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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 08/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that although the claims have different classes, there is no unreasonable search and examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the claims were restricted due to a lack of unity and not the standard restriction requirement based on serious search and/or examination burden. The restriction is based on whether the claimed inventions are linked so as to form a general inventive concept or a special technical feature that defines a contribution over the prior art. The restriction is maintained because applicant has not provided arguments in response to the previous communications establishing that the inventions have a corresponding special technical feature as to form a single general inventive concept
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 depends on itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
NOTE: for prior art purposes, the examiner will assume claim 4 depends from claim 1.
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.
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, 2, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al. (US 2019/0385820) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294).
As to claim 1, Singhal et al. discloses a process comprising; providing a substrate having a gap; depositing gap fill material in an opening of the gap in the material layer; etching the gap fill material to remove portions of the gap fill material deposited in the gap; and depositing more gap fill material in the opening of the gap to completely fill the gap. Singhal et al. further teaches the substrate can be optical elements, or mirrors (see 0025, 0084).
Singhal et al. fails to teach that the gap is formed in a material layer disposed over a top surface of a substrate as required by claim 1.
M’Saad et al. teaches an optical-device structure having a substrate, a material layer formed over the substrate (see 530 of Fig. 5C/D), and trenches formed in the layer (see Fig. 5C/D, 0056). M’Saad et al. further teaches filling the trenches with gap filling material (see 0057).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Singhal et al. to apply the deposition, etch, gap fill technique to the trenches of the optical structure of M’Saad et al. because Singhal identifies optical elements as suitable substrates and teaches that the intermediate etch modifies/removes deposited material near the gap opening to facilitate subsequent deposition and reduce void formation. Such a modification involves applying a known gap-fill technique to a known optical trench structure presenting the same trench-filling problem, with predictable results of facilitating subsequent deposition and obtaining a more completely filled void free gap.
As to claim 2, Singhal further teaches repeatedly performing deposition, etch, and deposition sequences during gap filling that progressively fill the gap while removing deposited material that would otherwise constrict the opening and lead to void formation (see 0030).
As to claim 5, Singhal et al. discloses the gap fill material can be a dielectric material that comprises silicon oxide (see 0085).
As to claim 7, Singhal et al. states the aspect ratio is greater than 5:1 (see 0009).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al. (US 2019/0385820) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Egermeier et al. (WO99/58739) .
The teachings of Singhal et al. and M’Saad et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Singhal et al. modified by M’Saad fail to teach performing an O2 plasma treatment process on a top surface of the gap fill material deposited over the material layer and in the gap to re-oxidize the top surface of the gap fill material after portions of the gap fill material are etched as required by claim 3.
Egermeier et al. teaches plasma processing using an oxygen-argon gas mixture and explains that oxygen present during plasma sputter etching oxidizes material exposed or generated during the etching operation (see page 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention implementing Singhal’s etch step on an oxide-containing gap-fill material would have recognized that etching can alter the chemical condition of the exposed surface and would have been motivated to employ the oxygen-containing plasma chemistry taught by Egermeier et al. to restore or maintain an oxidized condition of the surface before the subsequent deposition step. Since Egermeier et al. teaches that oxygen in the plasma produces oxidation in connection with the etching operation, one of ordinary skill would reasonably have expected the modification to result in oxidation or re-oxidation of the newly exposed surface following etching.
As to claim 4, Egermeier et al. teaches a dedicated pre-clean chamber in which a substrate is plasma sputter etched using the oxygen-argon processing gas (see pages 6-8). Singhal’s deposition/etch/deposition process requires controlled removal of previously deposited material so that the material restricting the upper portion of the gap does not interfere with subsequent deposition. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to perform Singhal’s material removal operation using the pre-clean plasma chamber and Ar/O2 chemistry of Egermeier et al. because the pre-clean chamber is configured to controllably remove material from a substrate surface under vacuum. The use of the plasma pre-clean chamber for intermediate removal would permit the deposited material to be etched before the substrate undergoes subsequent deposition, while using the plasma processing equipment and chemistry for the same material-removal function.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al. (US 2019/0385820) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2010/0025683).
The teachings of Singhal et al. and M’Saad et al. as applied to claim 7 are as stated above.
Singhal et al. modified by M’Saad fail to teach the gap has the claimed aspect ratio range as required by claim 8.
Cheng et al. teaches trenches formed in dielectric matinal over a substrate and that the trench aspect ratio may be 0.5 (see 0035). Cheng et al. further states the substate can be devices such as LEDs, photovoltaics, etc. (see 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the process of Singhal modified by M’Saad to a substrate having a trench with an aspect ratio of 0.5 as taught by Cheng et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to forming fill material in trenches of substrates used in optical device, where Cheng et al. teaches conventional trench sizes of optical devices and Singhal modified by M’Saad teaches an operable method of filling trenches to prevent void formation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singhal et al. (US 2019/0385820) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lubomirsky (US 2007/0298585).
The teachings of Singhal et al. and M’Saad et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Singhal et al. modified by M’Saad fails to teach depositing gap fill material, etching portions of the gap fill material to planarize a top surface of the material as recited in claim 9.
Lubomirsky et al. disclose depositing dielectric gap fil material into gaps and trenches, depositing additional dialectic material to completely fill the gaps and extend the tops thereof, and removing a top portion of the deposited gap fill material to gorm a planarized dielectric gap fill (see 0053-55). Lubomirsky et al. states the dielectric material can be silicon oxide (see 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Singhal and M’Saad to include planarizing the gap fill as taught by Lubomirsky et al. One would have been motivated to do so since both are directed to filling trenches with dielectric material where Lubomirsky et al. shows removal of the excess material reduces the topography and provides a planarized surface for further processing.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 6039851) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294).
As to claim 1, Iyer et al. discloses a method of filling gaps on a substrate comprising providing a substrate (see 30 of Fig. 3-4), having a material formed thereon (see 31 of Figs. 3-4); where the material have gaps formed therein (see 32 of Figs. 3-4); depositing a gap fill material over the material layer and in an opening of the gap in the material layer (see 41 of Fig. 4). Iyer et al. states accumulation of material near the upper edges of the gaps can occur, resulting in “bread loafing” that can prematurely close or pinch off the gap before the gap is completely filled (see col. 2, lines 19-37). Iyer addresses this problem by sputter-faceting the previously deposited material to remove the accumulated material, after which additional gap fill material is deposited into the gap (see col.2, lines 38-62; col. 3, line 5-8).
Iyer et al. fails to teach forming an optical device having the claimed arrangement of a gap in a material layer disposed over a substrate as required by claim 1.
M’Saad et al. teaches an optical-device structure having a substrate, a material layer formed over the substrate (see 530 of Fig. 5C/D), and trenches formed in the layer (see Fig. 5C/D, 0056). M’Saad et al. further teaches filling the trenches with gap filling material (see 0057).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Iyer et al. et al. to apply the deposition, etch, gap fill technique to the trenches of the optical structure of M’Saad et al. because Iyer et al. teaches that the intermediate etch modifies/removes deposited material near the gap opening to facilitate subsequent deposition and reduce void formation. Such a modification involves applying a known gap-fill technique to a known optical trench structure presenting the same trench-filling problem, with predictable results of facilitating subsequent deposition and obtaining a more completely filled void free gap.
As to claim 5, the gap fill material comprises a dielectric material (silicon oxide).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyer et al. (US 6039851) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stevenson (US 7749406).
The teachings of Iyer et al. and M’Saad et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Iyer et al. and M’Saad et al. fail to teach the gap fill material is applied via physical vapor deposition as required by claim 6.
Stevenson teaches physical vapor deposition of silicon oxide by sputtering. Stevenson is directed to SiOx sputtering targets and identifies sputtering as a coating/deposition process for silicon-containing and oxide materials onto optical device (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Iyer et al. modified by M’Saad et al. to use the sputtering process of Stevenson et al. to apply the silicon oxide gap fill material. One would have been motivated to do so since both references are related to the deposition of silicon oxide materials onto optical devices, where Stevenson et al. teaches an operable method of applying such materials.
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 14-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 6190233) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294).
As to claim 10, Hong et al. discloses a method comprising: disposing a substrate having a gap in a material layer over the substrate (254/252 of Fig. 2B/C) into a first process chamber of a cluster processing system; performing a deposition process using the first process chamber to deposit gap fill material (see col. 12, lines 1-9); performing an etch process using a second process chamber (separate etch back chamber 41 of Fig.1E, see col. 5, line 62 – col. 6, line 45); and moving the substrate back to the deposition chamber for the final deposition step (see col. 13, line 30-49).
Hong et al. fails to teach that the substrate forms an optical device structure as required by claim 10.
M’Saad et al. teaches an optical-device structure having a substrate, a material layer formed over the substrate (see 530 of Fig. 5C/D), and trenches formed in the layer (see Fig. 5C/D, 0056). M’Saad et al. further teaches filling the trenches with gap filling material (see 0057).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Hong et al. et al. to apply the multi-chamber deposition, etch, gap fill technique to the trenches of the optical structure of M’Saad since both references are directed o depositing material into recessed structures where Hong et al. teaches that the intermediate etch modifies/removes deposited material near the gap opening to facilitate subsequent deposition and reduce void formation. Such a modification involves applying a known gap-fill technique to a known optical trench structure presenting the same trench-filling problem, with predictable results of facilitating subsequent deposition and obtaining a more completely filled void free gap.
As to claim 11, Hong et al. teaches cyclically performing the deposition process to fill the gap and performing the etch process in the second process chamber to remove the material (see col. 14).
As to claim 14, Hong et al. states the gap filling material can be a dielectric material (see col. 2, lines 55-60)
As to claim 15, Hong et al. teaches aspect ratios that are above 0.4:1 (see col. 14).
As to claim 16, Hong et al. discloses planarizing the surface of the gap fill (see col. 13).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (US 6190233) in view of M’Saad et al. (US 2006/0207294) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Egermeier et al. (WO99/58739) .
The teachings of Hong et al and M’Saad et al. as applied to claim 10 are as stated above.
Hong et al. modified by M’Saad fail to teach performing an O2 plasma treatment process on a top surface of the gap fill material deposited over the material layer and in the gap to re-oxidize the top surface of the gap fill material after portions of the gap fill material are etched as required by claim 12.
Egermeier et al. teaches plasma processing using an oxygen-argon gas mixture and explains that oxygen present during plasma sputter etching oxidizes material exposed or generated during the etching operation (see page 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention implementing Singhal’s etch step on an oxide-containing gap-fill material would have recognized that etching can alter the chemical condition of the exposed surface and would have been motivated to employ the oxygen-containing plasma chemistry taught by Egermeier et al. to restore or maintain an oxidized condition of the surface before the subsequent deposition step. Since Egermeier et al. teaches that oxygen in the plasma produces oxidation in connection with the etching operation, one of ordinary skill would reasonably have expected the modification to result in oxidation or re-oxidation of the newly exposed surface following etching.
As to claim 13, Egermeier et al. teaches a dedicated pre-clean chamber in which a substrate is plasma sputter etched using the oxygen-argon processing gas (see pages 6-8). Hong’s deposition/etch/deposition process requires controlled removal of previously deposited material so that the material restricting the upper portion of the gap does not interfere with subsequent deposition. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to perform Hong’s material removal operation using the pre-clean plasma chamber and Ar/O2 chemistry of Egermeier et al. because the pre-clean chamber is configured to controllably remove material from a substrate surface under vacuum. The use of the plasma pre-clean chamber for intermediate removal would permit the deposited material to be etched before the substrate undergoes subsequent deposition, while using the plasma processing equipment and chemistry for the same material-removal function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cachet I Proctor whose telephone number is (571)272-0691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 pm.
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.
/CACHET I. PROCTOR/
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/CACHET I PROCTOR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights