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 .
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 6/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner utilized inapplicable unity of invention standard and not ordinary US practice. This is found persuasive, however, the restriction requirement for US practice would have the same groupings as noted below and the election is noted.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II,III are related as process and apparatus/program for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case apparatus/program as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process other than forming a film such as for etching or cleaning.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Considering the election of Group I, claims 1-18 in paper filed 6/26/26, claims 19-20 have been withdrawn and claims 1-18 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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.
Claims 1,2,6,7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mun et al. 2021/0193508.
Mun et al. 2021/0193508 teaches a processing method comprising repeating a plurality of times a cycle ([0028],[0066] Figs. 2A and 3) that includes a process P32 for supplying a chlorine free first precursor P1 [0036]-[0039] (claimed first substance) containing silicon (claimed first element) to a substrate having a trench TR (claimed recess) on the surface to thereby cause the first precursor P1 to adsorb to an upper portion within the trench TR, a process P34 ([0028].[0031],[0067] Fig 2B, 3) for supplying to the substrate a chlorine-free second precursor [0040],[0042],[0043] (claimed second substance) containing silicon to thereby cause the second precursor P2 to adsorb onto a portion within the trench TR at which the first precursor P1 is not adsorbed and thus form a first film including a first and second adsorbed layer AL1 and AL2. A process P38 ([0047],[0070], Fig 2C, 3) for supplying to the substrate an oxidizing gas [0048],[0049] (claimed third substance) containing oxygen and therefore modifying the first and second adsorbed layers AL1 and AL2 of the first layer to a silicon oxide film (claimed second layer). Process P32-P42 ([0055]-[0058],[0072], Fig. 2D,2E and 3) for forming the silicon oxide film comprising silicon and oxygen within the trench TR wherein given the reactivity of the second precursor P2 is higher than that of the first precursor P1, the process P38 is carried out under conditions hereby the deposition rate of the silicon oxide film formed using the second precursor P2 and the oxidizing gas is higher than the deposition rate of the silicon oxide film formed using the first precursor P1 and the oxidizing gas [0031] resulting in the deposition rate near the top of the trench TR is lower than the deposition rate at a deep portion of the trench TR [0033].
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Mun et al. 2021/0193508 depicts the thickness of the first precursor P1 and third substance oxygen is less than the thickness of the second precursor P2 and the third substance oxygen (Fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 7, Mun et al. 2021/0193508 teaches the process P32 and the process P34 and the process P38 once each.
Regarding claim 18, teaches forming an integrated circuit device, i.e. a semiconductor device.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. 2021/0193508.
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Mun et al. 2021/0193508 are incorporated here.
Regarding claim 3, Mun et al. 2021/0193508 teaches that the thinner th film formed on the upper portion of the trench TR using the first precursor P1 and the oxidizing gas, the preferable this is in terms of filling up the trench TR with a silicon oxide film without leaving voids and hence the second thickness would be substantially zero
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mun et al. 2021/0193508 depicts in Fig. 2A sparsely coating of AL1 which would meet the claimed discontinuous island shaped and the thickness less than one atomic layer would be a matter of design choice by one skilled in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17 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.
Reasons for the Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the precursors P1 and P2 to include partial structure in which an amino group and an alkyl group are bonded to the first element of a partial structure in which the amino group and a hydrogen are bonded to the first element and the second substance contains a partial structure in which an amino group and an alkoxy group are bonded to the first element as well as the particular precursors claimed. The prior art teaches it is known to use silane precursors including alkylaminosilanes and alkylaminoalkoxysilanes but does not teach the number of bonds or the claimed precursors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights