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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 20 withdrawn
Claims 1-19 pending and elected
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of 1-19 in the reply filed on 06/29/20206 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 states “The method of claim 16, wherein the method further comprises a super cycle repeating sub-steps comprising the method of claim 16 at least one time.” However, Claim 16 does not states any “sub-steps” nor “steps”, therefore it is not clear what is repeating in the claimed cycle. Moreover, claim 17 also stated “The method of claim 16 … comprising the method of claim 16”, where it is unclear what is meant by repeating “the method of claim 16” for, does that applicant intended to state that the claim 16 comprises itself? Or the claim 16 further repeating the surface treatment (of claim 7) in a cycle form?
Claim 18 state “The method of claim 1, further comprises supplying a purge gas to the reaction chamber throughout performing the method of claim 1.” However, it is not clear what is intended from the above limitation.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets this as “The method of claim 1, further comprises supplying a purge gas to the reaction chamber throughout film forming cycle.”
Claim 19 states “The method of claim 1, wherein the method of claim 1 is performed at between about 50° C. and about 600° C.” However, it is not clear what is intended from stating “The method of claim 1, wherein the method of claim 1”, by repeating “the method of claim 1”.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets this as “The method of claim 1, forming of the film is performed at between about 50° C. and about 600° C.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 7, 10-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (PG Pub 2013/0101752 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Kim teaches the cyclic process of forming an insulating film on a substrate (abstract), include loading a substrate into chamber (abstract), where the insulating film include silicon oxide [0008]. Kim teaches the forming of the film include repeating cycle (step S250) (figure 1); step of supplying silicon precursor (S210) (figure 1), silicon precursor (50) having amine such as bisdimethylaminosilane (BDMAS) [0051]; step of supplying reaction gas (S230) (figure 1), including first reaction gas (60) which include NH3 as catalyst, and plasma O2 as oxygen source (figure 5A, [0030], [0058]), where the power of the oxygen plasma is first power.
Consider Claim 7, Kim teaches the step of densification (S300) (figure 1), where the densification step is a cyclic step (S400) repeatable step (figure 1). Therefore, for example, a first densification step would be a pre-treatment/surface treatment step which is performed before the second cyclic step of the deposition step of supplying silicon precursor (figure 1). Kim teaches the process of densification/surface treatment using plasma using NH3 gas (second reaction gas) (abstract, [0072]).
Consider Claims 10-11, Kim teaches the step of densification/surface treatment using NH3 gas as a catalyst (abstract, [0072]).
Consider Claim 12, Kim teaches the silicon precursor such as bisdimethylaminosilane (BDMAS) [0051].
Consider Claim 13, Kim teaches the oxygen source to include first reaction gas such as O2, O3 [0029].
Consider Claims 16-17, Kim teaches the cyclic process of forming the silicon oxide layer (figure 1) using repeating cycle for surface treatment and cycle for silicon supplying (figure 1) as repeating super cycle, where each cycle is repeated as desired [0036]. Leading to having at least one cycle for each cycle, leading to 1:1 ratio.
Consider Claim 18, Kim teaches the purging steps through the cyclic process (figure 1).
Consider Claim 19, Kim teaches the temperature of coating process from 50-600℃ [0056], [0059], [0064].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 7, 10-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub 2013/0101752 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Kim teaches the cyclic process of forming an insulating film on a substrate (abstract), include loading a substrate into chamber (abstract), where the insulating film include silicon oxide [0008]. Kim teaches the forming of the film include repeating cycle (step S250) (figure 1); step of supplying silicon precursor (S210) (figure 1), silicon precursor (50) having amine such as bisdimethylaminosilane (BDMAS) [0051]; step of supplying reaction gas (S230) (figure 1), including first reaction gas (60) which include NH3 as catalyst, and plasma O2 as oxygen source (figure 5A, [0030], [0058]), where the power of the oxygen plasma is first power.
Consider Claim 7, Kim teaches the step of densification (S300) (figure 1), where the densification step is a cyclic step (S400) repeatable step (figure 1). Therefore, for example, a first densification step would be a pre-treatment/surface treatment step which is performed before the second cyclic step of the deposition step of supplying silicon precursor (figure 1). Kim teaches the process of densification/surface treatment using plasma using NH3 gas (second reaction gas) (abstract, [0072]).
Consider Claims 10-11, Kim teaches the step of densification/surface treatment using NH3 gas as a catalyst (abstract, [0072]).
Consider Claim 12, Kim teaches the silicon precursor such as bisdimethylaminosilane (BDMAS) [0051].
Consider Claim 13, Kim teaches the oxygen source to include first reaction gas such as O2, O3 [0029].
Consider Claims 16-17, Kim teaches the cyclic process of forming the silicon oxide layer (figure 1) using repeating cycle for surface treatment and cycle for silicon supplying (figure 1) as repeating super cycle, where each cycle is repeated as desired [0036]. Leading to having at least one cycle for each cycle, leading to 1:1 ratio. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 18, Kim teaches the purging steps through the cyclic process (figure 1).
Consider Claim 19, Kim teaches the temperature of coating process from 50-600℃ [0056], [0059], [0064]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub 2013/0101752 A1), in view of Bajaj (PG Pub 2023/0416909 A1).
Consider Claim 2-4, Kim teaches the forming of silicon oxide film [0008], using silicon precursor containing amine (BDMAS) [0051]. Kim teaches the step of densification/surface treatment using plasma using NH3 gas (second reaction gas) (abstract, [0072]), as catalyst.
Kim does not teach the process of supplying both of silicon precursor with ammonia/catalyst.
However, Bajaj is in the prior art of forming dielectric layer of a substrate (abstract, Claim 1), where the dielectric layer include silicon oxide (Claim 8), teaches the process of supplying ammonia/inhibitor which include aminosilane under plasma process [0035]
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kim with Bajaj to supply silicon precursor with NH3/catalyst, to provide with a conformal growth of the film that allow an improved process of filling the trenches with the dielectric film [0051].
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub 2013/0101752 A1), in view of Xiao (PG Pub 2018/0342390 A1).
Consider Claims 5-6 and 14-15, Kim teaches the process of growing the silicon oxide to a desired thickness [0034], with plasma power of 100W – 3kW [0070].
Kim does not teach the growth per cycle, nor the plasma frequency.
However, Xiao is in the prior art of forming silicon oxide (abstract), using the process in [0092]-[0098], teaches the growth per cycle with rate of 2 A/cycle [0033], where the plasma power used for forming the silicon oxide [0129], having a frequency of 27.1 MHz [0130]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kim with Xiao to grow the silicon oxide with the claimed rate and the claimed frequency, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (PG Pub 2013/0101752 A1), in view of Kuroda (PG Pub 2021/225643 A1).
Consider Claims 8-9, Kim teaches the process of growing the silicon oxide (pre claim 1), using ammonia plasma process [0072].
Kim does not teach the duration of second/ammonia plasma power.
However, Kuroda is in the prior art of forming silicon oxide [0074], and the pre-treatment process [0048], teaches using treatment process with Hydrogen and Nitrogen gas mixture on the Silicon oxide surface, with plasma duration between 0-150 second [0074], including 0.01-1 second, where the silicon oxide deposition step and the N2/H2 pre-treatment step are repeated as desired [0075]-[0079].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Kim with Kuroda to pre-treat using ammonia plasma for the claimed duration, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights