DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species i, fig. 5A, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant submits that claims corresponding to Species I, Species II, Species III, and Species IV are related to similar subject matter and as a result, separate searches would likely identify the same references. Therefore, the claims should be examined together.” (Emphasis added. See Remarks at page 5.)
This is not found persuasive because conducting “separate searches”, as submitted by the Applicant, for each of the species i-iv results in a serious search burden. For example, the four different applications of the bias with the plasma treatment process requires employing four different search strategies or search queries resulting in a serious search and examination burden. In addition, four different search strategies or search queries will likely result in different references.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/1/26.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yeom US 20240194448 A1 (e.g. See figs. 6-25 disclosing pulsing the bias.)
Citla US 20200090946 A1 (e.g. See fig. 5 disclosing pulsing the bias.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al., US Publication No. 20200388483.
Sun anticipates:
1. A method of post-treating a silicon nitride (SiN)-based dielectric film formed on a surface of a substrate, comprising (see fig. 1):
positioning a substrate in a processing chamber (e.g. step 102);
supplying a dielectric precursor to the processing chamber (e.g. step 104);
providing a plasma to the processing chamber (e.g. step 106), wherein the dielectric precursor reacts with a reactive gas in the plasma to form a silicon nitride (SiN)-based dielectric film on the substrate (e.g. step 108, para. [0023]);
applying a bias plasma to the silicon nitride (SiN)-based dielectric film to form a condensed silicon nitride (SiN)-based dielectric film (e.g. “densify the SiN”, see para. [0025] – [0027], para. [0040] – [0043], Table 1); and
curing the condensed silicon nitride (SiN)-based dielectric film (e.g. step 110). See Sun at para. [0001] – [0046], figs. 1-6.
9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric precursor is an organosilicon compound comprising at least one of silicon, nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine, or oxygen, para. [0021].
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the reactive gas comprises one or more of oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), water (H2O), ammonia (NH3), hydrazine (N2H4), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitrogen (N2), tetrafluoromethane (CF4), or nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), para. [0022].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kumar et al, KR 20070015031 A (see attached English machine translation)
Regarding claim 2:
Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly teach
wherein applying the bias plasma comprises pulsing the bias plasma.
In an analogous art, Kumar teaches forming a SiN film (306) at page. 7. Kumar further teaches the pulsing the bias plasma (e.g. See fig. 7, page 19 “The biasing power supply 740 forms a pulsed RF power output. Optionally, the biasing power supply 740 may form a pulsed DC power output.”. Also see bias sources 592, 594 in fig. 5.)
Regarding claims 3-4:
Sun and Kumar are silent :
wherein each pulse of the bias plasma occurs for about 0.5 s to about 100 s;
wherein a first pulse of the bias plasma is spaced from a second pulse of the bias plasma by about 0.1 s to about 100 s.
However, Kumar teaches the cycle time is a result effective variable in the following disclosure:
“In one embodiment, the frequencies on electrode 590 are selected to be low enough to provide a strong self-biasing envelope upon plasma emission above the powered surface.
…Typically, the first frequency is chosen so that its cycle time is much larger than the transition time of the ions in the skin, while the second frequency is chosen such that the period approaches or exceeds the transition time of the ions in the skin.” See page 18, fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to “wherein each pulse of the bias plasma occurs for about 0.5 s to about 100 s; wherein a first pulse of the bias plasma is spaced from a second pulse of the bias plasma by about 0.1 s to about 100 s”, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges and Optimization of Ranges. (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Regarding claim 5:
Kumar further teaches:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the bias plasma comprises a dual frequency bias plasma comprising a first frequency and a second frequency (e.g. See page 18 “The first frequency provides a wide ion energy distribution (ie, low frequency). The second frequency provides an ion energy distribution (i.e., high frequency) clearly defined by the peak value.” Also see bias sources 592, 594 in fig. 5)
Regarding claim 6:
Kumar further teaches:
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the first frequency is about 400 kHz to about 30 MHz and the second frequency is about 400 KHz to about 30 MHz, wherein the first frequency and the second frequency are different (e.g. See value for bias sources 592 of 2 MHz and 594 of 13.56 MHz at page 17.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sun with the teachings of Kumar because (i) “The combined applied voltage of the two frequency sources is used to control the peak-to-peak envelope voltage as well as the self biased DC potential used to drive the deposition process. The mixing of the two frequencies is used to adjust the energy distribution for the average acceleration produced by this DC potential. Thus, using a plasma enhanced processing chamber with dual frequency cathodes as described above, the ion energy distribution in the plasma can be controlled in such a way that film properties such as stress and adhesion are controlled by adjusting this bias frequency.” (e.g. Kumar at page 18); and (ii) “By controlling the ratio between the bias sources 592 and 594, the properties of the plasma are controlled, which allows the properties of the deposited film to be controlled. For example,…in a manner that reduces the stress of the deposited film:” (e.g. Kumar at page 17)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7:
Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but is silent the condensed dielectric film comprises a dielectric value of about 2.5 to about 3.5.
However, the dielectric value (also known as dielectric constant) is a material property of the silicon nitride film.
MPEP 2112 indicates:
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).
“Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Sun’s silicon nitride film comprises a dielectric value of about 2.5 to about 3.5 because Sun’s silicon nitride film undergoes processing to remove Si-H and N-H bonds in a process similar to Applicant. See Sun at para. [0026] – [0027] and Applicant specification at para. [0040] – [0041].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of White et al., US 20180290449 A1.
Regarding claim 8:
Sun teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, but is silent:
wherein the condensed dielectric film comprises a breakdown voltage (Vbd) of about 4.5 MV/cm to about 5.5 MV/cm.
In an analogous art, White teaches silicon nitride films have a dielectric breakdown voltage of approximately 3-8 MV/cm, which overlaps the claimed range. See White at para. [0039].
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sun with the teachings of White because a higher dielectric breakdown value means a material can withstand a stronger electric field before its insulating properties fail.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/Michele Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
28 August 2026
Prosecution Insights