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 1-9, 11-21 are pending in this application; which is an RCE of Serial Number 18/790596. Amended claim 1 and newly added claim 21 are noted.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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 1-9, 11-12, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (2010/0255218) in view of McDougall (2007/0065578).
Oka teaches a method of depositing silicon oxide film by plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (title) by introducing a silicon containing precursor and an oxygen supplying reactant in a PEALD reactor to deposit a silicon oxide layer on a substrate which has a resist pattern or etched lines (abstract). Specifically, an SiO2 film 44 is formed on top of a substrate 41 having a pattering layer 42 and line or etched line 43 (0069 and Figure 4B). It is specifically noted that the seam in Figure 4a is eliminated by the deposition of the SiO2 film in Figure 4b. However, the reference fails to teach post treating with an oxygen-containing precursor.
McDougall teaches a treatment process for an ALD reactor (title) for semiconductor processing (0004) in which a silicon oxide layer is formed during an ALD process (0060). After deposition, a post treatment process of exposing to a post treatment gas containing ozone is performed and repeated (0055-59). To utilize a post treatment gas containing ozone in Oka would have been obvious with the expectation of success because McDougall teaches of using a post treatment step of exposing to ozone.
With respect to reducing a seam, the references are silent on same. However, since McDougall teaches a post treatment gas containing ozone, the reduction of seam would be inherent.
Regarding claim 2, Oka teaches plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition (title).
Regarding claim 3, Oka teaches silicon oxide (title).
Regarding claim 4, McDougall teaches an aspect ratio of 30 (0004).
Regarding claim 5, Oka teaches O2 (0025).
Regarding claims 6-7, McDougall teaches H2 (0010).
Regarding claim 8, the applicant requires effluents. It is noted that Oka teaches plasma and oxygen (0018) and thus would inherently produce effluents.
Regarding claim 9, McDougall teaches of forming water (0010).
In independent claim 11, the applicant requires effluents and reduction of seam. It is noted that Oka teaches plasma and oxygen (0018) and thus would inherently produce effluents. Furthermore, McDougall teaches a post treatment gas containing ozone which would inherently reduce seams.
Regarding claim 12, Oka teaches silicon oxide (title).
Regarding claim 15, McDougall teaches H2 (0010).
Regarding claim 16, Oka teaches repeating (0018).
Regarding claim 17, McDougall teaches a post treatment gas containing ozone which would inherently reduce seams.
In independent claim 18, the applicant requires a specific temperature and pressure. McDougall teaches a temperature of 100-700oC (0026) and Oka teaches a pressure between 100 to 1000 Pa (0048).
Regarding claim 19, McDougall teaches of forming water (0010).
Regarding claims 20-21, McDougall teaches a time of 5 minutes to 6 hours (0031).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oka et al. (2010/0255218) ) in view of McDougall (2007/0065578) and further in view of Kang et al. (2014/0106574). The combination of Oka/McDougall fails to teach the claimed plasma.
Kang teaches a method of gapfilling an aspect ratio feature (title) using PEALD (abstract) to fill a gap with silicon oxide (0119). A microwave plasma is used (0031). It would have been obvious to utilize a microwave plasma in the combination with the expectation of success because Kang teaches of using a microwave plasma in a PEALD process.
Regarding claim 14, Kang teaches crosslink (0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) above have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the prior art references fail to teach performing a post treatments step (p.6). The same line of reasoning is applied for dependent claim 12 (pp.7-8).
The examiner agrees and notes the new grounds of rejection
Applicant next argues that the references would not inherently produce effluents (p.7). The same line of reasoning is applied for dependent claim 13 (p.8).
The examiner disagrees. It is specifically noted in the applicant’s specification that the effluents come from the use of a plasma (0005-0007). Since Oka teaches a plasma and oxygen (0018), it is the examiner’s position that the reference would inherently produce effluents. Assuming arguendo that the applicant’s assertion is correct, how can one use a plasma and oxygen and NOT produce effluents. To that end, how does the applicant produce effluents and the prior art doesn’t?
Applicant next argues that Agnew is not combinable with Oka because the two references address mutually exclusive processing regimes (pp.8-9).
The examiner notes the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not deemed persuasive.
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 09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights