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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn. Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/28/2026.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0165569).
I. Regarding claims 1-4, 7, 12-14 and 16-21, Liu teaches a process of depositing silica (0052) in a gap in a bottom-up approach (0068) comprising: providing a substrate comprising a gap having an inner surface in a reaction chamber (Figures 1 and 2); exposing the substrate to a first nitrogen plasma (Figure 4 and 0077) to partially modify the inner surface of the gap which will create nitrogen terminations in the reaction chamber; then exposing the substrate to a second argon plasma in the reaction chamber (Figure 4 and 0078) which will partially passivate the modified surfaces (0068); then contacting the substrate with a vapor-phase silicon precursor (0049) meeting the limitations of the formula as claimed in claims 12-14 (0059) to conformally deposit the material and chemisorb the material on the unmodified areas of the gap (no material is deposited on the modified surface, thereby meeting the reduction of at least 60%) of the partially passivated surface (abstract, 0090 and Figure 4). Liu fails to explicitly teach the first plasma having a first ion energy that is higher than the ion energy of the second plasma.
However, Liu does teach that the first plasma can be conducted at a power of 100-1000 W and the second plasma can be conducted at a power of 100-1000 W (see 0077-0078, and note that increasing and decreasing the power necessarily changes the ion energy up and down, respectively). Furthermore, Liu teaches that the power will need adjusted based on substrate size (0078) and adjusting the power/ion energy will alter the degree to which the substrate is modified and the depth of the gap that is modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges of a first ion energy higher than a second through process optimization to optimize the selective modification of the gap, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
II. Regarding claims 5 and 6, Liu teaches that the plasma pre-treatment may be a nitrogen plasma (0070), but fails to explicitly teach that in embodiments with two plasma treatments that the second plasma comprises nitrogen. However, Liu does teach that nitrogen plasmas can remove reactive groups in the gap to inhibit coating with the silicon precursor (0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu’s process by additionally including nitrogen in the second plasma. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for even better inhibition of the surface.
III. Regarding claims 8 and 9, Liu makes obvious claim 1, but fails to teach the first ion energy is at least 15 eV and the second ion energy is at most 5 eV. However, the ion energy is a result-effective variable as altering the ion energy will alter the degree to which the surface is modified and the depth in the gap that the surface is modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
IV. Regarding claim 15, Liu makes obvious claim 1, including the gap comprising a bottom (Figure 2), but fails to explicitly teach modifying the bottom with the first plasma. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bottom with the first plasma. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would allow for selective deposition on the sidewalls of the gap.
2. Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Yuan et al. (KR 20210063434, reference is made to the provided English translation).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Liu makes obvious claim 1, but fails to teach the inner gap/substrate surface comprising silicon nitride and/or oxide. However, Liu teaches that their substrate is a semiconductor substrate (0045) and can have additional layers made of different material (0045). Further, Yuan teaches a similar process for gap filling (abstract) a semiconductor substrate (Description of Embodiments section, page 3) and Yuan teaches that the substrate can comprise silicon nitride and oxides (Description of Embodiments section, page 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify Liu’s process by utilizing a substrate including surfaces of silicon nitride and/or oxides as disclosed by Yuan. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one semiconductor substrate for another with a reasonable expectation of success (as both Liu and Yuan are teaching semiconductor substrates to be gap filled in a similar process), and the predictable result of providing a process for gap filling a semiconductor substrate.
Conclusion
Claims 1-23 are pending.
Claims 22 and 23 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-21 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
October 10, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights