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 5-15 and 21-29 are pending. Claims 1-4 and 16-20 have been cancelled.
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 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, US 2013/0196516 A1 in view of Bhuyan, US 2021/0062341 A1.
Regarding claims 5-9, Lavoie teaches a method of manufacturing a film (a method of making SiN and other silicon-containing films, abstract), comprising:
physically/chemically adsorbing a plurality of precursor compounds on a substrate by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) (providing a reactant to a reactor so that some molecules adsorb to the substrate surface in an ALD process, where the process can be an ALD or CFD process, 0021 and 0024);
purging unabsorbed precursor compounds with a gas (where a purge operation is performed to leave adsorbed or chemisorbed material on the substrate surface, 0024, 0054, and Fig. 3) and irradiating a first pulsed UV light (where a pulsed UV source is used in an activation phase, 0035, 0070); and
using a second pulsed UV light or plasma to form a first film layer (where the UV light is pulsed, 0070, such that it will provide a first and second pulse).
They teach extending an activation energy exposure time and/or providing a plurality of exposure phases may provide a post-reaction treatment of bulk and/or near-surface portions of the deposited film (0043). They teach that treating the silicon nitride surface with a plasma or other activation energy may create hydrogen bonds for facilitating subsequent adsorption and reaction events (0043). They teach that as a result of the UV radiation a reaction forming a desired silicon-containing film such as SiN, SiC, SiO2, SiCN, SiON, or SiONC is activated (0054). They teach that the UV light can be used to activate the surface-bound Si-containing reactant (0075). They teach that the activation energy can be provided by UV or plasma (0035).
They do not teach that the precursor includes a cyclic Si-C-Si bond.
Bhuyan teaches methods for ALD or PEALD of low-k films by exposing a substrate to a precursor having the general formula I:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
166
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where X is silicon, R1-R8 are independently selected from hydrogen, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, silane, substituted or unsubstituted amine, or halide, purging the processing chamber of the silicon precursor; exposing the substrate to an oxidant; and purging the process chamber of the oxidant (abstract). They teach that the process forms films such as SiOC or SiOCN (0006).
From the teachings of Bhuyan, 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 precursor having formula I where at least one of R1, R2, R5, and R6 are silane and at least one of R3, R4, R7, and R8 are alkyl because Bhuyan teaches that such precursors are suitable for deposition of SiOC and SiOCN films by ALD using plasma activation energy and Lavoie teaches using UV energy as an alternative to plasma energy in activating a silicon-containing precursor for forming SiOCN or silicon-containing films such that it will be expected to provide a suitable precursor for the process. Therefore, Lavoie in view of Bhuyan suggest using a precursor having a Si-C-Si bond in a cyclic main chain where the precursor includes one or more silicon containing functional groups on a branch chain and a carbon containing group on a branch chain. While they do not teach that the UV pulses break one Si-C bond of the Si-C-Si bond and then connects a functional group R1 on one branch chain of one broken Si-C bond with a functional group R2 on one branch chain of another broken Si-C bond, since they suggest the claimed process using UV light to activate and form the film, where the precursor has the claimed cyclical structure and branch functional groups meeting the requirements of claim 6, the resulting pulses are also expected to perform the claimed functions for forming the carbon doped SiN film. Further, while they do not teach the features of claims 7-9, as noted above, since they provide the claimed process using a precursor meeting the requirements of claims 5 and 6, the resulting process is also expected to meet the requirements of claims 7-9.According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 10, Lavoie in view of Bhuyan suggest the process of claim 5. Lavoie teaches repeating the process to form the film having a desired thickness (0054). Therefore, the precursor will be adsorbed on to the surface again by an ALD process, unabsorbed precursor will be purged with a gas, and UV light will be provided in a first pulse and a second pulse to form the film on the substrate, where the process is also expected to result in breaking on Si-C bond of the Si-C-Si bond and the second pulse is expected to connect the functional group R1 on one branch chain of one broken Si-C bond with the functional group R2 on one branch chain of another broken Si-C bond to form a second film layer.
Regarding claims 11-15, Lavoie in view of Bhuyan suggest the process of claim 10. As discussed above for claim 6, they suggest using a precursor in which a branch functional group includes silicon and a branch functional group includes carbon as required by claim 15. While they do not teach the features of claims 11-14, since they provide the claimed process and use precursor meeting the claimed requirements, the resulting process is also expected to provide the features of claims 11-14. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claims 21-22, 24-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie, US 2013/0196516 A1 in view of Bhuyan, US 2021/0062341 A1 and Hashimoto, US 2020/0090930 A1.
Regarding claims 21-22, 24-26, and 28-29, as discussed above for claim 5, Lavoie in view of Bhuyan suggest the process of claim 21, however, they do not teach that the first film layer is represented by chemical formula I.
Hashimoto teaches forming a first film including a cyclic structure composed of silicon and carbon and also including nitrogen so as to fill a recess formed in a surface of a substrate by supplying the precursor and then supplying a nitriding agent (abstract). They teach using cyclic precursors such as 1,1,3,3,-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane (0025). They teach that the shape of the precursor does not need to be square, where the precursor could alternatively be 1,1,3,3,-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclopentane (0065). Therefore, Hashimoto indicates that a disilacyclopentane precursor can be used as an alternative to a disilacyclobutane precursor.
