DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment filed on June 9, 2026, claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 15 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 102 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 in the previous Office Action are withdrawn due to Applicant amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. US 2021/0391171 A1 (hereinafter “Yuan”).
Regarding claim 1, 3, 4, 5:
Yuan is directed to a method of depositing doped or undoped silicon carbide and post-deposition plasma treatment thereof for gapfill applications (Abstract). As visualized in Fig. 5A to 5C, Yuan discloses a method comprising:
depositing a first thickness of a SiCxOyNz film [dielectric film] onto a feature of a substrate, thus forming a layer of SiCxOyNz inside the feature ([0034]); and
exposing the deposited SiCxOyNz film to a remote hydrogen plasma, wherein the remote hydrogen plasma differentially shrinks [cures] and densifies the deposited SiCxOyNz film by extracting hydrogen and promoting cross-linking of Si – O – Si and Si – C – Si bonds ([0050]; [0028], [0036], [0049], [0056]).
The remote hydrogen plasma is generated by applying a RF power to a remote plasma source flowing a source gas [plasma process gas] used for generating the hydrogen radicals of the remote hydrogen plasma ([0056]). The plasma process gas may be a mixture of hydrogen gas and inert carrier gas, e.g. helium gas [noble gas] ([0056]).
Yuan does not expressly teach that the plasma process gas used for generating the recited plasma comprises Xe. Additionally with regards to claims 3, 4, 5, and 6; Yuan does not expressly teach that the plasma cure operation further comprises delivering the noble gas (Xe) and/or hydrogen gas at a gas flow rate of about 100 sccm to about 5000 sccm within a processing region of a processing chamber in which the substrate is disposed, wherein the noble gas comprises Xe.
However, Yuan discloses that carrier gas may be inert gases such as helium (He) or xenon (Xe) ([0038], [0082]). The carrier gas used in the plasma cure operation may specifically be any inert carrier gas, e.g. helium, in combination with the hydrogen radicals produced from the remote hydrogen plasma ([0052]). Furthermore, Yuan discloses that the effects of plasma treatment is tunable based on inter alia gas composition, gas flow rates, chamber pressure [including the partial pressures of the gas composition components, meeting claims 4 and 6], and chamber temperature ([0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan by envisioning an embodiment that uses xenon as the inert carrier gas or otherwise substituted helium with xenon because as taught by Yuan, the use of xenon is known to be suitable for the purpose of an inert carrier gas in a gapfill process that includes a curing operation. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan by delivering xenon gas specifically, delivering the xenon gas and/or hydrogen gas at a gas flow rate of about 100 sccm to about 5000 sccm and within the recited pressures and temperatures within a processing region of a processing chamber in which the substrate is disposed, as a matter of routine experimentation and choice because Yuan teaches that the gas composition (including the use of xenon compared to other noble gases) and gas flow rates affect the resultant treatment characteristics. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Regarding claim 2:
Yuan specifically discloses that the amount of hydrogen gas may be between about 10% and about 50% by volume with a balance of the helium gas [1:0.11 to 1:1] ([0056]).
Claim 7 – 11, 15 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Yoshimoto et al. US 20230399745 A1 (hereinafter “Yoshimoto”) and Liang et al. US 20180330980 A1 (hereinafter “Liang”).
Regarding claims 7, 15, 18:
The disclosure of Yuan as discussed above with regards to claim 1 and 2 apply to the limitations of claim 7, mutatis mutandis. Yuan further discloses that a substrate is positioned onto a substrate support of a processing chamber wherein both deposition of the SiCxOyNz film and treatment of the film occur in the same processing chamber ([0006], [0051]).
Yuan does not expressly teach:
that the noble gas comprises xenon;
that the positioned substrate comprises an uncured dielectric material disposed thereon (e.g. that an uncured film is disposed onto the substrate at the time the substrate is positioned); and
applying a RF bias to the substrate support, wherein the RF bias is provided from a second RF source, to cause dielectric material curing to a recited cure depth.
With regards to the noble gas comprises xenon:
The disclosure of Yuan as discussed above with regards to claim 1, 3 – 6 apply to the limitations of claim 8 – 11, mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan by envisioning an embodiment that uses xenon as the inert carrier gas or otherwise substituted helium with xenon because as taught by Yuan, the use of xenon is known to be suitable for the purpose of an inert carrier gas in a gapfill process that includes a curing operation. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan by delivering xenon gas specifically, delivering the xenon gas and/or hydrogen gas at a gas flow rate of about 100 sccm to about 5000 sccm and within the recited pressures and temperatures within a processing region of a processing chamber in which the substrate is disposed, as a matter of routine experimentation and choice because Yuan teaches that the gas composition (including the use of xenon compared to other noble gases) and gas flow rates affect the resultant treatment characteristics. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
With regards to the positioned substrate comprises an uncured dielectric material:
Yoshimoto is directed to methods and apparatus for flowable deposition of thin films for gapfill applications (Abstract). Yoshimoto discloses that their method comprises: placing a substrate into a first deposition station ([0005], [0073], [0075], [0080]); depositing a flowable material (e.g. SiCON) (Abstract; [0005], [0075], [0009], [0106]); moving the substrate from the first deposition chamber to a second plasma curing station [positioning a substrate…comprising an uncured dielectric material] ([0005]); and a step of curing the deposited flowable material by microwave plasma curing ([0005], [0121] – [0122]).
Yoshimoto further discloses that the temperature of each station may be independently different in order to optimize the deposition process and the curing process, which optimize at different temperatures (Abstract; [0006], [0061], [0064], [0075]).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan by positioning the substrate into the substrate support of a separate curing [processing] chamber, wherein the substrate comprises an uncured dielectric material thereon; because Yoshimoto teaches that performing the deposition process and curing process in separate chambers allows for optimization of each process, such as at optimal temperatures with minimal time spent heating and/or cooling chambers. Such optimizations are within known tradeoffs between performing processes in one chamber or in multiple chambers.
With regards to applying a RF bias to the substrate support, wherein the RF bias is provided from a second RF source.
Liang is directed to a method of cyclic flowable deposition and high-density plasma treatment processes for gapfilling substrates with dielectric materials (Abstract). Such dielectric materials include SiOCN [SiCON] ([0021]). Liang discloses that their process comprises the steps of: placing a substrate into a deposition chamber ([0017]); depositing a flowable layer of a dielectric material onto e.g. a trench of a substrate (Abstract; [0021]); optionally curing the deposited flowable layer into an intermediate film by e.g. plasma curing or ultraviolet curing in a curing chamber (Abstract; [0030]); and finally curing the flowable film or intermediate film with a plasma or plasma-assisted process in a plasma chamber (Abstract; [0036] – [0037]). The final plasma curing step may be performed in a separate chamber from the chamber used for the deposition of the flowable film; Liang discloses then a step of transferring a substrate having the flowable film deposited thereon into a plasma chamber for curing ([0049]). Liang discloses that the plasma curing chamber comprises an inductively-coupled or competitively-coupled RF source power; a bias RF source power connected to a substrate holder; and a means for introducing radicals, e.g. from a remote plasma ([0030] – [0031], [0041] – [0042]). Direct plasma treatment in inert ambient also aids in film densification/curing as the high energy ions derived from the inert ambient can bombard films to break existing bonds and restructure films to release film stress ([0040]). An applied RF bias further aids in such densification/curing by controlling the ions’ bombardment energy to desired cure depths ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan in view of Yoshimoto by applying a RF bias to the substrate support, wherein the RF bias is provided from a second RF source because Liang teaches that in addition to radicals generated from a remote plasma, a direct plasma of inert gas aids in film densification and curing. Furthermore, an RF bias helps control the energy of the ions within the plasma that are used for film densification and curing, including to desired depths of treatment depending on how deep a trench can be.
Regarding claims 8 – 11, 19 – 20:
Yuan in view of Yoshimoto and Liang does not expressly teach the recited processing conditions.
The disclosure of Yuan as discussed above with regards to claim 1, 3 – 6 apply to the limitations of claim 8 – 11, mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan by delivering noble gas and/or hydrogen gas at a gas flow rate of about 100 sccm to about 5000 sccm and within the recited pressures and temperatures within a processing region of a processing chamber in which the substrate is disposed, wherein the noble gas comprises Xe as a matter of routine experimentation and choice because Yuan teaches that the gas composition and gas flow rates affect the resultant treatment characteristics. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215. Furthermore, the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Regarding claim 16, 17:
Yuan in view of Yoshimoto and Liang does not expressly teach that the cured dielectric material further comprises a dielectric constant between about 2 and about 5, and relatedly a breakdown voltage of less than about 7 MV/cm at a current of 1x10-6 A/cm2.
However, Yuan does disclose that gapfill materials that are intended to be deposited and densified by the method disclosed in Yuan are intended to have an effective dielectric constant of about 4.0 or lower, overlapping with the claimed dielectric constant of the cured dielectric material ([0031]).
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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
With regards to the claimed breakdown voltage, Yuan further discloses that the gapfill material that is deposited is selected to have a high breakdown voltage and low leakage current ([0031]). The method of Yuan can be tuned to achieve SiCON films having desired electrical properties, which includes breakdown voltage ([0031], [0037], [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reaction conditions of the method of Yuan in view of Yoshimoto and Liang to obtain cured dielectric materials having the recited breakdown voltage of less than about 7 MV/cm at a current of 1x10-6 A/cm2 as a matter of routine experimentation to arrive at a dielectric material having good electrical characteristics. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215.
Claim(s) 12 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Yoshimoto and Liang as applied to claims 7 – 11, 15 – 20 above, and further in view of Hong et al. US 20140213070 A1 (hereinafter “Hong”).
Regarding claims 12 – 14:
Liang discloses that the amount of source RF power provided determines plasma density and that the bias RF power determines ion bombardment energy ([0041]). Furthermore, Liang discloses that a plasma may be generated by a capacitive coupling ([0042]). The source power may be applied between e.g. 100W to 500W and the bias power can be applied at a power of e.g. 100W to 200W in the frequency range between about 30MHz to about 60MHz. The frequency range overlaps with the range claimed within present claim 14. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Yuan in view of Yoshimoto and Liang does not expressly teach that the first RF power source is coupled to a showerhead and is configured to deliver RF power at about 100 W to about 5 kW.
Hong is directed to methods and apparatus for forming dielectric layers on a substrate (Abstract). As depicted in Fig. 3A, Hong discloses a deposition and curing apparatus comprising a showerhead 353 that may be electrically connected relative to a substrate pedestal or bottom of the apparatus and supplying an AC voltage such as an RF voltage [implying an RF source] ([0050] – [0051], [0055]). The deposition and curing apparatus may be used for curing and densifying dielectric layers ([0036] – [0037]). RF power can be delivered between e.g. 100W to 2000W ([0055]). The plasma generated between the pedestal and the showerhead can be used for formation of the dielectric layer ([0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yuan in view of Yoshimoto and Liang by performing the curing operation in an apparatus comprising a showerhead that is configured to deliver RF power because as taught by Hong, the use of an apparatus comprising a powered showerhead is known to be suitable for the purpose of depositing and curing dielectric films. The courts have held that the selection of a known material/device/product based for its intended use supports a prima facie case of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
a.) Neither Yuan nor the other prior art of record teaches, show, suggest or otherwise render obvious the step of “performing a plasma cure operation ... the plasma cure operation comprising generating a plasma over a surface of the formed dielectric layer ... wherein the plasma process gas comprises a noble gas and H2, wherein the noble gas comprises Xe, as recited in claim 1. The use of xenon as a noble gas in a gas composition is described by Yuan in the context of a deposition process rather than a cure process, such as the plasma cure operation described in claim 1.
In response to the applicant's arguments, please consider the following comments.
a.) While Yuan does not expressly recite an embodiment of their plasma cure operation that uses xenon as a carrier gas in the execution of Yuan’s , one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to envision and implement such a modification in light of Yuan’s teaching that the carrier gas during the plasma cure operation may be any inert carrier gas ([0052]). Xenon is a known inert carrier gas that is taught by Yuan to be used with hydrogen radicals produced from hydrogen gas, as discussed above. Absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims, "[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim Comments
The Examiner takes note that the disclosed examples describe the curing of films made from silicon precursors such as trisilyl amine ([0069]) and possibly disilane ([0040]) with reactants such as ammonia (NH3) and other inert gases such as argon and helium ([0069], [0075]). The results described in general, such as in Fig. 5 , are also in relation to what appears to be the curing of silicon-based dielectric films. While the prior art of record does discuss silicon based dielectric films, further elaboration of the dielectric films being cured may advance prosecution.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on (571) 272-1295. 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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights