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 1-19 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/US2022/081972.
The amendment dated 04/03/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. The examiner appreciates the amendment to the abstract. In view of said amendment, the objection to the abstract has been withdrawn.
Claims 10, 17-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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 1-2, 7-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussarrat et al. (2009/0232985) in view of Hasebe et al. (2008/0081104).
Dussarrat teaches a method of forming silicon oxide containing films (title) by using an oxygen source and an aminosilane in an ALD process where absorption occurs on the substrate (0031-0034). In one embodiment, the method can be used for gap-fill applications (0030). It is noted that no plasma is disclosed. However, the reference fails to teach a substrate with a feature and annealing.
Hasebe teaches a method for forming a silicon oxide film (title) on a target substrate by CVD (0028) where the substrate is subjected to an annealing process (0004). In addition, the wafer has inter-gate gaps (0005). To use a substrate having a feature and annealing it in Dussarrat would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Hasebe teaches of forming a silicon oxide film on a substrate having inter-gate gaps and annealing same.
Regarding claim 2, Hasebe teaches dichlorosilane (0023).
Regarding claim 7, Dussarrat does not teach any chlorine.
Regarding claim 8, the applicant requires a specific hydrogen content. Dussarrat teaches low hydrogen content (0034). To utilize the claimed hydrogen content would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 9, Dussarrat teaches conformal films (0030).
Regarding claim 11, Dussarrat teaches repeating (0020).
Regarding claims 12-13, Dussarrat teaches purging (0041).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussarrat et al. (2009/0232985) and Hasebe et al. (2008/0081104) and further in view of Kato (2018/0308688). The combination of Dussarrat/Hasebe fails to teach DIPAS.
Kato teaches of forming a silicon oxide film on a substrate surface using an aminosilane gas and an oxidation gas (abstract). In one embodiment, the aminosilane gas can be DIPAS (0036). It would have been obvious to use DIPAS as the aminosilane in the combination with the expectation of success because Kato teaches of forming a silicon oxide film using DIPAS.
Claims 4-6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dussarrat et al. (2009/0232985) and Hasebe et al. (2008/0081104) and further in view of Chandra et al. (EP 3254303B1). The combination of Dussarrat/Hasebe fails to teach an annealing temperature.
Chandra teaches of annealing a silicon oxide film to a temperature to 1000oC (0049). It would have been obvious to utilize the claimed temperature in the combination with the expectation of success because Chandra teaches of using same.
Regarding claim 5, Chandra teaches a hydrogen peroxide plasma (0054).
Regarding claim 6, Chandra teaches a nitrogen plasma (0051).
Regarding claim 14, Chandra teaches a temperature up to 1000oC (0049)
Regarding claim 15, Chandra teaches the appropriate time (Table IV).
Regarding claim 16, Dussarrat does not teach any chlorine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed modification includes a principle change of operation (p.4). Specifically, the applicant argues that the secondary reference (Hasebe) teaches a plasma which changes the operation.
The examiner disagrees. It is specifically noted that Dussarrat teaches a plasma-less process which reads on the instant claims, a fact concurred by the applicant on p.4. The examiner cited the Hasebe to show the conventional use of a substrate with a feature and annealing. It is not clear how a substrate with a feature and annealing would result in a change of operation. Indeed, the applicant’s specification teaches it is well known to implement an ALD process with plasma activation and without plasma activation (0040).
Applicant next argues that the proposed modification does not result in a reasonable expectation of success (pp.4-5).
The examiner disagrees. It is first noted that there is no factual evidence supporting such an assertion. Without same, this appears to be mere speculation by the applicant. Secondly, it is specifically noted that Dussarrat teaches a plasma-less process which reads on the instant claims, a fact concurred by the applicant on p.4. The examiner cited the Hasebe to show the conventional use of a substrate with a feature and annealing. It is not clear how a substrate with a feature and annealing would produce a process that is not successful. The applicant has not pointed out any factual evidence as to why the proposed combination would not be successful. Indeed, the applicant’s specification teaches it is well known to implement an ALD process with plasma activation and without plasma activation (0040), which the examiner has relied upon to show that plasma and plasma-less processes are successful.
Applicant next argues that the references teach away from the claims (pp.5-6). Specifically, the applicant argues that Hasebe teaches igniting a plasma, which teaches away from the claimed invention (p.5).
The examiner disagrees. It is specifically noted that Dussarrat teaches a plasma-less process which reads on the instant claims, a fact concurred by the applicant on p.4. The examiner cited the Hasebe to show the conventional use of a substrate with a feature and annealing. It is not clear how a substrate with a feature and annealing would affect the claimed invention of Dussarrat.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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 05/16/2026
Prosecution Insights