From the teachings of Hashimoto, 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 Lavoie in view of Bhuyan to have used a disilacyclopentane precursor having the R groups of Bhuyan as a substitute for the disilacyclobutane precursor because Hashimoto indicates that a disilacyclopentane precursor can be used as an alternative to a disilacyclobutane precursor such that it will be expected to provide a suitable precursor in the deposition process due to the structural similarities and because Hashimoto suggests they can be substituted for one another. Therefore, the precursor of Lavoie in view of Bhuyan and Hashimoto will be a disilacyclopentane precursor, where R1 is selected from functional groups including silyl groups and R2 is selected from functional groups including carbon (i.e., alkyl groups), such that the resulting process is also expected to provide a film having chemical formula 1 because it meets the requirements of claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, and 28. Further, the process is also expected to provide the features of claim 29 because R1 is suggested to include a silyl group and R2 is suggested to include a carbon atom, i.e., be an alkyl. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
It is noted that the prior art cited above suggests the features of claims 21 and 25, however, they do not suggest including a chloromethyl group as a branch side chain as required by claims 23 and 27.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendment to the specification, the previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that there is no evidence showing where and how the cited references teach an Si-C-Si bond in each of the cyclic main chains, it is noted that Bhuyan suggests using a precursor having X-C-Si in the cyclic chain, where X is silicon or carbon and specifically where is it silicon (abstract and 0018). Therefore, the main chain will have Si-C-Si as a main chain in the cyclic structure.
As to the reaction pathway of breaking one Si-C bond of the Si-C-Si bond in each of the cyclic main chains and connecting a functional group R1 on one branch chain of one broken Si-C bond with a functional group R2 on one branch chain of another broken Si-C bond, since the combination of Lavoie in view of Bhuyan provides irradiating a precursor meeting the claimed requirements with pulsed UV light for the purposes of activating the precursor, and the claim requires pulsing of UV light, the process is also expected to provide the described reaction pathway.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over the precursor of Bhuyan, as noted above Bhuyan provides a precursor having Si-C-Si bonds in the main cyclic chain where they have functional groups R1-R8 coming off the cyclic chains (abstract). As written, claims 5, 21, and 25 do not define the required functional groups, indicating that any group can be used, as long as group R3 provides a Si-C bond in claim 21. Further, the motivation to use the precursor of Bhuyan is because it is a known silicon precursor for forming the film desired by Lavoie using PEALD, where Lavoie indicates that UV is an alternative energy source to plasma for activating precursors such that it will be expected to also be successfully activated by the process of Lavoie for depositing the desired film. Specifically, it is expected to provide a simple substitution of one known precursor for another while expecting the same results. As to Applicant’s argument over the broad list of possible substituents, it is noted that for X, there is only the option of silicon and carbon (abstract), where they specifically teach that X is silicon (0018). As for the functional R groups, they are indicated as including H, substituted or unsubstituted alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted alkoxy, substituted or unsubstituted vinyl, silane, substituted or unsubstituted amine, or halide, where the amine can also include carbon (abstract, 0018, and 0038). Therefore, the groups include H, carbon-containing groups (alkyl, alkoxy, or vinyl), silane, amine (which can also include carbon), or halide, where they can each independently be selected from the listed groups (abstract). Therefore, selecting a carbon-containing functional group and a silane functional group is considered to be obvious over the various options discussed by Bhuyan because four out of the 7 substituents would meet the claimed requirements. They also provide specific examples where the functional branch chains include carbon (0019). Further, there is no indication that the specific precursor architecture is critical or that having the various R functional groups described by Bhuyan would provide different results. Therefore, in the absence of indicating that the claimed structure is critical dependent on the selected functional groups, the combination of Lavoie in view of Bhuyan is considered to suggest the claimed process.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the assertion that Lavoie, in combination with Bhuyan, “suggest” a precursor having a cyclic Si-C-Si bone is unsupported, the process of Lavoie is expected to be compatible with the precursor of Bhuyan because Lavoie indicates that UV is an alternative energy source for activation to plasma, where Bhuyan indicates that the precursor is compatible with plasma or thermal energy (abstract and 0034). Therefore, using UV as an energy source as an alternative to plasma is also expected to successfully activate the precursor and provide energy for reaction.
Regarding Applicant’s argument over the unique reaction pathway, as discussed above, since they provide irradiating a precursor meeting the claimed requirements with pulsed UV light for the purposes of activating the precursor, and the claim requires pulsing of UV light, the process is also expected to provide the described reaction pathway. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
As to Applicant’s argument over the reliance on In re Best, it is not clear how the combination of Lavoie in view of Bhuyan differs from the claimed process. The precursor is suggested to have Si-C-Si bonds in the main cyclic chain and having R1 and R2 functional groups, where as noted above, they are suggested to include silicon and carbon, where the precursor is activated by pulsed UV light. Therefore, the claimed steps are provided with a precursor meeting the claimed requirements.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments over claims 7-9, as noted above, Lavoie in view of Bhuyan suggest the required process steps while using precursors meeting the claimed requirement, the process is also expected to result in the specific reaction steps.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As described above, the inherency of the reaction pathway is considered to be supported by the prior art combination suggesting the claimed steps and precursor. It is suggested to provide evidence indicating that the described reaction pathway is not inherent, for example, in an affidavit or experimental data to further support the provided arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights