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 and 11 amended
Claims 2, 15 and 17-18 canceled
Claims 1, 3-14, 16, 19-20 pending
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vrtis (PG Pub 2018/0122632 A1) with Lory (US Pat 5,013,691, as evidentiary support).
Consider Claim 11, Vrtis teaches the process of forming dielectric film (abstract), using Applied Materials Precision-5000 vacuum chamber [0058]. Vrtis teaches the film is formed using silicon containing film on the substrate [0009], using organo- silicone precursor selected from formula (I) and formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
207
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are each independently selected from the group consisting of —CH3 and —OR8, wherein R8 is a C1-C4 alkyl group; R7 is H or —CH3; x is 1 or 2; and n is 1, 2, 3, or 4, wherein at least one R7 is —CH3 when n is 1; and applying energy to the gaseous structure forming composition in the vacuum chamber [0010]. Vrtis teaches the purging of the processing chamber [0058]. Vrtis teaches the deposition chamber having a pressure between 0.01- 600 Torr [0045]. Vrtis teaches the flowrate of each of the gaseous reagent is delivered with the flow rate between 10 -5000 sccm (Standard cubic centimeters per minute) [0043], where the reagents include the silicon precursor [0039]. Where (for example) structure II include 1,1,3,3 Tetramethyl-1,3-disilacyclohutane (when R7 are CH3 and R1-R4 are H) have a density of 0.785 g/cm3, at 760 Torr. Leading to 78.5 mg/min flowed at 10 sccm at 7.6 Torr.
Vrtis does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the prior art of Vrtis teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”. Since the “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.93” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”, and the prior art of Vrtis teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Vrtis would have naturally flow or inherently produced “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.93” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 12, Vrtis teaches the formed film having a thickness of 20Å-10 micron [0046], and a dielectric constant of 2.8- 3.1, with the hardening of 3.2- 415 giga Pascal (GPa) [0024].
Vrtis does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the prior art of Vrtis teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”. Since the “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.7” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”, and the prior art of Vrtis teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Vrtis would have naturally flow or inherently produced “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.7” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 13, Vrtis teaches the exposing of the substrate while in a processing chamber to radio frequency (RF) for generating plasma [0085].
Consider Claim 14, Vrtis teaches the radio frequency plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition system has plasma power of 800W [0060] of Applied Materials Precision 5000 system [0085], and where Lory teaches that the Applied Materials Precision 5000 system generated a radio frequency of 13.56 MHz (Col. 5, lines 52-64).
Consider Claim 16, Vrtis teaches the process of measuring the spectra using FTIR of the formed dielectric films [0059].
Vrtis does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the prior art of Vrtis teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”. Since the “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.35-0.55” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”, and the prior art of Vrtis teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Vrtis would have naturally flow or inherently produced “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.35-0.55” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 19, Vrtis teaches the flowrate of each of the gaseous reagent is delivered with the flow rate between 10 -5000 sccm (Standard cubic centimeters per minute) [0043], where the reagents include the silicon precursor, oxidant etc., [0039] with oxygen as an oxidant [0036].
Consider Claim 20, Vrtis teaches the formed film having a thickness of 20Å-10 micron [0046], and a dielectric constant of 2.8- 3.1, with the hardening of 3.2- 415 giga Pascal (GPa) [0024].
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandal (US Pat. 6,171,945 B1) with Chandra (PG Pub 2018/0033614 A1).
Consider Claims 1 and 5-6, Mandal teaches the process of depositing low dielectric constant film of nano-porous silicon oxide film on a substrate (abstract), using non-silicon compound and reactive silicon containing (Col. 7, lines 15-25) reactive silicon compound such as disilanomethane (SiH3-CH2-SiH3) (Col. 9, table), where the deposition process is performed in a chamber (Col. 9, lines 33-34).
Mandal does not teach purging step.
However, Chandra is in the process of depositing low dielectric film using silicon containing materials (abstract), teaches the process of purging step [0053].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Mandal with Chander to purge the chamber after the deposition step, to remove unreacted silicon precursor and forming a composition comprising the purge gas and silicon precursor [0053].
Consider Claims 3-4, the combined Mandal (with Chander) teaches the deposition of silicon containing layer using plasma assisted RF at power ranging between 20-200 Watt (Mandal, Col 9, lines 38-44), with frequency of 13.56 MHz (Mandal, Col. 11, lines 28-35) . In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 7, the combined Mandal (with Chander) teaches the deposition of silicon containing film under pressure from 0.2 Torr to 20 Torr (Mandal, Col 16, lines 25-28). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 8, the combined Mandal (with Chander) teaches the flow rate for silicon precursor in the range between 20-1000 sccm (Mandal, Col. 16, 59-61) under pressure from 0.2 Torr to 20 Torr (Mandal, Col 16, lines 25-28). Where the disilanomethane have a density of 0.751 g/cm3, at 760 Torr. Leading to 150.2 mg/min flowed at 20 sccm at 7.6 Torr. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 9, the combined Mandal (with Chander) teaches the flow rate for oxygen source (H2O2) in the range between 100 mg/min to 3000 mg/min (Mandal, Col. 16, 59-61). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 10, the combined Mandal (with Chander) teaches the dielectric film to a desired thickness (Chander, [0037]) with dielectric constant of less than 3 (Mandal, Col. 5, lines 66-67). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
The combined Mandal (with Chander) does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the combined prior art of Mandal (with Chander) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the claimed process with the claimed silicon precursor in claim 1, having the claimed thickness and the claimed dielectric constant”. Since the “the result of hardness from 2.12 GPa to 9.16 GPa” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the claimed process with the claimed silicon precursor in claim 1, having the claimed thickness and the claimed dielectric constant”, and the combined prior art of Mandal (with Chander) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combined prior art of Mandal (with Chander) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “the result of hardness from 2.12 GPa to 9.16 GPa” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrtis (PG Pub 2018/0122632 A1) with Lory (US Pat 5,013,691, as evidentiary support).
Consider Claim 11, Vrtis teaches the process of forming dielectric film (abstract), using Applied Materials Precision-5000 vacuum chamber [0058]. Vrtis teaches the film is formed using silicon containing film on the substrate [0009], using organo- silicone precursor selected from formula (I) and formula (II):
PNG
media_image1.png
207
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6 are each independently selected from the group consisting of —CH3 and —OR8, wherein R8 is a C1-C4 alkyl group; R7 is H or —CH3; x is 1 or 2; and n is 1, 2, 3, or 4, wherein at least one R7 is —CH3 when n is 1; and applying energy to the gaseous structure forming composition in the vacuum chamber [0010]. Vrtis teaches the purging of the processing chamber [0058]. Vrtis teaches the deposition chamber having a pressure between 0.01- 600 Torr [0045]. Vrtis teaches the flowrate of each of the gaseous reagent is delivered with the flow rate between 10 -5000 sccm (Standard cubic centimeters per minute) [0043], where the reagents include the silicon precursor [0039]. Where (for example) structure II include 1,1,3,3 Tetramethyl-1,3-disilacyclohutane (when R7 are CH3 and R1-R4 are H) have a density of 0.785 g/cm3, at 760 Torr. Leading to 78.5 mg/min flowed at 10 sccm at 7.6 Torr. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Vrtis does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the prior art of Vrtis teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”. Since the “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.93” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”, and the prior art of Vrtis teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Vrtis would have naturally flow or inherently produced “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.93” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 12, Vrtis teaches the formed film having a thickness of 20Å-10 micron [0046], and a dielectric constant of 2.8- 3.1, with the hardening of 3.2- 415 giga Pascal (GPa) [0024]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Vrtis does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the prior art of Vrtis teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”. Since the “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.7” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”, and the prior art of Vrtis teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Vrtis would have naturally flow or inherently produced “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.05-0.7” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 13, Vrtis teaches the exposing of the substrate while in a processing chamber to radio frequency (RF) for generating plasma [0085].
Consider Claim 14, Vrtis teaches the radio frequency plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition system has plasma power of 800W [0060] of Applied Materials Precision 5000 system [0085], and where Lory teaches that the Applied Materials Precision 5000 system generated a radio frequency of 13.56 MHz (Col. 5, lines 52-64). In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 16, Vrtis teaches the process of measuring the spectra using FTIR of the formed dielectric films [0059].
Vrtis does not explicitly teach the percentage of the Si-C-Si bond within the formed dielectric/silicon containing film.
However, the prior art of Vrtis teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”. Since the “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.35-0.55” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “the process of forming dielectric/silicon containing film using the claimed formula (II) and purging the process chamber, under the claimed pressure, and the claimed flow rate”, and the prior art of Vrtis teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the prior art of Vrtis would have naturally flow or inherently produced “result dielectric/silicon containing film comprising Si-C-Si bonds percentage from 0.35-0.55” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 19, Vrtis teaches the flowrate of each of the gaseous reagent is delivered with the flow rate between 10 -5000 sccm (Standard cubic centimeters per minute) [0043], where the reagents include the silicon precursor, oxidant etc., [0039] with oxygen as an oxidant [0036]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 20, Vrtis teaches the formed film having a thickness of 20Å-10 micron [0046], and a dielectric constant of 2.8-3.1, with the hardening of 3.2-415 giga Pascal (GPa) [0024]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-14, 16, 19-20 under 102/103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mandal with Chander for claims 1, 2-10, and Vrtis for 11-14, 16 and 19-20.
Regarding applicant’s arguments for claims 1, 3-10 are moot in light of the applicant’s amendment and the newly applied rejection.
Applicant argued against claims 11-14, 16 and 19-20, in the ground that Vrtis does not disclose the claims mg/min, nor the dielectric film comprises Si-C-Si bond with 0.05% to 0.93%.
However, Vrtis discloses the use of silicon precursor have the general structure II which include 1,1,3,3 Tetramethyl-1,3-disilacyclohutane (when R7 are CH3 and R1-R4 are H) have a density of 0.785 g/cm3, at 760 Torr. Where using those parameters, ordinary skilled person in the art are calculate the flow rate of 78.5 mg/min at 10 sccm at 7.6 Torr. Moreover, since Vrtis disclose the claimed silicon precursor for forming dielectric film, under the claimed flow rate and the claimed pressure, and the purging process, therefore, it would be obvious/inherent that the resulting of bond percentage for Si-C-Si within the formed dielectric film, as claimed.
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718