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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method for Forming Low-K Film in a Recess by Plasma Enhanced Atomic Layer Deposition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 requires that “the steps for forming a film and the post treatment are carried out ex-situ.” Claim 1 (on which claim 4 depends, and claim 12 depends on claim 4) positively claims “A method of forming a film on a wall of a recess of a substrate in a reactor . . .” Therefore, the requirement that the method of forming a film “ex situ” contradicts the limitations of claim 1. Further, if the film formation step is carried out in one location and the post treatment is carried out in another location, the film formation location must be “in situ” in order to define the location that the post treatment is “ex situ” relative to, meaning that it is impossible for both steps to be carried out “ex situ” without some previous location to be first defined as “in situ.” For the purposes of examination “ex situ” will be interpreted to mean “in different locations.”
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 which requires that the oxidant of claim 1 comprises at least one of “oxygen plasma, CO2 plasma, N2O plasma, ozone, or a combination thereof” (emphasis added). Claim 20 requires that the plasma of claim 19 is generated by applying an RF power of between about 30 and 200W to the reactor in situ or remotely; however, the scope of claim 19 does not require a plasma to be utilized as an oxidant (as non-plasma ozone can be used). The scope of claim 20 is therefore indefinite, as it is indefinite if claim 20 requires the utilization of a plasma as an oxidant. For the purposes of examination, claim 20 will be interpreted to mean “if the oxidant comprises a plasma, the plasma is generated by applying an RF power of between about 30W and about 200 W in situ or remotely.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chandra (US 10242864 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Chandra teaches, in paragraph 58 of Background of Invention, a method of forming a film on a wall of a recess of a substrate in a reactor (“SiO.sub.2 film was deposited on patterned silicon wafers with DMATMS. . . SiO.sub.2 thickness measurements of sample cross-sections were taken at the top, the side wall, and the bottom of the trench”) comprising the steps of: supplying a first silicon precursor to the reactor; supplying a second silicon precursor to the reactor; and supplying an oxidant to the reactor (Paragraph 9 of Background of Invention: “One embodiment provides a process to deposit silicon oxide comprising steps of: a. providing a substrate in a reactor; b. introducing into the reactor at least one silicon precursor; c. purging reactor with purge gas; d. introducing an oxygen source into the reactor; and e. purging reactor with purge gas; and where steps b through e are repeated until a desired thickness of silicon oxide is deposited” the examiner notes that “at least one” discloses multiple silicon containing precursors); wherein the first silicon precursor comprises: (1) a reactive group comprising an alkylamine; and (2) a non-reactive group comprising an alkyl group and a hydrogen group (Paragraph 9 states: “In one embodiment, the at least one silicon precursor described herein is a compound having the following formula I . . . Examples of precursors having Formula I include are but not limited to: . . . dimethylaminotrimethylsilane . . .” the examiner notes that this chemical has a reactive group comprising an alkylamnine and a non-reactive group comprising an alkyl group and a hydrogen group); wherein the second silicon precursor comprises: (1) a reactive group comprising an alkylamine; and (2) a non-reactive group comprising a hydrogen group (paragraph 9 of Background of invention further states: “Examples of precursors having Formula I include are but not limited to: . . . bis(dimethylaminodimethylsilane) . . .” the examiner notes that this chemical has a reactive group comprising an alkyamine and a non-reactive group comprising a hydrogen group); wherein the steps are repeated a plurality of times and a silicon oxide film is formed on the wall of the recess (see above quotes of paragraph 58 and paragraph 9 of Background of Invention).
Regarding claim 2, Chandra further teaches, in paragraph 10 of Detailed Summary of Invention: “In this or other embodiments, the oxygen source is selected from the group consisting of . . . water vapor, water vapor plasma, hydrogen peroxide . . .” Further, paragraph 20 of Detailed Description of the Invention states: “Exemplary purge gases include, but are not limited to, argon (Ar), nitrogen (N.sub.2), helium (He), neon, hydrogen (H.sub.2), and mixtures thereof.” The examiner notes that because the oxygen source and purge gasses are supplied throughout the steps, this discloses the supply of a hydrogen-containing gas throughout the steps.
Regarding claim 3, as explained above, Chandra further teaches the utilization of hydrogen (H2) has a purging gas (see above), therefore the hydrogen containing has that is used throughout the steps comprises hydrogen.
Regarding claim 15, the examiner notes that the dimethylaminotrimethylsilane disclosed by Chandra above as a first silicon precursor comprises an organosilane containing amine group.
Regarding claim 17, the examiner notes that the dimethylaminotrimethylsilane disclosed by Chandra above as a first silicon precursor is an aminosilane.
Regarding claim 18, the examiner notes that the bis(dimethylamino)dimethylsilane disclosed by Chandra above as a second silicon containing precursor is also known as BDMAS.
Regarding claim 19, Chandra further discloses, in paragraph 10 of Brief Summary of Invention: “In this or other embodiments, the oxygen source is selected from the group consisting of oxygen, oxygen plasma, water vapor, water vapor plasma, hydrogen peroxide, nitrogen oxides, and ozone.”
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9-12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (US 10242864 B2) in view of Kato (US 20100171198 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, as explained above, Chandra teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chandra does not teach a post treatment to remove moisture from the silicon oxide film.
Kato teaches, in [0009], a method of forming a thin film comprising the step of “obtaining a low-permittivity film by supplying energy to the substrate to allow moisture to be released from the thin film . . .” [0011] further states: “. . . the step (b) of obtaining the low-permittivity film by allowing the moisture to be released from the thin film may include at least one of stages of heating the substrate to be maintained at a temperature higher than 200.degree. C.; irradiating an ultraviolet to a surface of the substrate; and exposing the surface of the substrate to a plasma obtained by activating hydrogen gas.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method of Chandra such that it further comprises the step of carrying out a post treatment by thermal treatment and at least one of a plasma treatment, a UV, treatment, or a combination thereof as taught by Kato. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, moisture causes hydroxl groups to form in the silicon-containing film, raising the dielectric constant of the film (and thus removing the moisture prevents this), see Kato [0045]. Also See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 6, Kato further teaches, in [0016]: “the after-treatment apparatus includes at least one of devices for heating the substrate to be maintained at a temperature higher than 200 degrees C, for irradiating an ultraviolet to a surface of the substrate, and for exposing the surface of the substrate to a plasma obtained by hydrogen gas.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that post treatment comprises a thermal treatment and a plasma treatment by supplying a hydrogen plasma, as taught by Kato. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to garner the benefits of moisture removal taught by Kato above.
Regarding claim 9, Kato further teaches, in paragraph [0062]: “Next, an annealing as an after-treatment process and a heating apparatus 3 as an example of an after-treatment apparatus for performing the after-treatment process will be described with reference to FIG. 5. The heating apparatus 3 includes a processing chamber 60 and a mounting table 61. The mounting table 61 includes a heater 61a. The heater 61a, which is connected to a power supply 61b, is configured to heat the wafer W in a temperature range from, e.g., 200 degrees C. to 400 degrees C.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the thermal treatment is carried out between about 300 degrees C and 500 degrees C as taught by Kato. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows for the reduction of moisture in the remaining material (see teachings of Kato above). Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I): “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) . . .”
Regarding claim 10 as explained above, Kato teaches a thermal treatment carried out “in a temperature range from, e.g., 200 degrees C. to 400 degrees C” (see above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the thermal treatment is carried out between about 350 degrees C and 450 degrees C as taught by Kato. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows for the reduction of moisture in the remaining material (see teachings of Kato above). Also see MPEP 2144.05 (I): “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) . . .”
Regarding claim 11, as explained above, Chandra teaches steps for forming a film ”in a reactor” (see above).
Chandra does not teach a post treatment.
