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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Terada et al. (US 2007/0224918A).
With respect to claims 1, 12 Terada describes a planarization method for making a semiconductor device comprising: coating an insulating film A by supplying a processing liquid on a substrate to fill up the grooves
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(para 56-59); removing the surplus part of the film A from the by using a brush 101 to scraping off the excess portions on top of the substrate (para 60)
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; heating the wafer to harden or cure the film A (para 61).
With respect to claim 5, the processing liquid includes a solvent (para 47).
With respect to claim 7, the heating step is done after removing the surplus portion of the film A; therefore, the method doesn’t disclose a heating or curing step at 100 degrees or higher before the step of removing or scraping off the surplus portion of the film A.
With respect to claim 8, the heating is done at 400 degrees (para 61).
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hideharu (JPH0982616A).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, Hideharu describes a planarization method for an semiconductor electronic device comprising providing a SOG or a cured film forming composition on a substrate to fill grooves
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
; removing surplus SOG 4 by scraping off using a wiping blade 200; baking the SOG film, which would cure the SOG film (page 13).
With respect to claim 7, the baking step is done after removing the surplus portion of the SOG film; therefore, the method doesn’t disclose a heating or curing step at 100 degrees or higher before the step of removing or scraping off the surplus portion of the SOG film.
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.
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) 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain et al. (US 5332868).
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Terada doesn’t teach the cured SOG film comprises a silicon-containing polymer selected from polysilazane, polycarbosilazane, polysiloxane, and polysiloxazane and the elastic modulus of the cured SOG is from 8 to 80 GPa. However, siloxane SOG, which is fundamentally composed of polysiloxane is known and used by one skilled in the art in the making of integrated circuit conductive lines as shown here by Jain, who teaches of providing a siloxane SOG over conductive lines as stress reducing layer having a Young’s elastic modulus less than 20 GPa, which overlaps claimed elastic modulus of 8-80 Gpa (claims 1, 3, 4; please also see cited Honeywell for description of SOG containing siloxane polymers). Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use known SOG film including a siloxane SOG with a Young’s elastic modulus less than 20 GPa, in light of Jain, because it would provide insulating film between wiring structure of the semiconductor integrated circuit with expected results.
With respect to claim 4, Jain doesn’t teach that the silicon-containing polymer of siloxane is from 10 to 100 mass% based on the total amount of the cured film forming composition. However, given the broad range of 10 to 100 mass%, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to be able to provide a desired amount of siloxane in the siloxane SOG film in order to provide an insulating film for manufacturing of the integrated circuits with expected results.
With respect to claim 6, Jain describes a furnace cured temperature of the siloxane SOG is at 400 degrees C (col. 4, lines 42-45), which is within claimed heating temperature at 300-1000 degrees C. Therefore, siloxane SOG, which contains the same claimed silicon-containing polymer of polysiloxane and heated to a same temperature, is expected to have a viscosity similar to that of claimed 1.30 to 1.60 mPa-s, when measured by a capillary viscometer at 25 degrees C.
With respect to claim 9, even though Jain is silent about the elastic modulus of the siloxane SOG composition is 0.5 to 4.5 GPa. However, in the absent of unexpected results, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to provide a desired elastic modulus of the siloxane SOG, such as claimed 0.5 to 4.5 GPa, as long as the final cured siloxane SOG film would have a Young’s elastic modulus less than 20 GPa.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidehara as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jain et al. (US 5332868).
With respect to claims 2,10, Hideharu doesn’t teach the cured SOG film comprises a silicon-containing polymer selected from polysilazane, polycarbosilazane, polysiloxane, and polysiloxazane and the elastic modulus of the cured SOG is from 8 to 80 GPa. However, siloxane SOG, which is fundamentally composed of polysiloxane is known and used by one skilled in the art in the making of integrated circuit conductive lines as shown here by Jain, who teaches of providing a siloxane SOG over conductive lines as stress reducing layer having a Young’s elastic modulus less than 20 GPa, which overlaps claimed elastic modulus of 8-80 Gpa (claims 1, 3, 4; please also see cited Honeywell for description of SOG containing siloxane polymers). Overlapping ranges are held obvious. See MPEP 2144.05. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, one skill in the art would find it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to use known SOG film including a siloxane SOG with a Young’s elastic modulus less than 20 GPa, in light of Jain, because it would provide insulating film between wiring structure of the semiconductor integrated circuit with expected results.
With respect to claim 4, Jain doesn’t teach that the silicon-containing polymer of siloxane is from 10 to 100 mass% based on the total amount of the cured film forming composition. However, given the broad range of 10 to 100 mass%, it would have been obvious and within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to be able to provide a desired amount of siloxane in the siloxane SOG film in order to provide an insulating film for manufacturing of the integrated circuits with expected results.
With respect to claim 6, Jain describes a furnace cured temperature of the siloxane SOG is at 400 degrees C (col. 4, lines 42-45), which is within claimed heating temperature at 300-1000 degrees C. Therefore, siloxane SOG, which contains the same claimed silicon-containing polymer of polysiloxane and heated to a same temperature, is expected to have a viscosity similar to that of claimed 1.30 to 1.60 mPa-s, when measured by a capillary viscometer at 25 degrees C.
With respect to claim 9, even though Jain is silent about the elastic modulus of the siloxane SOG composition is 0.5 to 4.5 GPa. However, in the absent of unexpected results, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would find it obvious to provide a desired elastic modulus of the siloxane SOG, such as claimed 0.5 to 4.5 GPa, as long as the final cured siloxane SOG film would have a Young’s elastic modulus less than 20 GPa.
Honeywell reference is cited for description of SOG containing siloxane polymers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 3, the prior arts Jain, while teaches a siloxane SOG film for integrated circuits; however, Jain doesn’t teach that the siloxane polymers have a mass average molecular weight of 1000 to 30000.
With respect to claim 11, Terada and Hideharu fail to teach performing a step of CMP after the curing step c). Terada (para 11) and Hideharu (abs.) teach using the steps of scrapping the SOG layer and the curing the SOG so that it is not necessary to perform the CMP on the SOG layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY VU NGUYEN DEO whose telephone number is (571)272-1462. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 571-272-3176. 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.
/DUY VU N DEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
6/29/2026
Prosecution Insights