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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 08/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. Applicant is invited to amend the nonelected claims during prosecution for possible rejoinder.
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.
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 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 103165416) (see English Translation) in view of Sims et al. (2020/0066987).
He teaches a preparation method of a MOS device in which silicon nitride is formed on a substrate by plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition using dichlorosilane and ammonia using a radio frequency power of 20-500W in a chamber (p.3 paragraphs 5-8). However, the reference fails to teach the appropriate frequency or duty cycle.
Sims teaches a PEALD method of depositing a silicon nitride film (0083) in which the pulsing frequency can be between 2 Hz and about 100 kHz and duty cycles between 1 and 95% (0107). To utilize the frequency or duty cycle of Sims in the process of He would have been obvious because Sims teaches of using a pulsing frequency and duty cycle to deposit a silicon nitride film.
Regarding claim 2, Sims teaches trimethylsilane (0094).
Regarding claim 3, He teaches ammonia (p.3 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 4, He teaches 450oC (p.3 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 5, He teaches 20 Torr (p.3 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 6, Sims teaches 2 Hz (0107).
Regarding claim 7, Sims teaches 1% (0107).
Regarding claim 9, Sims teaches a density of less than about 2.5 g/cm3 (0023).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 103165416) (see English Translation) in view of Sims et al. (2020/0066987) and further in view of Leedy (7,307,020). The combination of He/Sims fails to teach the appropriate dielectric constant.
Leedy teaches that the dielectric constant of silicon nitride can range upward from 3.5 (col.12 lines 1-22). It would have been obvious to utilize silicon nitride with a dielectric constant of 3.5 in the combination with the expectation of success because Leedy teaches of using a dielectric constant of 3.5 with silicon nitride.
Claims 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (CN 103165416) (see English Translation) in view of Sims et al. (2020/0066987) and further in view of Lei et al. (2018/0245215). The combination of He/Sims fails to teach appropriate dielectric constant.
Lei teaches of forming silicon nitride dielectric film (abstract) in which the dielectric constant can be 4 or less (0048). It would have been obvious to utilize silicon nitride with a dielectric constant of 4.0 in the combination with the expectation of success because Lei teaches of using a dielectric constant of 4.0 with silicon nitride.
Regarding claim 10, Lei teaches silicon carbonitride (0029).
Regarding claim 11, Lei teaches a breakdown voltage of 6 MV/cm (0029).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights