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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered as to the point that Xiao et al. (US 2021/0017339, hereafter Xiao ‘339) does not teach metal oxides but are moot based on the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 with respect to claims 10-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant argues that the claimed nitrogen concentration is critical and provides the unexpected result of 100% step coverage. Applicant points to [0056] in the specification as evidence. This is not found persuasive because there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the claimed range provides unexpected results. While the cited paragraph does show unexpected results for 20% nitrogen, this is only a single point within the claimed range of “at least 1% by volume”. This is insufficient to show that the claimed range of at least 1% by volume provides unexpected results.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0017339, hereafter Xiao ‘339) in view of Fisher et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0384035, hereafter Fisher ‘035).
Claim 1: Xiao ‘339 teaches a device (abstract, [0158]) comprising:
a substrate having a trench, which corresponds to the claimed structure, having a width of 50 nm and a depth of 600 nm, giving an aspect ratio of 12:1 (Fig. 4, [0179]); and
a film on the trench having a step coverage of about 100% (Fig. 4, [0179]),
wherein the film is a dielectric comprising silicon oxide ([0072], [0073], [0179]) and has a hydrogen concentration of less than 5 x 1020 atoms per cubic centimeter (at/cc) as measured by SIMS ([0072], [0159]).
Xiao ‘339 further teaches that the device can be a semiconductor device ([0004], [0017], [0033]).
With respect to claim 1, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the hydrogen atom concentration is less than 1 x 1020 at/cc. However, the claimed hydrogen atom concentration range of less than 1 x 1020 at/cc is obvious over the hydrogen atom concentration range of less than 5 x 1020 at/cc taught by Xiao ‘339 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 1, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the film comprises a metal oxide.
Fisher ‘035 teaches a semiconductor device (abstract, [0010]) comprising a substrate with a trench (Fig. 1, [0028]), and a silicon oxide containing dielectric film ([0030]). Fisher ‘035 teaches that silicon oxide and a combination containing silicon oxide and hafnium oxide are functional equivalents for the purposes of being the dielectric material ([0030]). Both Fisher ‘035 and Xiao ‘339 teach semiconductor devices (‘339, [0004], [0017], [0033]; ‘035, abstract, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the hafnium oxide taught by Fisher ‘035 to the dielectric layer comprising silicon oxide in the device taught by Xiao ‘339 because silicon oxide and a combination containing silicon oxide and hafnium oxide are functional equivalents for the purposes of being the dielectric material, as taught by Fisher ‘035. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 2: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the substrate can be silicon ([0073], [0157]).
Claim 3: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the structure can be a trench defined by the substrate (Fig. 4, [0179]).
Claim 4: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the trench can have a width of 50 nm and a depth of 600 nm, giving an aspect ratio of 12:1 ([0179]).
Claim 5: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the film directly contacts a surface of the trench (Fig. 4, [0179]).
Claim 6: The modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 teach that the film can comprise hafnium oxide, as discussed above.
Claims 7-8: With respect to claim 7, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the film has a thickness of 1 nm to 5µm. With respect to claim 8, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the film has a thickness of 1 nm to 500 nm.
However, the claimed device differs from the device taught by Xiao ‘339 only in the thickness of the film, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim 9: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the film can have a carbon content of 5.85 x 1018 at/cc as measured by SIMS (Table 8).
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. ‘339 in view of Chono et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0002224, hereafter Chono ‘224).
Claims 10,15, and 16: Xiao ‘339 teaches a method (abstract) comprising:
exposing a substrate having trench with a width of 50 nm and a depth of 600 nm, giving an aspect ratio of 12:1, to a first precursor gas (Fig. 4, [0021], [0179]); and
exposing the substrate to a second precursor gas comprising ozone ([0075], [0077], [0081], [0163]), thereby forming a film on the trench having a step coverage of about 100% (Fig. 4, [0179]).
Xiao ‘339 further teaches that the method can be for semiconductor manufacturing ([0004], [0017], [0033]).
With respect to claim 10, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the method includes flowing feed gas comprising at least 1% by volume of N2 to an ozone generator to produce the ozone gas. With respect to claim 15, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the feed gas comprises 2% to 40% by volume N2 and 60% to 98% by volume O2. With respect to claim 16, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the feed gas comprises 10% to 30% by volume N2 and 70% to 90% by volume O2.
Chono ‘224 teaches a method for semiconductor manufacturing (abstract, [0002]) comprising exposing a substrate to a precursor gas comprising ozone (abstract). Chono ‘224 teaches that the method can include generating the ozone by supplying a feed gas comprising nitrogen and oxygen to an ozone generator (claim 4, [0071]). Chono ‘224 teaches that this provides ozone with a stable concentration ([0006]). Chono ‘224 teaches that the relative flow rates, and therefore, relative concentrations, of nitrogen and oxygen into the ozone generator affects the flow rate of the generated ozone ([0010], [0074]). Both Chono ‘224 and Xiao ‘339 teach methods for semiconductor manufacturing (‘339, [0004], [0017], [0033]; ‘224, abstract, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the step of generating the ozone by supplying a feed gas comprising nitrogen and oxygen to an ozone generator taught by Chono ‘224 to the method taught by Xiao ‘339 because it provides ozone with a stable concentration, as taught by Chono ‘224.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative flow rates, and therefore, relative concentrations, of nitrogen and oxygen in the gas fed into the ozone generator in the method taught by the modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 because the relative flow rates, and therefore, relative concentrations, of nitrogen and oxygen into the ozone generator affects the flow rate of the generated ozone, as taught by Chono ‘224. See MPEP 2144.05.II.
Further, it is noted that, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior at unless there is evidence indicating that said concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 11: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the substrate can be silicon ([0073], [0157]).
Claim 12: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the structure can be a trench defined by the substrate (Fig. 4, [0179]).
Claim 13: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the trench can have a width of 50 nm and a depth of 600 nm, giving an aspect ratio of 12:1 ([0179]).
Claim 17: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the second precursor can comprise ozone ([0075], [0077], [0081], [0163]).
Claim 18: Xiao ‘339 teaches that the second precursor can further comprise O2 ([0081]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. ‘339 in view of Chono et al. ‘224 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0348273, hereafter Tang ‘273).
The modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 teach the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Xiao ‘339 further teaches that the first precursor gas can be a silicon precursor gas ([0018]).
With respect to claim 14, the modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 do not explicitly teach that the first precursor gas comprises at least one of the listed compounds.
Tang ‘273 teaches a method for semiconductor manufacturing (abstract) comprising forming a silicon oxide layer using a silicon precursor gas (abstract, [0063]). Tang ‘273 teaches that hexachlorodisilane is a suitable material for the silicon precursor (claim 12, [0063]). Both Tang ‘273 and Xiao ‘339 teach methods for semiconductor manufacturing (‘339, [0004], [0017], [0033]; ‘273, abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the hexachlorodisilane taught by Tang ‘273 in the silicon precursor gas used in the method taught by the modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 because hexachlorodisilane is a suitable material for the silicon precursor for forming silicon oxide, as taught by Tang ‘273. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. ‘339 in view of Chono et al. ‘224 as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fisher et al. ‘035.
Claim 19: The modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 teach the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above. Xiao ‘339 further teaches that the film can comprise silicon oxide ([0072], [0179]) and has a hydrogen concentration of less than 5 x 1020 atoms per cubic centimeter (at/cc) as measured by SIMS ([0072], [0159]).
With respect to claim 19, Xiao ‘339 does not explicitly teach that the hydrogen atom concentration is less than 1 x 1020 at/cc. However, the claimed hydrogen atom concentration range of less than 1 x 1020 at/cc is obvious over the hydrogen atom concentration range of less than 5 x 1020 at/cc taught by Xiao ‘339 because they overlap. See MPEP 2144.05.
With respect to claim 19, the modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 do not explicitly teach that the film comprises a metal oxide.
Fisher ‘035 teaches a method of making a semiconductor device (abstract, [0010]) comprising a substrate with a trench (Fig. 1, [0028]), and a silicon oxide containing dielectric film ([0030]). Fisher ‘035 teaches that silicon oxide and a combination containing silicon oxide and hafnium oxide are functional equivalents for the purposes of being the dielectric material ([0030]). Both Fisher ‘035 and Xiao ‘339 teach methods of making semiconductor devices (‘339, [0004], [0017], [0033]; ‘035, abstract, [0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the hafnium oxide taught by Fisher ‘035 to the dielectric layer comprising silicon oxide in the method taught by the modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 because silicon oxide and a combination containing silicon oxide and hafnium oxide are functional equivalents for the purposes of being the dielectric material, as taught by Fisher ‘035. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim 20: The modified teachings of Xiao ‘339 teach that the film can comprise hafnium oxide, as discussed above.
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 BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights