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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasahara et al. (US 2019/0157093 A1) in view of Trickett et al. (US 2019/0295887 A1)
As to claim 1, Sasahara teaches a filling method of filling a film containing a predetermined element into a recess formed on a substrate (Fig 2a), the filling method comprising:(a) forming, in a first chamber, a first film, which is the film containing the predetermined element (Si, for example, para 0028, polysilicon 39 as shown in Figs. 2a-2c), in the recess; (b) forming, a modified layer by exposing the first film to a gas including a halogen-containing gas (Fig 3a shows a halogen containing gas that modifies the SiB layer, thereby forming a smaller layer by sublimation in paras 0030-0034); (c) forming a protective film covering the modified layer (AFB in Fig. 3b, para 0035, inhibits/protects against F gas); and (d) sublimating the modified layer by etching the protective film (Figs 3c-3d, paras 0036-0037).
Sasahara does not explicitly teach performing the steps in separate chambers as indicated in the claim language. Trickett et al. is drawn to gapfill method (Figs. 3a-3e) that includes a cluster tool with separate chambers as shown in Fig. 2. Trickett et al. operates these chambers to switch between chambers for differing processes, such as deposition and etching, that provide a different pressure in each chamber as needed or a different temperature in each chamber as needed (para 0039). Each module, or chamber, may be designed by the user as needed in paras 0041-0043. The modules may mirror each other or be all different in paras 0062-0069. Trickett et al. uses this type of set up in order to have many substrates processed at once and to quickly tailor each process to each chamber to be able to move between them easily (paras 0039-0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the chambers of Trickett et al. in the process of Sasahara to be able to change between reaction conditions using differently set chambers where needed and perform the processes in each chamber together if their reaction conditions dictate. “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
Sasahara does not explicitly teach (e) forming a second film, which is the film containing the predetermined element, in the recess. Trickett et al. teaches repeating a similar gapfill process as shown in Fig. 1 in order to fill the recess. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sasahara to include repeating the process as taught by Trickett if the gap was not filled.
As to claims 2 and 4, the element is Si in Sasahara para 0028 and Figs 2a shows deposition without closing the recess.
As to claim 3, Trickett et al. teaches that metals of those claimed may also be used as gapfill in para 0074.
As to claim 5. Steps (f)-(e) repeat the steps of claim 1. Trickett et al. teaches repeating a similar gapfill process as shown in Fig. 1 in order to fill the recess. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Sasahara to include repeating the process as taught by Trickett if the gap was not filled.
As to claims 6-7, fluorine and ammonia are supplied in Sasahara Figs. 3a-3d.
As to claims 8-9, fluorine is supplied in Sasahara Figs. 3a-3d and etches the protective film in paras 0036-0037.
As to claims 10-11, Trickett et al. is drawn to gapfill method (Figs. 3a-3e) that includes a cluster tool with separate chambers as shown in Fig. 2. Trickett et al. operates these chambers to switch between chambers for differing processes, such as deposition and etching, that provide a different pressure in each chamber as needed or a different temperature in each chamber as needed (para 0039). Each module, or chamber, may be designed by the user as needed in paras 0041-0043. The modules may mirror each other (be the same) or be all different in paras 0062-0069. Trickett et al. uses this type of set up in order to have many substrates processed at once and to quickly tailor each process to each chamber to be able to move between them easily (paras 0039-0069). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the chambers of Trickett et al. in the process of Sasahara to be able to change between reaction conditions using differently set chambers where needed and perform the processes in each chamber together if their reaction conditions dictate. “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options with his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) Trickett shows exposure to a common atmosphere 210a,b in Fig. 2 as broadly claimed.
As to claims 12-14, Sasahara teaches the claimed temperatures in paras 0015-0018, 0040 and increasing for the sublimation step in para 0041-0048. Sasahara found that when the temperature increases the etching amount increases (Figs 4-6) making temperature a result effective variable depending on etching amount desired. In addition, Trickett et al. teaches modifying each of its temperatures in various chambers in para 0075 and actively monitors the process parameters to improve film deposition in paras 0049. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the temperatures to those claimed based upon routine experimentation to improve deposition. 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasahara et al. (US 2019/0157093 A1) in view of Trickett et al. (US 2019/0295887 A1) and in further view of van Schravendijk et al. (US 2009/0286381 A1)
Sasahara or Trickett do no teach that the protective film is an oxide film containing the predetermined element. Schravendijk teaches using an oxide resistant to fluorine etching as a protective film during a gapfill process in the abstract, for example. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sasahara and Trickett to include an oxide protective layer as Schravendijk teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights