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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected. Claims 1, 7, 8, 11, and 18 are amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: He has been listed twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “broad-band” as in claim 14 is interpreted as including multiple wavelengths and the term “narrow-band” and in claim 15 is interpreted as including a single wavelength.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim indicates that the curing gas comprises at least one of : He, H2, N2, He, Ar, or combinations thereof, however, claim 1 has been amended to require that the curing gas comprises hydrogen. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 16 is intended to require that the curing gas further comprises at least one of He, N2, Ar, or combinations thereof, or whether having hydrogen gas alone will meet the claim requirements. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, as noted above, the claim requires that the curing gas comprises at least one of: He, H2, N2, He, Ar, or combinations thereof, where claim 1 has been amended to require that the curing gas comprises hydrogen. Therefore, claim 16 is not considered further limiting claim 1 because having hydrogen alone, as require by claim 1, will already meet the limitations of the claim. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi, US 2021/0257213 A1 (provided on the IDS of 3/7/2024) in view of Ndiege, US 2015/0004806 A1 and Liang, US 2018/0330980 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kikuchi teaches a method of forming dielectric material layer on a surface of a substrate (abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
a deposition step comprising:
providing a substrate within a first reaction chamber (0009);
providing a cyclosiloxane precursor to the first reaction chamber (providing one or more precursors to the reaction chamber, 0009, where the precursors include octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, octamethoxycyclosiloxane, etc. 0042);
providing a reactant to the first reaction chamber (additionally providing a reactant to the reaction chamber, 0009); and
providing pulsed plasma power to the first reaction chamber (providing pulsed plasma power to polymerize the precursor in the reaction chamber, where the plasma can be direct, 0009, such that pulsed plasma power will be provided to the reaction chamber); and
providing a curing gas to the substrate; and
irradiating the substrate with a UV light (where a post-deposition step of UV treatment with an inert gas is performed to densify the material, 0009 and 0053, such that the UV step is also considered a curing step because the material will be densified).
They teach using a thermal curing step at a temperature of less than 500°C (0053). They teach that the precursor includes a cyclic structure that can include silicon and oxygen with Si-O bonds (0042). They teach that the material can initially be flowable (0009). They teach that the dielectric material layer comprises silicon, oxygen, and carbon (0057).
They do not teach that the precursor is a vinyl-substituted cyclosiloxane.
Ndiege teaches methods for depositing flowable dielectric films (abstract). They teach that the substrate is exposed to a silicon-containing precursor, a catalyst, and an oxidant (0052). They teach that examples of the silicon-containing precursor include octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, etc. (0057). They teach that examples of the oxidants include O3, H2O2, O2, H2O, NO, NO2, N2O, CO, and CO2 (0068). They teach that the reaction takes place in the presence of plasma, generated either remotely or in the deposition chamber (0075). They teach that the chamber pressure may be between about 1 and 200 Torr or about 10 Torr (between about 133 and 26,664 Pa or about 1333 Pa) (0076). They teach that the temperature is between -20°C to 100°C (0080). They teach that the pressure and temperature may be varied to adjust deposition time, with high pressure and low temperature being favorable for quick deposition (0080). They teach that after the flowable film has been deposited on the substrate, the film is optionally cured, where a plasma can be used (0084). They teach that in addition to or instead of exposing the film while it is in a thermal reactive state, a post-deposition cure process may be performed (0085 and Fig. 4). They teach that the film may be cured by purely thermal annealing, exposure to a plasma, exposure to ultraviolet or microwave radiation, or exposure to another energy source (0086). They teach that in certain embodiments, an ex-situ treatment involves exposing the film to ultraviolet radiation at temperature of 100°C-400°C with UV exposure to cure the film (0089).
From the teachings of Ndiege, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kikuchi to have used tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane as the silicon precursor because Ndiege teaches that it is a suitable precursor for depositing a flowable dielectric film, where it is indicated as being an alternative to the precursors taught by Kikuchi (tetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane and octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane) such that it will be expected to be a simple substitution of one known precursor for another with the predictable result of successfully forming the dielectric layer.
Further, from the teachings of Kikuchi and Ndiege, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the UV treatment can also be used to cure the film because Kikuchi teaches using a UV treatment for densifying the film and Ndiege teaches that UV exposure can be used to cure the flowable film in a thermal treatment such that it will be expected to further cure the material. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a thermal UV treatment for curing the film because Ndiege teaches that curing with UV at 100-400°C is suitable for curing as an alternative to a purely thermal anneal, where the temperature is within the thermal annealing temperature taught by Kikuchi such that it will be expected to provide a suitable curing process for the flowable film.