As explained above, Kato teaches a post treatment method. Kato further teaches, in [0018]: “In the semiconductor manufacturing apparatus in accordance with the present invention, the plasma CVD apparatus and the after-treatment apparatus are provided as a single unit.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the steps for forming a film and the post treatment are carried out in-situ as taught by Kato. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows for faster manufacturing times, as time is not spent transporting the device from place to place.
Regarding claim 12, Kato further teaches, in [0017]: “The semiconductor manufacturing apparatus in accordance with the present invention may further include a vacuum transfer module arranged between the plasma CVD apparatus and the after-treatment apparatus.” The examiner notes that this teaches a separate apparatus for post treatment which the device must be transported to.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to further modify the method taught by Chandra such that the steps for forming a film and the post treatment are carried out in different locations, as taught by Kato. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, this allows for more specialized heating equipment in the post-treatment location, allowing for more specialized machinery with higher temperature accuracy, for example.
Regarding claim 14, Chandra further teaches, in Table II, ALD of a SO2 with Dimethylaminotrimethylsilane with deposition rates ranging from 0.8 to 1.5 Å/cycle, Table III shows the same with DEATMS with deposition rates between 1.17 and 1.36 Å/cycle, Table IV shows DEATMS deposition with deposition rates ranging from 1.10-1.27 Å/ cycle, Table VI shows DEATMS deposition with a rate of between 1.01-1.35A/cycle, and Table VII shows DEATES deposition with rates between 0.91-2.53A/cycle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date that the deposition of a SiO2 film using a first and second precursor film (such as the the first silicon precursor comprises: (1) a reactive group comprising an alkylamine; and (2) a non-reactive group comprising an alkyl group and a hydrogen group and the second silicon precursor comprises: (1) a reactive group comprising an alkylamine; and (2) a non-reactive group comprising a hydrogen group) has a rate of greater than 0.1 nm/cycle, as taught by Chandra (the examiner notes that, because chemicals within these categories have been disclosed as precursors and their rates have been disclosed as being greater than 0.1 nm/cycle independently, it is obvious that the combination of these precursors would also yield these deposition rates). One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to increase the deposition rate above 0.1 nm/cycle because too low deposition rates make the deposition process “impractical for high volume manufacturing processes” (Chandra, paragraph 2 of Background for Invention).
Regarding claim 16, as explained above, Chandra teaches that the first silicon precursor comprises dimethylaminotrimethylsilane.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (US 10242864 B2) in view of Kato (US 20100171198 A1) in further view of Bhanap (US 20060216952 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Chandra does not teach a post treatment to remove moisture from the silicon oxide film and Chandra does not specifically teach a dielectric constant of the silicon oxide film.
Bhanap teaches, in [0005]: “Device scaling in future integrated circuits clearly requires the use of low dielectric constant materials as a part of the interconnect structure. Most candidates for low dielectric constant materials for use in sub-100 nm generation ICs are carbon containing SiO.sub.2 films . . .” and further in [0004]: “As semiconductor devices scale to lower technology nodes, the requirement for lower and lower dielectric constant (k) has been identified to mitigate RC delay. Similarly, as feature sizes in integrated circuits are reduced, problems with power consumption and signal cross-talk have become increasingly difficult to resolve. To achieve lower dielectric constant (2.6-3.0) in dense inorganic materials, carbon has been added to reduce the polarizability thus reducing the dielectric constant. To achieve ultra-low dielectric constant (<2.4) materials, porosity is added to the carbon-rich dense matrix.” The examiner notes that this discloses silicon dioxide films made with a dielectric constant under 3.5 utilizing the introduction of carbon and porosity. Sill further, [00019] teaches a method step of “dehydrating at least a portion of a silicate or organosilicate dielectric film on a substrate” and [0054] states: “The first step of the inventive process is an optional but preferred step of dehydrating at least a portion of a silicate or organosilicate dielectric film on a substrate. Such may be done by any means known in the art such as . . . The dehydration bake removes substantially all of the moisture which may have been adsorbed in the dielectric film.” The examiner notes that this discloses a thermal treatment step for dehydration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to further modify the method taught by Chandra such that the dielectric constant of the silicon oxide film is less than 3.5, as taught by Bhnap. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, “As semiconductor devices scale to lower technology nodes, the requirement for lower and lower dielectric constant (k) has been identified to mitigate RC delay” (Bhnap, [top of [0004]).
