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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “linear type silane having the Si-O-Si link” should correctly be “linear type siloxane having the Si-O-Si link”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1. Claims 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the carbosilane is present in an amount from about 50% to 90% of the precursor composition. However, the claim does not define what the % is in relation to. For example, is the carbosilane present in 50-90 wt%, 50-90 vol% or 50-90 mol%? The metes and bounds of the claims are not clear; therefore, claims 1 and 10 are indefinite. Claims 2-9 and 11-17 depend from claim 1 or 10 and are indefinite for the same reasons. For examination purposes, if the prior art teaches any of a wt%, flow rate%, mol% and volume% that will be interpreted as meeting the limitations of the claim.
Claims 3 and 13 recite a formula but fail to recite what the groups R1, R2, R5 and R7 represent. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what compounds are encompassed by the formula. Thus, the metes and bounds of claims 3 and 13 are unclear and claims 3 and 13 are indefinite.
Similarly, claim 5 recites a formula but fails to recite what the groups R1, R6 and R7 represent. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite for the same reasons as set forth above.
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.
2. Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2004/0137757).
I. Regarding claims 1, 7 and 9, Li teaches a precursor composition comprising a combination (0009) of precursors comprising a cyclic organosilicon carbosilane having an Si-C-Si structure, such as 1,3,5-trisilano-2,4,6-trimethylene (0012, which has the structure as claimed in claim 9) and acyclic organo-silicon compounds, such as dimethyldimethoxysilane (0013-0014). Li fails to explicitly teach the carbosilane having an Si-C-Si structure present in an amount from about 50-90%.
However, Li does teach that the cyclic carbosilane having an Si-C-Si can be present in the composition in an amount of 5-80 vol% (0019). Li teaches a range for the carbosilane that overlaps with the claimed range. Furthermore, overlapping ranges have been held as prima facie evidence of obviousness.
II. Regarding claims 10, 11 and 17, Li makes obvious the precursor composition (see above), and Li further teaches a gas mixture (0020) comprising the precursors as listed above in combination with an oxidizing gas, such as oxygen (0015), and an inert gas, such as helium (0030). Therefore, Li also makes obvious claims 10, 11 and 17.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelstein et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0165891).
I. Regarding claims 1-3 and 6, Edelstein teaches a precursor composition comprising a first precursor comprising a carbosilane having the structure
PNG
media_image1.png
80
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where R is Me or Et (Figure 4B and 0067) or the structure
PNG
media_image2.png
174
196
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Figure 4B and 0067) in combination with a second precursor, such as octamethyltetrasiloxane (0068). Edelstein fails to explicitly teach the carbosilane present in an amount of about 50-90% of the composition.
However, Edelstein does teach that the first precursor can be provided at a flow rate of 10 mg/min - 5000 mg/min (0073) and the second precursor can be provided at a flow rate of 10 mg/min - 5000 mg/min (0073) which would provide the carbosilane in an amount in the composition that overlaps with the claimed range. Furthermore, overlapping range are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
II. Regarding claims 10-13 and 15, Edelstein makes obvious the precursor composition (see above) and also teaches a gas mixture (0061 and 0073) comprising the gaseous precursor as listed above (0061 and 0075), an oxidizing gas, such as oxygen (0061), and an inert gas, such as helium (0061 and 0073). Therefore, Edelstein also makes obvious claims 10-13 and 15.
4. Claim(s) 4, 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelstein in view of Phillips et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2014/0120739).
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 14, Edelstein makes obvious the precursor composition and gas mixture as claimed in claims 1 and 10 (see above) for formation of a low-k dielectric (abstract), but fails to teach the carbosilane having the structure as claimed in claims 4, 5 and 14. However, Phillips teaches a precursor which can be tris(triethoxysilyl)methane (claim 19) which meet the limitations of the carbosilanes having the structure as claimed in claims 4, 5 and 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edelstein’s precursor composition and gas mixture by substituting tris(triethoxysilyl)methane for Edelstein’s precursors. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Edelstein teaches similar precursors that are only different by the inclusion of a methylene unit, see Figure 4B), and the predictable result of providing a composition for forming a low-k dielectric.
5. Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelstein in view of Seyferth et al. (“1,1,3,3-Tetramethyl-2,2,4,4-tetrakis(trimethylsilyl)-1,3-disilacyclobutane and its 1,3-digerma and 1,3-distanna analogs: Unexpected products from the reaction of bis(trimethylsilyl)bromomethyllithium with dimethyldihalo derivatives of silicon, germanium, and tin”).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Edelstein makes obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 (see above) including the precursor being a silacyclobutane (see Edelstein at Figure 4A), but fails to teach the precursor having the structure as claimed in claims 8 and 16.
However, Seyferth teaches a carbosilane silacyclobutane having a structure
PNG
media_image3.png
218
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(formula III, page 259). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edelstein’s precursor composition/gas mixture by substituting Seyferth’s silacyclobutane for the silacyclobutane of Edelstein. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one silacyclobutane for another with a reasonable expectation of success (note that the structures are similar and the carbosilanes would react similarly to deposit a dielectric film), and the predictable result of providing a precursor gas mixture.
6. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chandra et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0023192).
Regarding claims 18-20, Li teaches a method for forming a dielectric film (0019) comprising: disposing a substrate on a susceptor in a processing chamber (0017); controlling a pressure and temperature in the chamber (0023); delivering RF power into the chamber (0021); providing a gas mixture comprising the precursors as noted above (0020) and an oxidizing gas, such as oxygen (0015), and an inert gas, such as helium (0030); and applying a post-deposition process to the formed dielectric film (0031) which includes soaking in a plasma soaking gas (0031). Li fails to teach providing the precursor gas mixture by pulsing the precursor into the processing chamber.
However, Chandra teaches a similar process for forming a dielectric film (Table XIII) using a carbosilane precursor (abstract) and teaches pulsing the carbosilane precursor (0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li’s process by pulsing the precursor gas mixture into the chamber. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Chandra teaches that pulsing the precursor can allow for controlling film growth (0040).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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 at 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
September 23, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