They do not teach curing with hydrogen gas.
Kikuchi further teaches performing UV treatment with an inert gas (0053). They teach that an inert gas refers to a gas that does not take part in a chemical reaction, where exemplary inert gases include argon, helium, nitrogen, and any mixtures thereof (0029). They teach that the film includes silicon, oxygen, and carbon (0057).
Ndiege teaches that thermal anneal may be performed in an inert environment (Ar, He, etc.) or in a potentially reactive environment, where N2 can be used (0086).
Liang teaches methods for forming and filling trenches in a substrate with a flowable dielectric material (abstract). They teach depositing the flowable film, performing a UV curing process, and then performing a plasma curing process (abstract). They teach that the flowable layer is a dielectric material such as SiOC (0021). They teach that suitable silicon-containing precursors include siloxanes (0023). They teach using oxygen-based radical precursors such as oxygen, ozone, NO, NO2, etc. (0024). They teach that the UV curing process may be performed in an oxygen-containing ambient, a nitrogen-containing ambient, and/or in an inert gas ambient (0030-0031). They teach that the inert ambient may be created by introducing helium, argon, hydrogen, krypton, xenon, and any combination thereof, into the curing chamber (0031).
From the teachings of Liang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used hydrogen as the curing gas because Kikuchi teaches that an inert gas such as argon, helium, nitrogen, and any mixtures thereof is suitable for UV excitation to densify (cure) the film, Ndiege teaches that such gases are suitable for a thermal anneal, and Liang teaches that inert gases for UV curing a SiOC flowable film include hydrogen, helium, argon, and combinations thereof, such that using hydrogen as the gas during curing is expected to provide a suitable inert environment for UV curing the SiOC layer as an alternative to helium and argon. Therefore, the curing gas will comprise hydrogen.
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches depositing the films at a temperature of less than or equal to 450°C, or less than or equal to 300°C, or less than or equal to 200°C (0041), such that the temperature overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Ndiege also teaches performing deposition at a substrate temperature of between about -20 and 100°C (0080).
Liang also teaches reacting the silicon-containing precursor and the oxygen-based radical precursor at a temperature of 150°C or less, 100°c or less, or about 65°C (0029).
Regarding claim 3, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches that a temperature of the substrate during the step of performing the post-deposition treatment, where UV excitation is a post-deposition treatment, is done at less than 500°C (0053).
Ndiege teaches that in certain embodiments, an ex-situ treatment involves exposing the film to ultraviolet radiation at temperature of 100°C-400°C with UV exposure to cure the film (0089).
Liang teaches UV curing the flowable layer at a temperature range of about 100°C to about 200°C, about 200°C to about 300°C, about 300°C to 400°C, etc. (0034).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the UV curing at a temperature of 100-400°C because Ndiege teaches that such a temperature is suitable for a UV thermal curing process, it overlaps the range of Liang, and the range is within the UV treatment temperature range taught by Kikuchi such that it will be expected to provide a suitable temperature range for the UV curing the film. Therefore, the temperature overlaps the claimed range.
According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 4, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches that the various steps of methods can be performed within a single reaction chamber or can be performed in multiple reaction chambers (0040).
Ndiege teaches that the UV thermal curing process can be done ex-situ (0088).
Liang also teaches performing the curing in a curing chamber which is separate from the deposition chamber (0007 and 0030).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used separate chambers for deposition and curing because Kikuchi teaches that separate chambers can be used for the various operations, Ndiege teaches performing UV thermal processing ex situ, and Liang teaches performing UV curing in a chamber separate from the deposition chamber.
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches that the pulsed power can be less than 2000 W or be between about 300 W and about 500 W (0048-0049), such that the power will be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.”
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches that the duty cycle is about 10% or about 100% or less than 50% (0049), such that the duty cycle overlaps or is within the claimed range.
According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 7, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Ndiege teaches that the chamber pressure may be between about 1 and 200 Torr or about 10 Torr (between about 133 and 26,664 Pa or about 1333 Pa) (0076). They teach that the temperature is between -20°C to 100°C (0080). They teach that the pressure and temperature may be varied to adjust deposition time, with high pressure and low temperature being favorable for quick deposition (0080).
Liang teaches depositing the flowable film at a pressure of about 0.1 Torr to about 10 Torr, for example, about 0.5 Torr to about 6 Torr (0029), i.e., about 13.3 to 1333 Pa or about 66.7 to about 800 Pa.
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a pressure between about 133 and 26,664 Pa or about 1333 Pa, or about 13.3 to 1333 Pa, or about 66.7 to about 800 Pa because Ndiege and Liang teach that such pressure ranges are suitable for depositing a flowable film. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature to be within the claimed range because Ndiege teaches that the pressure and temperature may be adjusted to adjust deposition time with high pressure and low temperature being favorable for a fast deposition, indicating that the pressure can be optimized to provide the desired deposition time. Therefore, the pressure during deposition will be overlapping, within, or optimized to be within the claimed range.
According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” According to MPEP 2131.03, “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art.” According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “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.”
Regarding claim 8, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Ndiege further teaches that pressures during curing may be from 0.1-10 Torr (about 13-1333 Pa) with high oxidant pressure for removing carbon (0088).
Liang teaches that the pressure during curing may be in a range of about 1 Torr to about 600 Torr (0034), i.e., about 133 Pa to about 80,000 Pa.
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a pressure from about 13-1333 Pa or from about 133 Pa to about 80,000 Pa during curing because Ndiege and Liang teach that such pressure ranges are desirable during curing. Therefore, the curing pressure will overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claims 9-11, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1, where the suggestion is to use tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, i.e., 1,3,5,7-tetramethyl-1,3,5,7-tetravinylcyclotetrasiloxane as the precursor, such that it will have a methyl group.
Regarding claims 12-13, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches that the reactant comprises an oxidant such as one or more of O2, O3, N2O, N2O4, NxOy, CO, CO2, H2O, and H2O2 (0046). Ndiege also teaches using O3, H2O2, O2, H2O, NO, NO2, N2O, CO, and CO2 as oxidants (0068). Liang teaches that the oxygen-based radical precursor may include O2, O3, NO, NO2, N2O, water, peroxide, carbon dioxide, etc. (0024).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Liang further teaches that he UV curing can use a UV light source that emits light over a broad spectrum of wavelengths or a laser that provides narrowband UV light to the flowable layer (0033). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a broadband or a narrow band UV source for UV curing because Liang teaches that either source is suitable for UV curing of a flowable film containing SiOC.
Regarding claim 16, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches performing UV treatment with an inert gas (0053). They teach that an inert gas refers to a gas that does not take part in a chemical reaction, where exemplary inert gases include argon, helium, nitrogen, and any mixtures thereof (0029).
Ndiege teaches that thermal anneal may be performed in an inert environment (Ar, He, etc.) or in a potentially reactive environment, where N2 can be used (0086).
As discussed above, Liang teaches UV curing with inert gases such as helium, argon, hydrogen, krypton, xenon, and nay combination thereof (0031).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used hydrogen in combination with any of argon, helium, or nitrogen as the curing gas because Kikuchi teaches that argon, helium, nitrogen, and any mixtures thereof suitable for UV excitation to densify (cure) the film, Ndiege teaches that such gases are suitable for a thermal anneal, and Liang teaches that mixtures of inert gases such as hydrogen with helium and/or argon are suitable for UV curing such that the gases are also expected to be suitable for a UV thermal anneal.
Regarding claim 20, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1. Kikuchi further teaches that the reactant can be flowed to the reaction chamber at the same time as the precursors so as to provide CVD or they may be pulsed to the reaction chamber for a cyclical process such as an ALD process (0043). Therefore, when providing a cyclical deposition process, the precursor and the reactant will be pulsed to the chamber during the process.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogasawara, US 2007/0232821 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 1, where the precursor is suggested to be tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, such that it includes methyl groups.
They do not teach that the precursor includes methoxy groups.
Ogasawara teaches a composition containing a siloxane compound having -HSiRO-, where R is a hydrogen atom, a hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, an alkoxy group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, or a phenoxy group (abstract). They teach that the siloxane compound includes a cyclic siloxane having formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
136
206
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where n is 2 to 7, R is a hydrogen atom, a hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, an alkoxy group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms, or a phenoxy group, and a plurality of Rs per molecule may be the same or different (0012). They teach that the cyclic siloxane compound is especially useful as a thin film precursor in a CVD process (0012). They teach that the hydrocarbon group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms represented by R includes an alkyl group, e.g., methyl, ethyl, etc., an alkenyl group, e.g., vinyl, etc. (0013). They teach that the alkoxy group having 1 to 8 carbon atoms as represented by R includes methoxy, ethoxy, etc. (0013). They teach that the composition is useful as a material of silicon-containing thin film formation using CVD and ALD processes (0023). They teach that a reactive gas such as oxygen, ozone, nitrogen, water, hydrogen, etc. can be used with the precursor in CVD (0034). Therefore, Ogasawara teaches using cyclic siloxane precursors for ALD or CVD, where they indicate that methoxy groups can be used as an alternative to methyl group and where the compound can include a mixture of alkyl, alkoxy, and vinyl groups.
From the teachings of Ogasawara, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang to have substituted one or more methyl groups for methoxy groups in the cyclic siloxane precursor because Ogasawara teaches that methoxy groups can be used as an alternative to methyl group in a cyclic siloxane precursor used for ALD or CVD such that it will be expected to provide a simple substitution of one known ligand for another while providing the desired and predictable result of forming a suitable precursor for the deposition process.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of O’Shaughnessy, US 2022/0388032 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang suggest the process of claim 9, where the precursor is suggested to be tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, such that it includes methyl groups.
They do not teach using one of the listed precursors.
O’Shaughnessy teaches methods for plasma depositing polymers comprising cyclic siloxanes where the methods include flowing a precursor gas in proximity to a substrate within a PECVD reactor, wherein the precursor gas comprises an initiator and at least one monomer comprising a cyclic siloxane and at least two vinyl groups, and depositing a polymer formed from the at least one monomer on the substrate (abstract). They teach that polymers comprising cyclic siloxanes are formed by polymerizing monomers comprising cyclic siloxane groups (0003 and 0006), such that the process provides films including carbon, silicon, and oxygen. They teach that a monomer comprising a cyclic siloxane group has the formula (I):
PNG
media_image2.png
162
206
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where each R1 and R2 is the same or different and is independently substituted or unsubstituted alkyl or substituted or unsubstituted alkene, and n is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 (0058). They teach that at least two R1 and/or R2 is vinyl (0058). They teach that examples of R1 groups include methyl groups, indicating that it is a suitable alkyl for the R groups (0058). They indicate that one of the precursors can be tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane (0058).
From the teachings of O’Shaughnessy, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected 1,3,5,7-hexamethyl, 3,7,-divinylcyclotetrasiloxane as the precursor because O’Shaughnessy teaches a precursor for forming a silicon, carbon, and oxygen-containing film by a vapor deposition process, where the precursor can include two vinyl groups and where the other R group can be alkyl groups, such as methyl (i.e., they provide a formula having methyl groups and vinyl groups overlapping the range so as to include 1,3,5,7-hexmethyl, 3,7,-divinylcyclotetrasiloxane), where the precursor is indicated as being an alternative to tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane, such that it will be expected to provide a suitable precursor for forming the film as desired.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Ndiege and Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mohn, US 2017/0137943 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Kikuchi in view of Ndiege suggest the process of claim 1, where the precursor is suggested to be tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane. Kikuchi teaches providing the precursors to the reaction chamber at step 104 and providing plasma power to polymerize the precursors in the reaction chamber at step 106, where a step of providing one or more reactants to the chamber can also be provided at step 108 (0039 and Fig. 1). Therefore, during the step of providing the pulse plasma power, the gas within the first reaction chamber will consist of the precursor and the reactant.
Ndiege teaches including a catalyst with the precursor when depositing the flowable dielectric (abstract).
Therefore, they do not specifically teach that when using tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane the gases consist of only the precursor and the reactant and an optional inert gas.
Mohn teaches methods for UV assisted capillary condensation to form dielectric materials (abstract). They teach flowing a process gas including a dielectric precursor into a deposition chamber at 103 and depositing a flowable dielectric film into a gap at block 105 (0036 and Fig. 1). They teach that the process can be plasma-enhanced (0040). They teach that the dielectric precursor includes a cyclic siloxane such as tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane (0041 and 0057). They teach that an oxidant may be optionally flowed as well (0042), i.e., a reactant. They teach that cyclic siloxanes can be used in the methods described herein for catalyst-free deposition processes (0057). Therefore, Mohn teaches that catalysts are not required when depositing a flowable film using cyclic siloxanes such as tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane.
From the teachings of Kikuchi and Mohn, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have not used a catalyst during the deposition process because Kikuchi does not indicate that one is required, where they teach using cyclic siloxanes similar to those used by Ndiege, and Mohn indicates that catalysts are not required when depositing a flowable film using cyclic siloxanes such as tetravinyltetramethylcyclotetrasiloxane such that it will be expected to provide the flowable film as desired simplifying the material requirements. Therefore, when providing the plasma to the chamber, the gases in the chamber will consist of the vinyl-substituted cyclosiloxane precursor and the reactant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments provided 1/20/2026 have been fully considered.
In light of the amendment to the claims, the objection over claim 18 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been modified with the new reference of Liang as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights