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 § 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) 1-3 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandra et al. (US 2018/0033614).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Chandra et al. (US’614) teach a composition for depositing silicon-containing films, the composition comprising at least one silicon precursor compound having one or two Si-C-Si linkages and a solvent [0048]. 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane (TCDSB) is a specific silicon precursor compound having two Si-C-Si linkages included in thirteen examples (Examples 1-13), including examples of 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane in solution with a solvent (Example 10, Example 12 and second “Example 10” [0204]). Furthermore, although not listed in Table 25 [0204], mesitylene is a solvent in a list of claimed solvents for the composition or obviously similar composition with obviously similar precursors (Claim 1, Claim 5; [0019,0048,0113]). US’614 fails to teach an example wherein the composition includes both specifically the precursor 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane and the solvent mesitylene, it would have been obvious to modify the composition of US’614 with mesitylene as the solvent in a composition, including 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane, given the clear preference for 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane (thirteen examples), and the inclusion of mesitylene as a solvent in a group of ten solvents (10% chance of selecting mesitylene at random) and the suggestion that mesitylene is one of two exemplary aromatic hydrocarbons for use as a solvent of the composition [0113].
US’614 fails to expressly teach that mesitylene is dried to any given concentration. It is also not the sort of description one would expect in a reference, teaching only organic solvents. In the list of solvents, water is not mentioned. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the composition to use mesitylene dried to within the recited range (including, for example, pure mesitylene), because US’614 teaches only organic solvents and no water.
NOTE: compare the composition of Claim 1 of US’614, which comprises a) at least one silicon precursor compound having one or two Si-C-Si linkages and b) a solvent, but which does not recite 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane with the composition in paragraph [0048], which includes at least one silicon precursor compound having one or two Si-C-Si linkages and b) a solvent.
Regarding Claim 2, US’614 teaches the composition comprising less than 5 ppm of at least one metal ion selected from the group consisting of A13+, Fe2+, Fe3+, Ni2+, and Cr3+ (Claim 4; [0085]).
Regarding Claim 3, US’614 teaches a method for forming a carbon doped silicon oxide film via a thermal ALD process (Examples 1-8 and 13, including tables; [0030,0049,0061,0072,0088,0089,0096, 0102,0104,0109,0114,0119]), the method comprising: a) placing one or more substrates, each comprising a surface that includes a surface feature, into a reactor; b) heating the reactor to one or more temperatures ranging from ambient temperature to about 550*C and optionally maintaining the reactor at a pressure of 100 torr or less; c) introducing a composition comprising at least one silicon precursor compound having one or two Si-C-Si linkages and a solvent into the reactor to form a film on the surface; d) purging the reactor using an inert gas; e) introducing a nitrogen source into the reactor to react with the film to form a carbon doped silicon nitride film; f) purging the reactor using an inert gas to remove reaction by-product; g) repeating steps c to f to provide a desired thickness of the carbon doped silicon nitride film; h) treating the resulting carbon doped silicon nitride film with an oxygen source at one or more temperatures ranging from about ambient temperature to about 1000 *C to convert the carbon doped silicon nitride film into a carbon doped silicon oxide film; and i) exposing the carbon doped silicon oxide film to a plasma comprising hydrogen [0030-0039,0048]. Examples 9-10 and 12 describe film deposition using compositions including TCDSB and a solvent (octane), injected into a reactor. Although neither the reactor nor the process is specifically characterized as ALD or CVD, a comparison of process parameters in these examples with process parameters in those examples which are expressly characterized as ALD processes suggest that the processes using an injected solution are either thermal ALD processes or obviously similar to thermal ALD processes. Moreover, US’614 suggests the obviousness of choosing an ALD process as a deposition process [0096,0102]. Additionally, US’614 does not teach a specific example with mesitylene as the solvent. However, TCDSB is the precursor used in every example and mesitylene is recited as one of ten solvents of the claimed composition (Claim 5; [0048,0113]), providing significant odds of choosing the combination of TCDSB and mesitylene at random significant (10%), and it would have been obvious to choose a solvent among recited solvents as the solvent for the process. See, also, rejection of Claim 1 above for more discussion of the obviousness of a composition including TCDSB and mesitylene for the claimed process.
US’614 fails to expressly teach that mesitylene is dried to any given concentration. It is also not the sort of description one would expect in a reference, teaching only organic solvents. In the list of solvents, water is not mentioned. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process to use mesitylene dried to within the recited range (including, for example, pure mesitylene), because US’614 teaches only organic solvents and does not suggest water as a solvent.
Regarding Claim 13, US’614 teaches a stainless-steel container housing a composition taught or suggested by US’614. The composition of Claim 1 is obvious. See rejection of Claim 1 above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the stainless-steel container housing a composition to house the obvious composition of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, US’614 teaches a method for forming a carbon doped silicon oxide film having carbon content via a thermal ALD process, the method comprising the method comprising: a. placing one or more substrates comprising a surface feature into a reactor [0073]; b. heating the reactor to one or more temperatures ranging from ambient temperature to about 150 C and optionally maintaining the reactor at a pressure of 100 torr or less [0074]; c. introducing a composition comprising at least one silicon precursor having one or two Si—C—Si linkages, where 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane is the precursor in every example, and a catalyst into the reactor [0075]; d. purging the reactor with an inert gas [0076]; e. providing vapors of water into the reactor to react with 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3- disilacyclobutane in the presence of the catalyst to form a carbon doped silicon oxide film [0077]; and f. purging the reactor with inert gas to remove any reaction by-products [0078], wherein steps c to f are repeated to provide a desired thickness of the carbon doped silicon oxide film [0079]. US’614 also teaches a thermal process, which is either a thermal ALD process or a process obviously similar to a thermal ALD process (Examples 9-10 and 12; [0089,0102]), in which a solution of TCDSB and solvent is injected in a reactor after which ammonia is flowed as catalyst [0082]. US’614 fails to teach a single embodiment which includes a composition including both solvent and catalyst in addition to TCDSB. US’614 suggests adding a solvent in order to deliver the precursor in “neat liquid form” [0102], such as by direct liquid injection [0171]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’614 by including a composition including all of TCDSB, a catalyst, and a solvent, because US’614 suggests adding a catalyst to a composition including TCDSB to aid in a reaction with water and a solvent in TCDSB to permit delivery of the composition in a convenient liquid form. US’614 fails to teach expressly mesitylene as a solvent. However, it would have been obvious to select mesitylene as a solvent from a small list of recited solvents in Claim 5 of US’614. See, also, the rejections of Claims 1 and 3 above for more detailed discussion of the obviousness of mesitylene as a solvent.
Additionally, US’614 teaches a method for forming a carbon doped silicon oxide film having a carbon content ranging from 15 at % to 30 at.% via a thermal ALD process, [0030], also including TCDSB, where TCDSB is the precursor of all Examples 1-13, in a reactor heated to a temperature between ambient and about 550 C, optionally with a pressure of 100 torr or less (Claim 6; [0030-0033, 0061-0064]). US’614 fails to teach the carbon content wherein the composition includes the solvent or the catalyst. However, US’614 suggests that carbon content is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect etch rate and ash resistance [0041] and provides evidence that the carbon content derives from the TCDSB [0046], which is obviously present in all embodiments, taught by US’614. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’614 to perform the process of present Claim 14 to achieve a carbon content ranging from 15 at % to 30 at % via a thermal ALD process through routine optimization.
US’614 fails to expressly teach that mesitylene is dried to any given concentration. It is also not the sort of description one would expect in a reference, teaching only organic solvents. In the list of solvents, water is not mentioned. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the composition to use mesitylene dried to within the recited range (including, for example, pure mesitylene), because US’614 teaches only organic solvents and does not suggest water as a solvent.
Regarding Claim 15, US’614 teaches treating the carbon doped silicon oxide film with a thermal anneal at temperatures of from 300 to 700 C (Claim 19).
Regarding Claim 16, US’614 teaches the method comprising treating the carbon doped silicon oxide film with a hydrogen plasma comprising hydrogen (Claim 20).
Regarding Claims 17-18, US’614 teaches the composition introduced into the reactor via vapor draw or bubbling (Examples 1-13, including tables; [0087]).
Regarding Claim 19, US’614 teaches a method for depositing a carbon-doped silicon oxide film having carbon content ranging from 5 at. % to 20 at. % using a thermal ALD process and a plasma comprising hydrogen [0049,0061,0058,0070], the method comprising the steps of: a. placing one or more substrates comprising a surface into a reactor [0050,0062];b. heating to reactor to one or more temperatures ranging from ambient temperature to about 550 C and optionally maintaining the reactor at a pressure of 100 torr or less [0051,0063];c. introducing a composition comprising 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane at least one silicon precursor having one or two Si—C—Si linkages, where 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane is the precursor in every example ([0052,0064]; Examples 1-13); d. purging the reactor with an inert gas to remove any unreacted composition [0053,0065]; e. introducing a nitrogen source into the reactor to react with the film to form a carbon-doped silicon nitride film [0054,0066]; f. purging the reactor with inert gas to remove any reaction by-products [0055,0067]; g. repeating steps b to e to provide a desired thickness of the carbon-doped silicon nitride film [0056,0068]; h. treating the carbon doped silicon nitride film with an oxygen source at one or more temperatures ranging from about ambient temperature to 1000 C to convert the carbon doped silicon nitride film into a carbon doped silicon oxide film either in situ or in another chamber [0057,0069]; and i. exposing the carbon doped silicon oxide film to a plasma comprising hydrogen [0058,0070]; and j. optionally treating the carbon doped silicon oxide film with either a spike anneal at temperatures from 400 to 1000 C or a UV light source [0059,0071]. US’614 also suggests that carbon content is a result-effective variable, known in the prior art to affect etch rate and ash resistance [0041] and provides evidence that the carbon content derives from the TCDSB [0046], which is obviously present in all embodiments, taught by US’614.
US’614 fails to expressly teach that mesitylene is dried to any given concentration. It is also not the sort of description one would expect in a reference, teaching only organic solvents. In the list of solvents, water is not mentioned. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the composition to use mesitylene dried to within the recited range (including, for example, pure mesitylene), because US’614 teaches only organic solvents and does not suggest water as a solvent.
The steps of this particular embodiment fail to teach a solvent. However, US’614 suggests a adding a solvent so that the precursor can be delivered in neat liquid form and that mesitylene is a suitable solvent for the process (Claim 5; [0102,0113]). See, also, rejections of Claim 1 and 3 above for further explanations for the obviousness of using a composition including TCDSB and mesitylene. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’614 with a composition including TCDSB and mesitylene to form a carbon-doped silicon oxide film having carbon content ranging from 5 at. % to 20 at. % using a thermal ALD process, because US’614 suggests adding a solvent to TCDSB as desired to provide a liquid precursor and suggests both the claimed range of carbon content and would have otherwise suggested optimizing carbon content to achieve a desired etch rate and ash resistance through routine optimization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “Chandra does not provide any guidance as to TCDSB being particularly compatible with each other” (sic) (Remarks, p. 6), the rejection already addresses this on page 3, paragraph 6:
Furthermore, although not listed in Table 25 [0204], mesitylene is a solvent in a list of claimed solvents for the composition or obviously similar composition with obviously similar precursors (Claim 1, Claim 5; [0019,0048,0113]). US’614 fails to teach an example wherein the composition includes both specifically the precursor 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane and the solvent mesitylene, it would have been obvious to modify the composition of US’614 with mesitylene as the solvent in a composition, including 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane, given the clear preference for 1,1,3,3-tetrachloro-1,3-disilacyclobutane (thirteen examples), and the inclusion of mesitylene as a solvent in a group of ten solvents (10% chance of selecting mesitylene at random) and the suggestion that mesitylene is one of two exemplary aromatic hydrocarbons for use as a solvent of the composition [0113].
Applicant has not addressed these arguments in the rejection.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Applicant has “discovered that mesitylene is a hydrophobic that can be readily dried” (sic) (Remarks, p. 6), the discovery is unremarkable; EVERY solvent in US’614, including mesitylene, is nonpolar and hydrophobic, and it is well-known that even trace water can ruin reactions which call for non-polar, hydrophobic solvents. Thus, not only does US’614 teach only non-polar (and hydrophobic solvents) and NOT suggest water as a solvent, but it was well-known that the inclusion of water in non-polar solvents can ruin certain reactions involving them. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have recognized that a suggestion to use mesitylene would have included using mesitylene without water (i.e. dry), especially when every other taught solvent is also non-polar and hydrophobic.
In response to Applicant’s argument that mesitylene is “optimal” (Remarks, p. 7), the issue is whether Chandra would have motivated the selection of mesitylene, not whether mesitylene has some properties which might be in some way considered “better” than those of other solvents. Clearly, every non-polar, hydrophobic solvent in Chandra has properties which differ in some way from properties of every other listed solvent; a selection of a particular solvent in Chandra cannot be made patentable simply by choosing a solvent from the list and then merely listing properties of that chosen solvent which happen to differ from those of other listed solvents. Applicant has not provided any showing of criticality or unexpected results, and determining that mesitylene is “best” with TCDSB, where TCDSB is used in every example in US’614 and mesitylene is one in only 10 solvents would have entailed only routine experimentation (e.g. changing the solvent in 10 runs while leaving the other conditions the same to determine which solvent works best).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights