DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on March 2, 2026, claims 1 – 16, 21 – 22 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended and claims 17 – 20 have been canceled. Claims 21 – 22 have been added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 14 and 15 recite verbatim a newly amended requirement of claim 1, thus failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent et al. EP 1225194A2 (of record, hereinafter “Vincent”) in view of Vrtis et al. US 10249489 B2 (hereinafter “Vrtis”).
Regarding claim 1, 7, 8, 14, 15:
Vincent is directed to a method of forming a low dielectric constant interlayer dielectric film by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition [PECVD] (Abstract, [0064]). Vincent discloses that their method comprises:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber ([0005], [0051], [0055] – [0058], [0064]);
introducing into the reaction chamber a gaseous composition comprising e.g. a silyl ether such as dimethylethoxysilane [Formula I where R is methyl] or dimethoxysilane [Formula I where R is hydrogen] ([0030]; Table 1; Claim 3, 33); and
applying a plasma or high temperature [energy] to the gaseous composition in the reaction chamber to induce a reaction of dimethylethoxysilane or dimethoxysilane, thereby depositing the organosilica film on the substrate ([0030], [0064]; Claims 1, 3, 20, 21, 32, 33).
Vincent does not expressly teach that the organosilica film on the substrate, wherein at least one of the following two properties of the organosilica film are met by the organosilica film deposited on the substrate: the organosilica film has a value of relative bridging methylene (SiCH2Si) density as determined by IR spectroscopy of~ 10 to ~30: the organosilica film has a value of relative SiCH2Si density divided by the fraction of carbon in the film, as measured by XPS, of at least 50.
Vrtis teaches a method for forming a low dielectric organosilicon film by vapor depositing a organosilicon precursor reacted with energy (Abstract and Column 3 Line 65 through Column 4 Line 28) wherein the deposited film comprised carbon bridging between silicon atoms including methylene and ethylidene bridging were then relative amount of carbon bridging affected the mechanical properties of the film including the bulk modulus (Column 4 Lines 29-54).
Based on the teachings of Vrtis, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have determined optimal values of relative carbon bridging and a ratio of relative bridging groups Density/total carbon through routine experimentation because these values affected the mechanical properties of the formed organosilica film.
Regarding claim 2 and 6:
Vincent does not teach that it was required for the gaseous reagent/composition to comprise any hardening additive or any of the impurities disclosed within the claims.
Regarding claim 3:
Vincent does not expressly teach an embodiment that results in a deposited organosilica film with the recited composition.
However, Vincent discloses a desire to form films having desired element ratios from a precursor that include all atoms intended to be part of the resultant film ([0022]). Such films have a general formula of SiaObCcHd, in which the total atomic% of a+b+c+d = 100%, a – 10 – 35%, b = 1 – 66%, c = 1 – 35% and d = 0 – 60% ([0022], [0031]).
Such ratios substantially overlap with the claimed composition ratios recited in present claim 3. Vincent further discloses that the choice of precursors, deposition rate of the precursor , plasma power level, temperature and flow rates of precursors affect the composition of the final film material ([0040] – [0041], [0055], [0070]). The composition of the final film material affects properties such as the dielectric constant of the film ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Vincent by selecting parameters that would result in a film having the claimed compositional ratios between recited elements as a matter of routine experimentation to obtain desired properties within the broader taught general formula disclosed in Vincent, such as an optimized dielectric constant.
Regarding claim 4:
Vincent discloses that the organosilica film has a dielectric constant in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 and an elastic modulus of greater than 3 GPA ([0075]). Vincent further teaches that the organosilica film had a carbon content of 1 to 35 atomic% ([0071]). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 12:
Vincent discloses an embodiment where an oxidant is optionally introduced and where no oxidant was included in the gaseous mixture ([0057], [0085]). The oxidants may be e.g O2, N2O, NO, NO2 and provided while the chamber is heated [thermal energy applied] or during plasma exposure ([0064]).
Regarding claim 11:
Vincent discloses embodiments where an inert gas is provided, such as helium, argon, krypton, neon and xenon ([0056], claim 15, 28).
Regarding claim 13:
Vincent discloses that the desired deposition rate for the film is at least 50 nm/min ([0066]). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16:
Vincent discloses that the substrate temperature during the process may be between 100°C to 400°C, with specific temperatures of e.g. 390°C for embodiments using precursors other than those claimed ([0005], Table 4). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent in view of Vrtis as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6 – 16 above, and further in view of Peng US 20200006072 A1 (hereafter “Peng”).