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (US 10242864 B2) in view of Liu (US 20220165569 A1). Regarding claim 20, as explained above, Chandra teaches the limitations of claim 1, Chandra does not teach the application of RF power between about 30 W and about 200 W in situ or remotely.
Liu teaches, in [0053], the utilization of a silicon precursor and an oxygen plasma for use in depositing an SiO2 film: “In some embodiments, the oxygen plasma is generated by means of an RF generator operating at a plasma power of at least 50 W to at most 200 W.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the plasma is generated by applying a RF power of between about 30 W and about 200W to the reactor in situ or remotely, as taught by Liu. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, “. . . by exposing the substrate to the silicon precursor, more silicon precursor is chemisorbed on the unpassivated lower surface compared to the plasma-passivated upper surface. The step of exposing the substrate to a post silicon precursor pulse plasma treatment results in a reaction between one or more reactive species comprised in the plasma to react with the silicon precursor that chemisorbed on the lower surface during the step of exposing the substrate to a silicon precursor . . . Advantageously, such methods offer a very short cycle time. Indeed, the deposition time needed for obtaining a specific film thickness can be shortened by 50% or more, so higher throughput and less process-induced damage to underlying layers can result” (Liu, bottom of [0049] and top of [0050]).
Regarding claim 21, as explained above, Liu teaches plasma treatment utilizing RF power of “at least 50 W to at most 200 W.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to further modify the method taught by Chandra such that the plasma is generated by applying a RF power of between about 40 W and about 150W to the reactor in situ or remotely, as taught by Liu. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, “. . . by exposing the substrate to the silicon precursor, more silicon precursor is chemisorbed on the unpassivated lower surface compared to the plasma-passivated upper surface. The step of exposing the substrate to a post silicon precursor pulse plasma treatment results in a reaction between one or more reactive species comprised in the plasma to react with the silicon precursor that chemisorbed on the lower surface during the step of exposing the substrate to a silicon precursor . . . Advantageously, such methods offer a very short cycle time. Indeed, the deposition time needed for obtaining a specific film thickness can be shortened by 50% or more, so higher throughput and less process-induced damage to underlying layers can result” (Liu, bottom of [0049] and top of [0050]).
Regarding claim 22, as explained above, Chandra teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chandra does not teach that the method is carrier out between about 20°C and about 100°C.
Liu teaches, in [0049], a “method for filling a gap feature” comprising the steps of, positioning the substrate in a chamber, selectively depositing a silicon-containing material (ex. Silicon oxide) on the lower surface and applying a plasma treatment cyclically until a desired thickness is achieved. Further, [0025] states: “in some embodiments, the substrate is maintained at a temperature of at least 100° C to at most 500° C.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the method is carried out between about 20°C and about 100°C. as taught by Liu. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, lower temperatures may prevent damage to components in the device.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (US 10242864 B2) in view of Lee (US 6992019 B2).
Regarding claim 23, as explained above, Chandra teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chandra does not teach that the method is carried out between about 35°C and about 90°C.
Lee teaches, in abstract, a method for silicon dioxide ALD, paragraph 30 states: “When the first reactant is supplied, the process temperature in the chamber is typically about 25 degrees C to 150 degrees C, preferably about 90 degrees C . . .”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the method is carried out at between about 35°C and about 90°C, as taught by Lee. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, lower temperatures of formation may prevent damage to components in the device.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (US 10242864 B2) in view of Kaloyeros (US 20210371981 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Chandra further teaches, in paragraph 7 of Detailed description of Invention, “The remaining groups on the surface can then be oxidized to form a Si—O—Si linkage as well as hydroxyl groups. In addition, hydroxyl sources such as H.sub.2O or water plasma can also be introduced into the reactor to form more hydroxyl groups as reactive sites for the next ALD cycle . . .” The examiner notes that this discloses the presence of a hydroxyl group (-OH) on the surface of the recess.
Chandra does not teach that the surface of the recess comprises an alkyl group.
Kaloyeros teaches, in [0007]: “In a second embodiment, a method for deposition of a silicon oxide thin film onto a substrate in a reaction zone of a deposition chamber comprises. . . N-alkyl substituted perhydridocyclotrisilazane in the vapor phase with a carrier gas and/or under vacuum to the reaction zone containing the substrate; forming a monolayer of the N-alkyl substituted perhydridocyclotrisilazane by adsorption to the substrate surface; and exposing the adsorbed monolayer on the substrate in the reaction zone to a remote or direct soft plasma of an oxygen-containing reactant; wherein the adsorbed N-alkyl substituted perhydridocyclotrisilazane monolayer reacts with the soft plasma and undergoes conversion to a discrete atomic or molecular layer of a silicon oxide thin film via dissociation and/or decomposition due to or enabled by a substrate surface-induced process; and wherein byproducts of the conversion are removed from the reaction zone by an inert gas through a purge step and/or the vacuum.” The examiner notes that although this teaches a simple surface, this is applicable to the surface of the recess taught by Chandra. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the surface of the recess comprises an alkyl group, as taught by Kaloyeros. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, alkyl groups can be reacted with soft plasma to form a silicon oxide thin film, as taught by Kaloyeros above.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra (US 10242864 B2) in view of Lin (US 20230200258 A1).
Regarding claim 25, as explained above, Chandra teaches the limitations of claim 1. Chandra does not teach the formation of a barrier layer and conductive film.
Lin teaches, in [0011] a metal interconnect structure: “each of the metal interconnections 26 from the metal interconnect structure 20 preferably includes a trench conductor and the metal interconnection . . . Preferably, each of the metal interconnections 26, 32 from the metal interconnect structures 20, 22 could be embedded within the IMD layers 24, 30 and/or stop layer 28 according to a single damascene process or dual damascene process. For instance, each of the metal interconnections 26, 32 could further include a barrier layer 34 and a metal layer 36, in which the barrier layer 34 could be selected from the group consisting of titanium (Ti), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum (Ta), and tantalum nitride (TaN) and the metal layer 36 could be selected from the group consisting of tungsten (W), copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), titanium aluminide (TiAl), and cobalt tungsten phosphide (CoWP). Since single damascene process and dual damascene process are well known to those skilled in the art, the details of which are not explained herein for the sake of brevity. In this embodiment, the metal layers 36 in the metal interconnections 26 are preferably made of copper, the metal layer 36 in the metal interconnections 32 is made of tungsten, the IMD layers 24, 30 are preferably made of silicon oxide . . .” The examiner notes that the existence of the barrier film on the silicon oxide ILD and the existence of the copper conductive film in the recess requires their formation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the method taught by Chandra such that the method further comprises forming a barrier film on the silicon oxide film, filling the recess with a conducting film, and planarizing the substrate from a top of the substrate, where the barrier layer comprises at least on of Ta, TaN, Ta/TaN, TiN, or a mixture thereof, wherein the conducting film comprises at least one of copper, tungsten, poly-silicon, or a mixture thereof, as taught by Lin. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so because, for example, form an interconnect in the device, allowing signals and power to be delivered to and from different regions of the device, or from the device to another device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abel (US 11293098 B2) – dielectric gap fill using ALD with plasma step.
Yang (US 8703625 B2) – silicon dioxide film formation using various precursors comprising alkyl and hydrogen groups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/G.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights