DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18668480 application filed May 20, 2024, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on August 11, 2025. Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 5 and 16 acknowledged.
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.
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 1-4 and 6-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sharma et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200286725), hereinafter “Sharma”, in view of Xie et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200373129), hereinafter “Xie”:--Claim 1, 2: Sharma teaches a method of treating a silicon nitride layer, comprisingdisposing a substrate in a process chamber;depositing a silicon nitride layer on the substrate ([0028-0035]);exposing the silicon nitride layer to a plasma treatment to improve the material characteristics ([0036], Claim 4) while heating the substrate to 100-250°C or greater ([0038]), wherein the plasma may comprise a nitrogen/helium mixture ([0037, 0040], Claim 5). In an embodiment, Sharma further teaches that plasma may be generated in-situ or remotely by using a remote plasma source ([0036, 0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to generate the plasma comprising the nitrogen/helium mixture remotely. Sharma is silent about the structure of the remote plasma source, and fails to teach the claimed feature “generating a plasma within the gas injection channel, wherein the plasma comprises helium radicals and nitrogen radicals”. Xie teaches that plasma treatment to improve quality of a film by using ions, such as He+ ions, may cause damage in the film ([0025-0026]), and teaches to use a remote plasma generated in a gas injector 120 ([0048], Fig. 2), wherein the plasma passes through a separation grid 200 to filter out the ions and allow radicals to pass through ([0038-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the remote plasma injector taught by Xie to generate the plasma in the invention of Sharma because Sharma teaches that the plasma treatment by using a plasma comprising helium is to improve the material characteristics of the silicon nitride film, but is silent about the structure of the remote plasma source, and Xie teaches that such remote plasma injector would advantageously prevent damage to the film. It is noted that the plasma comprises helium and nitrogen radicals. Although Sharma and Xie are silent about an intrinsic stress of the silicon nitride film after the plasma treatment, since the plasma treatment taught by Sharma modified by Xie is the same as Applicant’s, the plasma treatment would produce a treated silicon nitride film having the claimed intrinsic stress, i.e. about 400 to about 1500 MPa, in routine experimentations, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claims 3, 4: Sharma further teaches that the plasma is generated by using a plasma power greater than 900 W ([0038]). Although Sharma is silent about a frequency of the power, in another embodiment Sharma teaches that a plasma may be generated by applying RF power at 5-5,000W ([0062]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use 5000 W of RF power to generate the treatment plasma. It is noted that Xie discloses that the remote plasma comprising N2 and He may be generated by using 500-5500 W (0070-0075]).--Claim 6: Although Sharma and Xie are silent about a shrinkage of the silicon nitride film after the plasma treatment, since the plasma treatment taught by Sharma modified by Xie is the same as Applicant’s, the plasma treatment would produce a treated silicon nitride film having the claimed shrinkage, i.e. about 4-5% by volume, in routine experimentations, as taught by Applicant.--Claim 7: Sharma further teaches that the proportion of N2 to He may be 90:10 to 10:90 ([0037]), but is silent about a gas flow. Xie teaches that a gas flow to the remote plasma source may be 100-20,000 sccm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use a gas flow of 100-3,000 sccm in the invention of Sharma modified by Xie because Sharma further teaches that the proportion of N2 to He may be 90:10 to 10:90 but is silent about a gas flow, and Xie teaches that a gas flow to the remote plasma source may be 100-20,000 sccm.
Claims 8-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sharma in view of Xie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170250068), hereinafter “Ishikawa”:--Claim 8: Sharma modified by Xie teaches the invention as above, wherein Sharma teaches the exposing the silicon nitride layer to a plasma treatment to improve the material characteristics, such as wet etch rate ([0036], Claim 4) while heating the substrate to 100-250°C or greater ([0038]). Sharma fails to teach the claimed temperature of about 400 to about 550°C. Ishikawa, also directed to plasma treating a silicon nitride film to improve the wet etch rate by using plasma bombardment ([0041], Fig. 6) teaches that the plasma bombardment may be performed while heating the substrate to 25-600°C ([0070], Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention heat the substrate to about 400-550°C during the plasma treatment because Sharma teaches that the substrate is heated to 250°C or greater, and Ishikawa teaches that such temperature range would be effective.--Claims 9, 10, 11: Sharma further teaches that the plasma may further comprise hydrogen. Ishikawa also teaches that the plasma may comprise N2, H2 and a carrier gas (Table 2), wherein the carrier gas may be He ([0078]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a plasma comprising N2, H2 and He in the invention of Sharma modified by Xie because Sharma teaches that the plasma may further comprise hydrogen, and Ishikawa teaches that the plasma may comprise N2, H2 and He would be effective. It is noted that the nitrogen helium and hydrogen radicals from the plasma would treat the silicon nitride film.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9431237), hereinafter “Ma”, in view of Xie:--Claims 12, 13, 19, 20: Ma teaches a method of treating a silicon oxide layer, comprisingdisposing a substrate in a process chamber (Col. 5, Lines 4-67; Fig. 1-2);depositing a silicon oxide layer on the substrate (Col. 6, Line 1 through Col. 8, Line 15; Claim 9);treating the silicon oxide layer with a helium-containing plasma, wherein the plasma may further contain hydrogen gas, while maintaining the substrate at 400-1100°C, wherein the plasma treatment may be performed in a separate plasma treatment chamber (Col. 8, Line 16 through Col. 9, Line 40; Claim 9). Ma further teaches that it is important to position plasma source a distance away from the substrate to prevent ion bombardment from a plasma damaging the silicon oxide layer (Col. 7, Line 10-36), but is silent about the structure of the treatment chamber. Ma fails to teach the claimed feature “generating a plasma within the gas injection channel, wherein the plasma comprises hydrogen radicals, oxygen radicals, or argon radicals”. Xie teaches that plasma treatment to improve quality of a film by using ions, such as He+ ions, may cause damage in the film ([0025-0026]), and teaches to use a remote plasma generated in a gas injector 120 ([0048], Fig. 2), wherein the plasma passes through a separation grid 200 to filter out the ions and allow radicals to pass through ([0038-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use the remote plasma injector taught by Xie to generate the plasma in the invention of Ma because Ma teaches that it is important to position plasma source a distance away from the substrate to prevent ion bombardment from a plasma damaging the silicon oxide layer but is silent about the structure of the treatment chamber, and Xie teaches that such remote plasma injector would advantageously prevent damage to the film. It is noted that the plasma comprises helium and hydrogen radicals. Although Sharma and Xie are silent about an intrinsic stress of the silicon oxide film after the plasma treatment, since the plasma treatment taught by Ma modified by Xie is the same as Applicant’s, the plasma treatment would produce a treated silicon oxide film having the claimed intrinsic stress, i.e. about -100 to about 0 MPa, in routine experimentations, as taught by Applicant. According to MPEP 2112 “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claims 14, 15: Ma is silent about a power supply that generates the treatment plasma; however, in an embodiment, Ma teaches that about 25-5,000 W of power having frequency 13.56 MHz may be applied to generate plasma in the process chamber (Col. 6, Lines 40-43); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use 5000 W of RF power to generate the treatment plasma in the invention of Ma.--Claim 17: Although Ma and Xie are silent about a shrinkage of the silicon nitride film after the plasma treatment, since the plasma treatment taught by Ma modified by Xie is the same as Applicant’s, the plasma treatment would produce a treated silicon oxide film having the claimed shrinkage, i.e. about -0.4% to +0.5% by volume, in routine experimentations, as taught by Applicant.--Claim 18: Ma further teaches that the plasma treatment comprises a gas flow of 50-1000 sccm (Col. 8, Lines 15-60). This overlaps the claimed range in claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 2, 2023 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is persuasive. New grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713