ALD sequence for forming SiN in a recess using an Si precursor and plasma-activated N2/H2 nitriding gas. The modification would have been the use of a known ALD SiN chemistry in a similar ALD recess-fill process to obtain predictable nitride film formation. See MPEP § 2143. Regarding claim 21, Modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (a) includes forming a silicon nitride film by repeating a cycle including supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate, supplying a nitrogen-containing gas to the substrate, and exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a He-containing gas; and etching the silicon nitride film. Shimizu teaches wherein the operation (a) includes forming a silicon nitride film by repeating a cycle including supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and supplying a nitrogen-containing gas to the substrate (embedding an SiN film in a recess by an ALD method; forming an SiN film by repeating a sequence of adsorbing an Si precursor and nitriding by nitriding species; DCS is disclosed as the Si precursor; and NH3 gas, NH3/H2 gas, and N2/H2 gas are disclosed as nitriding gases; paragraphs [0019]-[0021], [0034]-[0035], [0058]-[0059]). Yamawaku teaches exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a He-containing gas (the purge gas used for PEALD film formation may be an inert gas such as a noble gas, including He gas; during film formation, the film-forming source gas and reactant gas are alternately and intermittently supplied while supplying the purge gas; when the reactant gas reacts with the film-forming source gas only in a state where plasma is generated, the reactant gas may be supplied continuously during film formation; paragraph [0029].). Sutanto teaches etching the silicon nitride film (Sutanto teaches etching the film formed in the recess by an etch-back process that removes dielectric from gap 100, removes overhang 112, widens gap 100, and facilitates further filling; in the modified process using Shimizu’s SiN film, the film etched by the etch-back process is a silicon nitride film; col. 7, lines 14-30.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutanto as modified by Yamawaku to use Shimizu’s ALD SiN film-forming cycle because Yamawaku and Shimizu both teach ALD/PEALD film formation in recessed semiconductor features, and Shimizu teaches a known ALD sequence for forming SiN in a recess using an Si precursor and a nitriding gas. It further would have been obvious to use Yamawaku’s He purge gas during the PEALD plasma film formation because Yamawaku teaches He as a known purge gas for PEALD film formation. Thus, the modification would have been applying known ALD/PEALD gas-supply and SiN film-forming techniques in a similar recess-fill process to obtain predictable film-forming and gap-fill results. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al. in view of Yamawaku et al . as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2017/0314123 A1) . Regarding claim 30, modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 29 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (a) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a gas containing N2. Shimizu teaches wherein the operation (a) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and exposing the substrate to a plasma generated from a gas containing N2 (forming an SiN film by ALD by repeating a sequence of adsorbing an Si precursor and nitriding by nitriding species; DCS is disclosed as the Si precursor; N2 gas and H2 gas may be used as the nitriding gas; and these gases are activated by plasma to generate nitriding species; paragraphs [0021], [0034]-[0035]). It would have been obvious to modify Sutanto by Yamawaku to use Shimizu’s ALD SiN gas sequence because Yamawaku and Shimizu both teach ALD/PEALD film formation in recessed semiconductor features, and Shimizu teaches a known ALD sequence for forming SiN in a recess using an Si precursor and plasma-activated N2/H2 nitriding gas. The modification would have been the use of a known ALD SiN chemistry in a similar ALD recess-fill process to obtain predictable nitride film formation. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al. in view of Yamawaku et al . as applied to claim 18 above and further in view of Henry et al. (US 2017/0117134 A1) . Modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 18 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (a) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and supplying a nitrogen-containing gas to the substrate, and wherein either or both of the silicon-containing gas and the nitrogen-containing gas are supplied in a supply rate-limitation mode. Henry teaches wherein the operation (a) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and supplying a nitrogen-containing gas to the substrate, and wherein either or both of the silicon-containing gas and the nitrogen-containing gas are supplied in a supply rate-limitation mode (ALD deposition includes exposing a substrate surface to a silicon-containing precursor dose, introducing a second reactant such as a nitrogen-containing reactant, and using additional ALD cycles to build film thickness; an ALD precursor dose may partially saturate the substrate surface, the dose phase may conclude before the precursor contacts the substrate to evenly saturate the surface, and precursor flow may be turned off or diverted, corresponding under BRI to supplying the silicon-containing gas in a supply rate-limitation mode; paragraphs [0028]-[0034].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutanto as modified by Yamawaku to use Henry’s sub-saturation ALD supply technique because Yamawaku and Henry both teach ALD/PEALD film formation using sequential reactant supply, and Henry teaches that operating in a sub-saturation regime reduces ALD cycle time and increases throughput. Thus, using Henry’s sub-saturation supply in the modified ALD recess-fill process would have been applying a known ALD supply technique to a similar ALD process to obtain predictable process-control and throughput results. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al . as applied to claim 23 above and further in view of Singhal et al. (US 2018/0005801 A1) . Regarding claim 24, Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 23 as set forth above. Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (b) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD). Singhal teaches wherein the operation (b) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) (deposition-etch-deposition sequences are used for gap fill; common deposition techniques used in such sequences include ALD; and, at block 1010, a first dielectric layer can be deposited in one or more gaps via ALD in the plasma processing chamber; paragraphs [0027], [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutanto’s operation (b) to form the film by ALD, as taught by Singhal, because Sutanto and Singhal both address deposition-etch-deposition gap-fill processes for reducing or eliminating voids in high aspect ratio gaps, and Singhal teaches ALD as a known deposition technique used in such deposition-etch-deposition gap-fill sequences to provide improved conformality. The modification is a use of a known deposition technique in a similar gap-fill process to obtain predictable gap-fill results. See MPEP § 2143. Regarding claim 31, Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (b) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD). Singhal teaches wherein the operation (b) includes forming the film by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) (deposition-etch-deposition sequences are used for gap fill; common deposition techniques used in such sequences include ALD; and, at block 1010, a first dielectric layer can be deposited in one or more gaps via ALD in the plasma processing chamber; paragraphs [0027], [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sutanto’s operation (b) to form the film by ALD, as taught by Singhal, because Sutanto and Singhal both address deposition-etch-deposition gap-fill processes for reducing or eliminating voids in high aspect ratio gaps, and Singhal teaches ALD as a known deposition technique used in such deposition-etch-deposition gap-fill sequences to provide improved conformality. The modification is a use of a known deposition technique in a similar gap-fill process to obtain predictable gap-fill results. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto et al. in view of Singhal et al . as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2017/0314123 A1) . Regarding claim 25, modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 24 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (b) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and supplying a nitrogen-containing gas to the substrate, and wherein the nitrogen-containing gas is NH3, N2/H2, or NH3/N2/H2. Shimizu teaches wherein the operation (b) includes alternately repeating supplying a silicon-containing gas to the substrate and supplying a nitrogen-containing gas to the substrate, and wherein the nitrogen-containing gas is NH3, N2/H2, or NH3/N2/H2 (forming an SiN film by ALD by repeating a sequence of adsorbing an Si precursor and nitriding by nitriding species; DCS is disclosed as the Si precursor; and NH3 gas, NH3/H2 gas, and N2/H2 gas are disclosed as nitriding gases; paragraphs [0021], [0034]-[0035], [0058]-[0059]). It would have been obvious to modify Sutanto to use Shimizu’s ALD SiN gas sequence because Singhal and Shimizu both teach ALD film formation in recessed semiconductor features, and Shimizu teaches known ALD gas sequences for forming SiN using an Si precursor and nitrogen-containing gas. The modification would have been using a known ALD SiN chemistry in a similar ALD recess-fill process to obtain predictable nitride film formation. See MPEP § 2143. Regarding claim 26, modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 24 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the operation (b) includes forming an inhibiting area that inhibits deposition of the film on a side of the opening rather than the narrow portion of the recess. Shimizu teaches wherein the operation (b) includes forming an inhibiting area that inhibits deposition of the film on a side of the opening rather than the narrow portion of the recess (supplying a polymer material in a gaseous state so that the polymer material is adsorbed to an upper portion of the recess, thereby inhibiting adsorption of the Si precursor in the upper portion of the recess while allowing SiN growth from the bottom portion of the recess; paragraphs [0009]-[0010], [0022]-[0024], [0038]-[0040], [0059]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to modify Sutanto as modified by Singhal to include Shimizu’s upper-recess inhibition technique because Sutanto, Singhal, and Shimizu all address filling recessed semiconductor features while reducing voids/seams, and Shimizu teaches that inhibiting film-forming raw material adsorption at the upper portion of the recess promotes bottom-up growth and prevents blocking of the recess opening. The modification would have applied a known inhibition technique to a similar ALD recess-fill process to improve bottom-up filling and reduce void/seam formation. See MPEP § 2143. Regarding claim 27, modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 25 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto does not teach wherein the film is a silicon nitride film. Shimizu teaches wherein the film is a silicon nitride film (embedding an SiN film in a recess by an ALD method and describing silicon nitride as an example of the nitride film; paragraphs [0019]-[0021]). It would have been obvious to form the film as a silicon nitride film because Shimizu teaches SiN as a known ALD recess-fill film, and using Shimizu’s SiN film in the modified gap-fill process would have been applying a known nitride-film material in a similar semiconductor recess-fill process to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143. Regarding claim 28 modified Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 27 as set forth above. Modified Sutanto further teaches wherein the operation (a), the operation (b), and the operation (c) are continuously performed under a depressurized atmosphere (the entire dep-etch-dep process may be conducted in a single plasma reactor chamber; the etch-back process is preferably carried out in the same reactor chamber as the deposition; reactor pressure is held at a value necessary to sustain the high-density plasma, and the process vessel is preferably maintained at a pressure of at most about 100 mTorr, with the pressure maintained between about 1 and 100 mTorr for many applications; Sutanto, col. 3, lines 54-63; col. 6, lines 10-17; col. 7, lines 14-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the operation (a), the operation (b), and the operation (c) of modified Sutanto continuously under a depressurized atmosphere because Sutanto teaches conducting the entire dep-etch-dep process in a single plasma reactor chamber, carrying out the etch-back process in the same reactor chamber as the deposition, and maintaining reduced reactor pressure to sustain the high-density plasma. Performing the modified process under Sutanto’s same-chamber, reduced-pressure conditions would reduce wafer handling, maintain compatible plasma-processing conditions, and provide predictable gap-fill processing results. See MPEP § 2143 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutanto in as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 2017/0314123 A1) . Sutanto teaches all limitations of claim 16 as set forth above. Sutanto does not teach wherein the film is a silicon nitride film. Shimizu teaches wherein the film is a silicon nitride film (embedding an SiN film in a recess by an ALD method and describing silicon nitride as an example of the nitride film; paragraphs [0019]-[0021]). It would have been obvious to form Sutanto’s film as a silicon nitride film, as taught by Shimizu, because Sutanto and Shimizu both address filling recessed semiconductor features, and Shimizu teaches silicon nitride as a known recess-fill film formed by ALD. The modification would have been using a known nitride-film material in a similar semiconductor recess-fill process to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 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, Joshua L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. 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. /JONATHAN L CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1713 /ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 2 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 3 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 4 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 5 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 6 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 7 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 8 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 9 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 10 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 11 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 12 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 13 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 14 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 15 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 16 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 17 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 18 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 19 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 20 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 21 Art Unit: 1713 Application/Control Number: 18/547,888 Page 22 Art Unit: 1713
Prosecution Insights