Regarding claim 5:
Vincent does not expressly teach that the dielectric organosilica film had a leakage current density value of less than 1x10-9 A/cm2 at an electric field strength of greater than or equal to 4 MV/cm.
Peng teaches a method for forming an organosilica dielectric layer by plasma enhanced vapor deposition (Abstract and Page 2 Paragraph 0021) wherein the organosilica dielectric material a leakage current density of between 10-9 to 10-7 A/cm2 at a field strength of between 3 to 6 MV/cm (Page 6 Paragraph 0047).
Based on the teachings of Peng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the organosilica film of Vincent in view of Vrtis to have a leakage current density of between 10-9 to 10-7 A/cm2 at a field strength of between 3 to 6 MV/cm because these were known electrical properties in the art for organosilica dielectric films used in semiconductor devices. Furthermore, the disclosed ranges of Vincent in view of Vrtis and Peng overlapped with the claimed ranges and, as was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vincent in view of Vrtis as applied to claims 1 – 4, 6 – 16 above, and further in view of Nakagawa JP 2009194075 A (hereinafter “Nakagawa”, machine translation provided and referenced , mapped to the relevant formula in the original document).
Regarding claims 21 and 22:
Vincent in view of Vrtis does not expressly teach that the hydrido-dimethyl-alkoxysilane
has the structure given in Formula I, R is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, n-propyl, iso-propyl, n-butyl, iso-butyl, sec-butyl, tert-butyl, n-pentyl, neo-pentyl, 2-pentyl,cyclopentyl, and cyclohexyl, such as the chemical species recited in present claim 22.
In analogous art, Nakagawa is directed to Si-containing dielectric insulating films and methods of making Si-containing films by chemical vapor deposition using organic silane compounds as precursors (Page 1 1st – 2nd paragraph). Nakagawa discloses that their method comprises, inter alia, a step of supplying a gaseous silane precursor compound (Component II) as part of their CVD method onto a substrate or onto a layer of silicon-containing insulating sublayer that was previously deposited (page 2 last paragraph, page 13 6th paragraph “4.3 Formation of silicon-containing insulating film …). Hamada discloses that suitable precursors for component II include dimethylethoxysilane, dimethyl-n-propoxysilane and dimethyl-iso-propoxysilane (page 7 last paragraph, formula presented in paragraph [0017] of the original document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Vincent in view of Vrtis by specifically using as the hydrido-dimethyl-alkoxysilane precursor e.g. dimethyl-n-propoxysilane [R = ethyl] as part of the gaseous composition because as taught by Nakagawa, the use of dimethyl-n-propoxysilane is known to be suitable for the purpose of a low dielectric constant organosilica films. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) The claimed method presents a selected subset of the compounds of Formula II of Vincent that results in films with unexpected effects, as evidenced in paragraphs [0030] – [0033], which results in films with the same dielectric constant but with higher elastic modulus and higher hardness compared to films prepared from DEMS.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) As a first note, the Examiner notes that as recited in claim 1, the claimed precursor introduced to the reaction chamber includes dimethylethoxysilane [Formula I where R is methyl]. The claims therefore include in its scope processes that utilize DEMS that result in the claimed film properties in conjunction with practice of the other steps of the method. Applicant’s argument against DEMS is therefore contradicted by the teachings of Vincent with regards to the alleged unexpected results of the deposited organosilica film produced by claimed method where the criticality lies in the choice of precursor.
Secondly, Applicant’s reply references paragraph [0030] – [0033] of the instant specification as evidence of unexpected results. However, the statement is a conclusory statement that does not provide or point to data and other evidence to support the professed advantage. The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The Examiner does note that there is evidence that may be used to support an allegation of unexpected results. See Fig. 5, 8 and paragraphs [0072] – [0073], [0084], [0098] – [0102]; alongside comparative examples where structurally different precursors are solely provided, e.g paragraphs [0070] – [0071]. However, the comparative example has no bearing to Vincent, which teaches an exemplary provision of the claimed dimethylethoxysilane, and the scope of the claims greatly includes a larger set of species than the scope of the provided evidence. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
Because the claimed subject matter, which comprises the recited compound in the provided precursor composition and includes a larger set of potential chemical species, is not commensurate in scope with the evidence of record, the Examiner maintains the position that a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights