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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-34 and 37-40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 29 recites, inter alia, “doping the first layer of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film) with a fluorine-based dopant material by the RF plasma, the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine-doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF)” (emphasis added). In other words, the Applicant is calling the first layer of film, which is the film deposited before performing the steps of oxidizing and doping, as a film having low dielectric constant (a low-k film). There is no support in the specification for this limitation. It is worth mentioning that the first layer of film, only once is subjected to oxidizing and doping, that it becomes a film having low dielectric constant. Claim 37 has similar issues. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Furthermore, independent claim 37 recites “doping each deposited film layer with a dopant material selected from at least one dopant material comprising a fluorine dopant and a halide, the fluorine dopant being introduced by radio frequency (RF) plasma at about 13.56 MHz and about 400 kHz, with a dopant exposure duration in a range of about 0.02 seconds to about 2.0 seconds” (emphasis added). It seems that the Applicant is claiming that the dopant is being introduced under dual frequencies. However, the Examiner could not find any support in the specification for this limitation. Overall, the metes and bounds of claim 37 is very unclear and could not be examined with any certainty. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Claims 30-34 & 38-40 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 29 and 37, respectively.
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.
Claims 29-34 and 37-40 were 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 29 recites, inter alia, “doping the first layer of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film) with a fluorine-based dopant material by the RF plasma, the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine-doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF)” (emphasis added). In other words, the Applicant is calling the first layer of film, which is the film deposited before performing the steps of oxidizing and doping, as a film having low dielectric constant (a low-k film). There is no support in the specification for this limitation. It is worth mentioning that the first layer of film, only once is subjected to oxidizing and doping, that it becomes a film having low dielectric constant. Claim 37 has similar issues. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Furthermore, independent claim 37 recites “doping each deposited film layer with a dopant material selected from at least one dopant material comprising a fluorine dopant and a halide, the fluorine dopant being introduced by radio frequency (RF) plasma at about 13.56 MHz and about 400 kHz, with a dopant exposure duration in a range of about 0.02 seconds to about 2.0 seconds” (emphasis added). It seems that the Applicant is claiming that the dopant is being introduced under dual frequencies. However, the Examiner could not find any support in the specification for this limitation. Overall, the metes and bounds of claim 37 is very unclear and could not be examined with any certainty. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Claims 30-34 & 38-40 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 29 and 37, respectively.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cwil et al. (“Fluorine-doped SiO2 and fluorocarbon low-k dielectrics investigated by SIMS”-2008) in view of Hasabe et al. (Pub. No. : US 2008/0081104 A1) and Kamakura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0204732 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Cwil et al. discloses a method of forming low dielectric-constant (low-k) films (abs), the method comprising: depositing, by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) techniques, a film-deposition layer (abstract; also see section “2.1. Preparation of SiOF films” – first PECVD oxides were deposited);
doping the film-deposition layer with a fluorine dopant by radio frequency (RF) plasma (abstract; also see section “2.1. Preparation of SiOF films” – after PECVD oxides were deposited, it is doped with a fluorine dopant using radio frequency (RF) plasma); and performing the deposition operations and the doping operations as needed to obtain a final film thickness of a film having a low dielectric constant, the low-k films comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine- doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF) (abstract; also see section “2.1. Preparation of SiOF films” – teaches forming low-k fluorine- doped silicon oxide (SiOF)).
Cwil et al. does not disclose a method of forming low dielectric-constant (low-k) films (abs), the method comprising: depositing, by atomic-layer deposition (ALD) techniques, a film-deposition layer; depositing, by the ALD techniques, a subsequent film-deposition layer; and repeating the depositing and the doping as needed to obtain a final film thickness of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film). However, Hasabe et al. discloses a method of forming films, the method comprising: depositing, by atomic-layer deposition (ALD) techniques, a film-deposition layer (Par. 0005, 0025, 0058-0065;Fig. 4 - a. film deposition layer of silicon oxide has been formed using ALD technique);
PNG
media_image1.png
344
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
depositing, by the ALD techniques, a subsequent film-deposition layer (Par. 0005, 0025, 0058-0065;Fig. 4 – a subsequent film deposition layer of silicon oxide is formed in a next cycle of growth after the. film deposition layer of silicon oxide has been formed in a previous cycle using ALD technique); and repeating the deposition operations as needed to obtain a final film thickness of a film (Par. 0005, 0025, 0058-0065;Fig. 4). Kamakura et al. discloses a method of forming low dielectric-constant (low-k) films (Par. 0111), the method comprising: depositing, by atomic-layer deposition (ALD) techniques, a film-deposition layer (Par. 0056-0057, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B – first a wafer (substrate) 200 is exposed to a BTCSM gas);
PNG
media_image2.png
378
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
doping the film-deposition layer with a fluorine dopant (Par. 0056-0057, 0111, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B – the film-deposition layer is then doped with fluorine by exposing the wafer to a fluorine containing precursor, such as NF3); depositing, by the ALD techniques, a subsequent film-deposition layer (Par. 0056-0057, 0095, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B); and repeating the depositing and doping as needed to obtain a final film thickness of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film), the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine- doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF) (Par. 0056-0057, 0095, 0111-0117, & 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B; teaches forming low-k film SiOCF). In short, primary reference Cwil et al. teaches a method of forming a low-k film by first depositing a film deposition layer (SiO2) using a PECVD technique and then doping the film deposition layer with a fluorine dopant using a RF plasma technique. It does not teach repeating the steps of depositing and the doping until the desired film is achieved. Hasabe et al., the secondary reference, on the other hand, teaches depositing a film deposition layer (SiO2) using a ALD technique instead of the PECVD technique adopted by Cwil et al. The ALD technique taught by Hasabe et al. has some notable advantages over the PECVD technique taught by Cwil et al. especially in depositing uniform thickness films in high aspect ratio features Modifying the method of Cwil et al. by the teachings of Hasabe et al. would result in a method of forming a low-k film by first depositing a film deposition layer (SiO2) using an ALD technique and then doping the film deposition layer with a fluorine dopant using a RF plasma technique Kamakura et al,, the tertiary reference, teaches repeating the steps of depositing and doping as needed until a final film thickness of a film having a low dielectric constant is achieved. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teaching of Hasabe et al. and Kamakura et al. to adapt a method of forming low dielectric-constant (low-k) films (abs), the method comprising: depositing, by atomic-layer deposition (ALD) techniques, a film-deposition layer; depositing, by the ALD techniques, a subsequent film-deposition layer; and repeating the depositing and the doping as needed to obtain a final film thickness of a film of Cwil et al. having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film).in order to obtain a film with the desired characteristics
Regarding Claim 22, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 21, discloses the method, wherein the low-k film is silicon-based materials (Cwil et al. - abstract; also see section “2.1. Preparation of SiOF films” – teaches forming low-k fluorine- doped silicon oxide (SiOF); Kamakura et al. - Par. 0111 & 0117 - teaches forming low-k film SiOCF).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 22, discloses the method, further comprising selecting a silane precursor (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0082).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 21, discloses the method, further comprising adding an anneal operation (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0112).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 21, discloses the method, further comprising selecting a density of the fluorine dopant to be within a range of about 1 x 1018 atoms per cm3 to about 1 x 1021 atoms per cm3 (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0203-0205; Figs. 8-10).
Regarding Claim 26, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 25, discloses the method, wherein the range of the density of the fluorine dopant is within a silicon-oxide matrix (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0203-0205; Figs. 8-10 – under BRI, a SiOC matrix could be considered as comprising a silicon oxide matrix).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 21, discloses the method, further comprising selecting at least one variable from variables comprising a level of fluorine doping and a deposited-film thickness per deposition layer (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0072, 0076, 0095, 0116, 0142; Figs. 4A-4B – implied).
2. Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cwil et al. (“Fluorine-doped SiO2 and fluorocarbon low-k dielectrics investigated by SIMS”-2008), Hasabe et al. (Pub. No. : US 2008/0081104 A1) and Kamakura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0204732 A1).), as applied to claim 27.
Regarding Claim 28, modified Cwil et al., as applied to claim 27, does not explicitly disclose the method, further comprising selecting the at least one variable such that a resulting formed film has a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4 However, Kamakura et al. teaches the method, further comprising selecting the at least one variable such that a resulting formed film has a low dielectric constant (Par. 0110 – this prior art teaches that by doping F into SiOC film, the dielectric constant could be lowered, i.e. the dielectric constant is dependent on the fluorine doping concentration). Modified Cwil et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the method, further comprising selecting the at least one variable such that a resulting formed film has a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method, further comprising selecting the at least one variable such that a resulting formed film has a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4, since it has been held that 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 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 29, 31-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hasabe et al. (Pub. No. : US 2008/0081104 A1) in view of Cwil et al. (“Fluorine-doped SiO2 and fluorocarbon low-k dielectrics investigated by SIMS”-2008) and Kamakura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0204732 A1).
Regarding Claim 29, Hasabe et al. discloses a method of forming a film (abstract), the method comprising: introducing a silane precursor into a reaction chamber (abstract, Par. 0025-0026; Fig. 4 - aminosilane);
PNG
media_image1.png
344
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performing in a common reaction chamber as a continuous process sequence: depositing, by an atomic-layer deposition (ALD) process, at least a first layer of film (Par. 0005, 0025, 0058-0065;Fig. 4 – a first layer of film comprising aminosilane); oxidizing and cleaning the first layer of film by radio frequency (RF) plasma (Par. 0005, 0025, 0058-0065;Fig. 4 – a reaction gas H2O is supplied which reacts with the first layer of film). Hasabe et al., does not disclose a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-k) film, the method comprising: performing in a common reaction chamber as a continuous process sequence: doping the first layer of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film) with a fluorine-based dopant material by the RF plasma, the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine-doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF). However, Cwil et al. teaches a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-k) films (abs), the method comprising: doping the first layer of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film) with a fluorine-based dopant material by the RF plasma, the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine-doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF) (abstract; also see section “2.1. Preparation of SiOF films” – after PECVD oxides were deposited, it is doped with a fluorine dopant using radio frequency (RF) plasma; teaches forming low-k fluorine- doped silicon oxide (SiOF))).
Furthermore, Kamakura et al., at least implicitly teaches a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-k) film (Par. 0111), the method comprising: introducing a silane precursor into a reaction chamber (Par. 0056-0057, 0082, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B – a silane precursor gas such as a BTCSE gas may be introduced instead of a BTCSM gas); performing in a common reaction chamber as a continuous process sequence: depositing, by an atomic-layer deposition (ALD) process, at least a first layer of film (Par. 0056-0057, 0082, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B);
PNG
media_image2.png
378
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
oxidizing and cleaning the first layer of film (Par. 0056-0057, 0082, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B); and doping the first layer of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film) with a fluorine-based dopant material, the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine-doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF). (Par. 0056-0057, 0111-0117, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B – the deposited film is then doped with fluorine by exposing the wafer to a fluorine containing precursor, such as NF3; teaches forming low-k film SiOCF).
In short, primary reference Hasabe et al. teaches forming a SiO2 film using an ALD technique wherein, oxidizing a first layer of film, deposited due to an exposure of the substrate to a Si source, is done using radio frequency plasma technique These steps are carried out in a common reaction chamber. Hasabe et al, does not teach the step of doping the SiO2 film. Cwil et al., the secondary reference, on the other hand, teaches doping the SiO2 film with a fluorine-based dopant material by the RF plasma to form a low-k SiOF film. Kamakura et al., the tertiary reference, although mostly uses a non-plasma process, nevertheless teaches lowering of the dielectric constant of the resultant film by using fluorine incorporation into the film. In other words, both Cwil et al. and Kamakura et al. teaches that the dielectric constant of the film grown by Hasabe et al. could be lowered by doping it with fluorine-based material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teaching of Cwil et al. and Kamakura et al. to adapt a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-k) film, the method comprising: doping the first layer of a film having a low dielectric constant (a low-k film) of Hasabe et al. with a fluorine-based dopant material by the RF plasma, the low-k film comprising at least one material selected from materials including fluorine-doped silicon oxide (SiOF), carbonofluoridoylsilicon (SiOCF), and fluorinated silicon oxynitride (SiONF). in order to obtain a film with the desired characteristics.
Now modified Hasabe et al. teaches all the limitations of the instant claim except that the entire process be performed in a common reaction chamber as a continuous process sequence. However, Hasabe et al. teaches an apparatus (Fig. 1) which is already equipped with or can be easily modified (e.g., adding a dopant line) to perform all the operations recited in the claim in a common reaction chamber as a continuous process sequence as it would increase the throughput substantially and make the entire process simpler.
Regarding Claim 31, modified Hasabe et al., as applied to claim 29, discloses the method, further comprising adding an anneal operation (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0112).
Regarding Claim 32, modified Hasabe et al., as applied to claim 29, discloses the method, further comprising forming the film at least partially within a high-aspect ratio feature thereby providing a substantially void-free gap-fill of the high-aspect ratio feature (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0114-0115).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Hasabe et al., as applied to claim 29, does not explicitly disclose the method, further comprising selecting a profile of the fluorine-based dopant material to have a non-gradient profile in at least one spatial direction (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0203; Fig. 8 – this prior art teaches a profile of the fluorine-based dopant material to have a non-gradient profile, up to a certain depth from near the surface).
4.. Claims 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hasabe et al. (Pub. No. : US 2008/0081104 A1), Cwil et al. (“Fluorine-doped SiO2 and fluorocarbon low-k dielectrics investigated by SIMS”-2008), and Kamakura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0204732 A1).), as applied to claim 29.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Hasabe et al., as applied to claim 29, discloses the method, further comprising repeating the depositing and the doping as needed to obtain a final desired film thickness of a film having a low dielectric constant (Kamakura et al. - Par. 0056-0057, 0082, 0110, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B; this prior art teaches that by doping F into SiOC film, the dielectric constant could be lowered, i.e. the dielectric constant is dependent on the fluorine doping concentration). Modified Hasabe et al. does not explicitly disclose the film having a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4.
Modified Hasabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the method, further comprising forming the film having a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method, further comprising forming the film having a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4, since it has been held that 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 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 33, Modified Hasabe et al., as applied to claim 29, does not explicitly disclose the method, further comprising selecting a profile of the fluorine-based dopant material to have a gradient profile in at least one spatial direction.
It is worth pointing out that the instant application does not teach any possible advantages that might be derived by selecting a profile of the fluorine-dopant profile to have a gradient profile in at least one spatial direction. As a matter of fact, the instant application clearly states that fluorine dopant profile can be gradient or non-gradient and if needed gradients in dopant profile can be created in any direction. Modified Hasabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the method, further comprising selecting a profile of the fluorine-based dopant material to have a gradient profile in at least one spatial direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method, further comprising selecting a profile of the fluorine-based dopant material to have a gradient profile in at least one spatial direction, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 1010 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Also, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adapt the method, further comprising selecting a profile of the fluorine-based dopant material to have a gradient profile in at least one spatial direction, since applicant has not disclosed that the gradient profile solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a non-gradient profile.
5. Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kamakura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0204732 A1) in view of Dong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0211270 A1)
Regarding Claim 35, Kamakura et al. discloses a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-k) film (Par. 0111), the method comprising: depositing, by atomic-layer deposition (ALD) techniques, a film-deposition layer (Par. 0056-0057, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B – first a wafer (substrate) 200 is exposed to a BTCSM gas);
PNG
media_image2.png
378
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
doping the film-deposition layer with a halide (Par. 0056-0057, 0111, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B – the deposited film is then doped with fluorine by exposing the wafer to a fluorine containing precursor, such as NF3); selecting the halide to comprise at least one material selected from materials including iodine and bromine (Par. 0026, 0131); and depositing, by the ALD techniques, a subsequent film- deposition layer of silicon oxycarbide film (Par. 0056-0057, 0095, 0141-0142; Figs. 1, 4A & 4B, especially Fig. 4B). Kamakura et al. does not disclose a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxide (SiOx) film; and after doping, lowering a halide content of the silicon oxide film by at least one treatment selected from: a high-temperature process, a hydrogen (H2) treatment, an H2/02 mixture treatment, or an ultraviolet (UV) or vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) treatment.
In short, Kamakura et al. teaches forming a low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxycarbide (SiOC) film whereas the instant claim teaches forming a low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxide (SiOx) film. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have easily modified the method of Kamakura et al. to form the low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxide (SiOx) film by flowing suitable silicon precursor gas.
Kamakura et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxide film having a low dielectric constant and lowering a halide content of the silicon oxide film . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxide film having a low dielectric constant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method of forming a low dielectric-constant (low-ĸ) silicon oxide film having a low dielectric constant, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to be aware that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Furthermore, Kamakura et al. teaches that dielectric constant of films, such as, SiOC, could be lowered by doping it with fluorine, iodine or bromine. It is understood that the dielectric constant of silicon oxide film could be similarly lowered by doping it with fluorine, iodine or bromine atoms. Now modified Kamakura et al. discloses all the limitations of the instant claim except a method wherein after doping, lowering a halide content of the silicon oxide film by at least one treatment selected from: a high-temperature process, a hydrogen (H2) treatment, an H2/02 mixture treatment, or an ultraviolet (UV) or vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) treatment. However, Dong et al., at least implicitly, teaches a method wherein after doping, lowering a halide content of the silicon oxide film by at least one treatment selected from: a high-temperature process, a hydrogen (H2) treatment, an H2/02 mixture treatment, or an ultraviolet (UV) or vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) treatment (Par. 0014, 0042-0046, Figs. 3-5 – this prior art teaches that when silicon oxide film is grown using dichlorosilane (DCS) as one of the precursor gases, a large amount of halide content could be left in the film which is detrimental to its properties; this prior art teaches a way to drive out most of the unwanted halide content by high temperature annealing. . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teaching of Dong et al. to adapt a method wherein after doping, lowering a halide content of the silicon oxide film of modified Kamakura et al. by at least one treatment selected from: a high-temperature process, a hydrogen (H2) treatment, an H2/02 mixture treatment, or an ultraviolet (UV) or vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) treatment of in order to improve the electrically insulative and/or hermetic sealing properties of the low-k film..
Regarding Claim 36, modified Kamakura et al., as applied to claim 35, discloses the method, further comprising repeating the depositing and the doping as needed to obtain a final film thickness of the silicon oxide film having a low dielectric constant (please see rejection of claim 35). Modified Kamakura et al. does not explicitly disclose the film having a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4.
Modified Kamakura et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the method, further comprising forming the film having a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the method, further comprising forming the film having a low dielectric constant in a range of about 3.2 to about 3.4, since it has been held that 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 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 09/29/2017 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments made to the claims.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
05/06/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights