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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“at least about 1000kW” appears to be a typographical error, because Applicants originally disclosed that “the LF power is between about 500W and 5kW. In some embodiments, the LF power per substrate is between about 1kW and 5kW. In some embodiments, the LF power per substrate is about 4kW.” (emphasis added, [0061] of the present application).
Appropriate correctness is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 15, 17, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 2021/0313150, provisional application filed on Apr. 2, 2020; hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses for a method of depositing an oxide material, comprising that
depositing a conformal seed layer of oxide material (SiO2 film, Fig. 1, [0006], TABLE 1) into at least one patterned feature of a semiconductor substrate (trench patterned substrate, Fig. 1) provided within a process chamber (reaction chamber, Fig. 10); and
one or more cycles comprising (1 cycle, Figs 4A-4B):
sputtering the oxide material (SiO2 film, TABLE 1, [0029]) using an inert gas (Ar purge gas, TABLE 1, [0026]) in the presence of a plasma (“plasma condition”, “RF plasma”, TABLE 1) generated by a dual radio frequency (RF) plasma source (Fig. 3, [0025]) comprising a high frequency (HF) component (“a relatively high radio frequency component with 13.56 MHz frequency”, [0025]) and a low frequency (LF) component (“a relatively low radio frequency component with 430 kHz frequency”, [0025]); and
depositing the oxide material (SiO2 film, TABLE 1) into the at least one patterned feature (trench pattern, Fig. 1) by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) process (PEALD process, [0025], TABLE 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that each cycle of the one or more cycles comprises (Figs. 4A-4B, TABLE 1): (a) sputtering the oxide material (SiO2 film, TABLE 1); and (b) conformally depositing the oxide material (Fig. 1) by multiple cycles of the ALD process, because “the substrate processing sequence is repeated N times until the gap is filled with SiO2 film” (emphasis added, [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that each cycle of the one or more cycles further comprises (Figs. 4A-4B, TABLE 1): (a) flowing oxide precursor into the process chamber (Si-containing precursor, [0026], Fig. 4A); (b) flowing purge gas into the process chamber (Ar purge gas, [0026], Fig. 4A); (c) flowing an oxygen-containing species (reactant O2, Fig. 4A, TABLE 1) and an inert gas (Ar purge gas, Fig. 4A, TABLE 1) into the process chamber; and (d) flowing purge gas (Ar purge gas, TABLE 1, [0026]) into the process chamber.
Regarding claim 4, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 3 that the oxide precursor (Si-containing precursor, [0026], Fig. 4A) is an amino group containing siloxane, because “A SiO2 film may be formed by supplying a silicon-containing precursor and an oxygen reactant. A silicon-containing precursor may be an aminosilane precursor” (emphasis added, [0029]).
Regarding claim 5, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 3 that the oxide precursor is a disiloxane having a formula X(R1)aSi-O-Si(R2)bY, wherein a and b are integers from 0 to 2, wherein X and Y independently can be H or NR3R4, and wherein each of R1,R2,R3 and R4 is hydrogen, unbranched alkyl, branched alkyl, saturated heterocyclic, unsaturated heterocyclic groups, or combinations thereof, because “DIPAS, SiH3N(iPr)2 , TSA, (SiH3)3N, DSO, (SiH3)2, DSMA, (SiH3)2NMe, DSEA, (SiH3)2Net, DSIPA, (SiH3)2N(iPr), DSTBA, (SiH3)2N(tBu), DEAS, SiH3NEt2, DTBAS, SiH3N(tBu)2, BDEAS, SiH2(NEt2)2, BDMAS, SiH2(NMe2)2, BTBAS, SiH2(NHtBu)2, BITS, SiH2(NHSiMe3)2, TEOS, Si(OEt)4, SiCl4, HCD, Si2Cl6, 3DMAS, SiH(N(Me)2)3, BEMAS, SiH2 [N(Et)(Me)]2, AHEAD, Si2(NHEt)6, TEAS, Si(NHEt)4, Si3H8, DCS, SiH2Cl2, SiHI3, SiH2I2 may be used as silicon-containing precursor” ([0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 3 that the plasma source has a non-zero LF component power during (c) (low frequency RF power with 430 kHz, TABLE 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 3 that a volumetric flow ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species is at least about 1:1, because as shown in TABLE 1 in Kang, source carrier Ar flows “1000 to 3000 sccm, preferably 1500 to 2500 sccm” and reactant O2 flows “1000 to 3000 sccm, preferably 1500 to 2500 sccm” (TABLE 1), therefore, the flow ratio of source carrier Argon to reactant oxygen is about 1:1.
Regarding claim 15, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that flowing an oxygen-containing species (reactant O2, TABLE 1) into the process chamber during sputtering (TABLE 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that the LF component power during sputtering is at least about 500W (TABLE 1), because the low frequency RF power by Kang is ranged in “50 to 500 W, preferably 100 to 300 W” (TABLE 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that the HF component power is between about 500W and about 6.5 kW (TABLE 1), because the high frequency RF power by Kang is ranged in “600 to 1500 W, preferably 900 to 1200 W” (TABLE 1).
Regarding claim 20, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that a pressure of the process chamber is between about 10 mTorr and about 20 Torr (TABLE 1), because the process pressure by Kang is ranged in “1 to 10 Torr, preferably 3 to 5 Torr” (TABLE 1), therefore, the process pressure by Kang overlaps with the claimed pressure of the process chamber.
Regarding claim 21, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that the ALD process is performed in the presence of a plasma (plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) method by Kang, [0025], TABLE 1).
Regarding claim 23, Kang further discloses for the method of claim 1 that the inert gas comprises argon (source carrier Ar, TABLE 1).
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.
Claims 6, 9-14, 16, 18 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Kang et al. (US 2021/0313150, provisional application filed on Apr. 2, 2020; hereinafter Kang).
Regarding claim 6, Kang does not explicitly disclose that wherein X, Y, or both is NR3R4, and wherein R3, R4, and the atom to which they are attached form a saturated heterocyclic compound.
However, Kang further discloses that “A silicon-containing precursor may be an aminosilane precursor. But the silicon precursor may not be limited thereto and silicon halide and iodosilane may be used as silicon-containing precursor. For instance, DIPAS, SiH3N(iPr)2 , TSA, (SiH3)3N, DSO, (SiH3)2, DSMA, (SiH3)2NMe, DSEA, (SiH3)2Net, DSIPA, (SiH3)2N(iPr), DSTBA, (SiH3)2N(tBu), DEAS, SiH3NEt2, DTBAS, SiH3N(tBu)2, BDEAS, SiH2(NEt2)2, BDMAS, SiH2(NMe2)2, BTBAS, SiH2(NHtBu)2, BITS, SiH2(NHSiMe3)2, TEOS, Si(OEt)4, SiCl4, HCD, Si2Cl6, 3DMAS, SiH(N(Me)2)3, BEMAS, SiH2 [N(Et)(Me)]2, AHEAD, Si2(NHEt)6, TEAS, Si(NHEt)4, Si3H8, DCS, SiH2Cl2, SiHI3, SiH2I2 may be used as silicon-containing precursor” ([0029]), and in view of Kang, the silicon-containing precursor is not limited to the specifically disclosed examples and may include various aminosilane precursors suitable for PEALD process, therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a precursor having the general structure of X(R1)aSi-O-Si(R2)bY, wherein X, Y, or both is NR3R4, and wherein R3, R4, and the atom to which they are attached form a saturated heterocyclic compound, since such compounds represent known aminosilane precursors suitable for forming oxide film by PEALD.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a precursor having the general structure of X(R1)aSi-O-Si(R2)bY, wherein X, Y, or both is NR3R4, and wherein R3, R4, and the atom to which they are attached form a saturated heterocyclic compound, as a predictable alternatives for the disclosed aminosilane precursor for the oxide film deposited by PEALD taught by Kang.
Regarding claim 9, Kang does not explicitly disclose that a volumetric flow ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species is between about 1:1 and 6:1.
However, Kang further discloses that the source carrier Ar flows “1000 to 3000 sccm, preferably 1500 to 2500 sccm” and reactant O2 flows “1000 to 3000 sccm, preferably 1500 to 2500 sccm”, as shown in TABLE 1, therefore, Kang recognizes that the volumetric flow ratio between process gases impacts the ALD process. The flow ratio is therefore a result-effective variable to be optimized by repeated experiments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the volumetric flow ratio of process gases as Kang has identified the flow ratio as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a volumetric flow ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species between about 1:1 to 6:1, in order to achieve the desired volumetric flow ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species, as taught by Kang. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed volumetric flow ratio is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed volumetric flow ratio).
Regarding claim 10, Kang does not explicitly disclose that a first cycle of the one or more cycles and a second cycle of the one or more cycles, wherein the LF component power, process chamber pressure, ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species, or any combination thereof is different between the second cycle and the first cycle.
However, Kang further discloses the PEALD process conditions in TABLE 1, including low frequency RF power, flow rate of process gases such as purging Ar gas, source carrier Ar gas, O2 reactant gas, process pressure, and process temperature, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these process parameters are result-effective variables that may be adjusted during different ALD cycles to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary one or more process conditions between the first and second ALD cycles of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 11, Kang does not explicitly disclose that the process chamber pressure is lower during the second cycle than during the first cycle.
However, as discussed in claim 10 above, Kang further discloses the PEALD process conditions in TABLE 1, including process pressure, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the process chamber pressure is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during different ALD cycles to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary one or more process conditions such as process chamber pressure between the first and second ALD cycles of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 12, Kang does not explicitly disclose that a ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species is higher during the second cycle than during the first cycle.
However, as discussed in claim 10 above, Kang further discloses the PEALD process conditions in TABLE 1, including a ratio between the inert gas (source carrier Ar) and the oxygen-containing species (O2 reactant gas), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the flow ratio is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during different ALD cycles to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary one or more process conditions such as a ratio between the inert gas and the oxygen-containing species between the first and second ALD cycles of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 13, Kang does not explicitly disclose that the LF component power is higher during the second cycle than during the first cycle.
However, as discussed in claim 10 above, Kang further discloses the PEALD process conditions in TABLE 1, including low frequency RF power with 1000 to 3000 sccm, preferably 1500 to 2500 sccm, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the low frequency RF power is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during different ALD cycles to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary one or more process conditions such as low frequency RF power between the first and second ALD cycles of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 14, Kang does not explicitly disclose that the oxide material is at least about 6.5 nm thick prior to sputtering.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a thickness of the seed layer for depositing oxide film during ALD process would be a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during ALD process to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary one or more process conditions such as a thickness of a seed layer, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 16, Kang does not explicitly disclose that the one or more cycles comprise at least about 100 cycles.
However, Kang further discloses that “the substrate processing sequence is repeated N times until the gap is filled with SiO2 film” (emphasis added, [0027]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the ALD cycles is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during different ALD cycles to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the number of process cycles of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 18, Kang does not explicitly disclose that the LF component power during sputtering is between about 500W and 5kW.
However, Kang further discloses that the low frequency RF power in Kang is applied by “50 to 500 W, preferably 100 to 300 W” (TABLE 1), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the low frequency RF power is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during ALD process to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the low frequency RF power of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 24, Kang further disclose that the oxide material (SiO2 film, Fig, 1, TABLE 1) has a seam (void 1 or crack 2, Fig. 1).
Kang does not explicitly disclose that the oxide material does not have a seam at least about 50 nm below a top of the at least one patterned feature.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a dimension of seam (void or crack in Kang, Fig. 1) can be varied, and therefore, it is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during ALD process to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the dimension of seam in Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 25, Kang does not explicitly disclose that a patterned feature of the at least one patterned feature has an aspect ratio of between about 1:1 and about 10:1.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that dimensions of patterned trench such as an aspect ratio in Kang (Fig. 1) can be varied, and therefore, it is a result-effective variable that may be adjusted during ALD process to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the aspect ratio of a patterned trench in Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Regarding claim 26, Kang further discloses for a method of depositing an oxide material, comprising that
a conformal seed layer of oxide material (SiO2, Fig. 1, TABLE 1, [0029]) into at least one patterned feature of a layer of a semiconductor substrate (substrate with trench in Fig. 1, claim 1) provided within a process chamber;
depositing oxide material (SiO2, Fig. 1, TABLE 1, [0029]) by a plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (PEALD) process (PEALD process, [0025]),
wherein the process (PEALD, [0025]) comprises:
(a) igniting a plasma (plasma ignition, TABLE 1) generated by a dual radio frequency (RF) plasma source comprising a high frequency (HF) component (high frequency RF power, TABLE 1) and a low frequency (LF) component (low frequency RF power, TABLE 1),
(b) flowing oxide precursor (silicon-containing precursor, [0029]) into the process chamber,
(c) flowing purge gas (purge Ar, TABLE 1) into the process chamber,
(d) flowing an oxygen-containing species (reactant O2 gas, TABLE 1) and an inert gas (source carrier Ar gas, TABLE 1) into the process chamber,
(e) flowing purge gas (purge Ar gas, TABLE 1) into the process chamber.
Kang does not explicitly disclose that the LF component power is increased during (d).
However, Kang further discloses the PEALD process conditions in TABLE 1, including low frequency RF power, flow rate of process gases such as purging Ar gas, source carrier Ar gas, O2 reactant gas, process pressure, and process temperature, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these process parameters are result-effective variables that may be adjusted during different ALD cycles to optimize oxide film growth characteristics including film thickness, uniformity, density, composition, and conformality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary one or more process conditions between the first and second ALD cycles of Kang, as a matter of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired deposition characteristics and oxide film quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO K LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/WOO K LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights