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 the Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending and rejected. Claim 5 is withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 6/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/29/2026.
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 1-4 and 6-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim requires ceasing the plasma, where it seems as though ceasing the plasma is part of the deposition cycle of forming the carbon material that is treated in the treatment cycle. Claim 14 requires that the plasma is continuously formed throughout the ignition period, the pulse period, the transition period, and the treatment cycle, indicating that the plasma is not ceased in the deposition cycle before the treatment cycle. Therefore, it is unclear whether claim 1 requires that the plasma is ceased as part of the deposition cycle prior to the treatment cycle or whether ceasing the plasma can be performed at any point (such as at the end of processing). For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted as though ceasing the plasma can be performed at any point in processing because claim 14 indicates that it is continuous. It is noted that claim 14 is considered to remedy the clarity of claim 1 by indicating that the plasma is continuously provided, but that the other dependent claims are rendered indefinite as being dependent on claim 1. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
Regarding claims 8, 13, and 14, the claims recite the limitation "the transition period". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims are all dependent on claim 1, however, claim 7 provides antecedent basis for the transition period, making unclear on which claim the claims depend. For the purposes of examination, the claims are being interpreted as though they depend from claim 7 so as to provide antecedent basis. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, US 2019/0393030 A1 (provided on the IDS of 6/13/2025) in view of Behera, US 2017/0301537 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jiang teaches a method of forming a structure (methods for forming flowable carbon layers on a semiconductor substrate, abstract), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber, the substrate comprising one or more recesses (providing a substrate to the processing region of a processing chamber, where the substrate has at least one feature extending a depth into the substrate, i.e., a trench or recess, 0008 and 0031);
providing an inert gas to the reaction chamber (where a stable precursor such as argon or helium is provided to the chamber and is excited in a plasma region inside the deposition chamber, 0008, 0028, and 0034); performing a deposition cycle, the deposition cycle comprising:
providing a carbon precursor to the reaction chamber for a pulse period to form an initially viscous carbon material on a surface of the substrate (where a first plasma is formed within the substrate processing region to deposit a flowable carbon film in the at least one feature and the flowable carbon film is exposed to a second plasma to cure/solidify the carbon film, where the deposition plasma is formed in the chamber, 0008, 0019, 0034, and 0057, such that it will result in the formation of carbon material and where since it is flowable it is considered viscous),
wherein the initially viscous carbon material becomes carbon material (where the flowable carbon film solidifies to form a carbon film such that it becomes a carbon material, 0008, 0019, and 0057);
ceasing a flow of the carbon precursor to the reaction chamber (when the flowable carbon layer reaches a desired thickness, the process effluents maybe removed from the chamber, where the effluents include any unreacted radical precursor and carbon-containing precursor, diluent and/or carrier gases, and reaction products that did not deposit on the substrate, 0037, such that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ceased flowing the carbon precursor to the reaction chamber so as to facilitate the removal of carbon-containing precursor from the chamber), and
performing a treatment cycle comprising treating the carbon material with activated species to form treated carbon material (where the flowable carbon film is cured/solidified by exposure to a second plasma that is formed by excitation of a second plasma gas such as hydrogen, argon, helium, or nitrogen, 0057-0058, such that the carbon material will be treated with activated species via the plasma to provide a treated/cured/solidified carbon material).
As discussed above, Jiang teaches that when the flowable carbon layer reaches a desired thickness, the process effluents may be removed from the chamber, where the effluents include any unreacted radical precursor and carbon-containing precursor, diluent and/or carrier gases, and reaction products that did not deposit on the substrate (0037). They teach removing the process effluents by evacuating the deposition chamber (0037). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also ceased the plasma during the evacuation step, i.e., after depositing the flowable film, because deposition has stopped and since the chamber is being evacuated, no gases will be provided to the chamber for plasma ignition, indicating that plasma is not needed or desired during this step. Further, they teach curing the film by exposure to a second plasma formed by the excitation of a second plasma gas (0058), where since it is a second plasma that is formed with a second plasma gas this suggests that it is a plasma separate from the first plasma.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ceased the plasma at the end of processing to complete deposition and/or treatment and to recover the substrate from the chamber for further processing.
They do not teach providing the inert gas to the chamber for an ignition period provide to supplying the carbon precursor.
Behera teaches depositing a conformal carbon-based material (abstract). They teach introducing a hydrocarbon source, a plasma-initiating gas, and a dilution gas into the processing chamber, generating a plasma in the chamber and depositing a conformal amorphous carbon layer on the patterned features of the substrate (abstract). They teach that the hydrocarbon source may be a mixture of one or more hydrocarbon compounds and the plasma-initiating gas may be helium, but that other gases such as argon may also be used (0028). They teach that the dilution gas may be argon, krypton, or xenon (0028). They teach that the plasma-initiating gas may be introduced into the PECVD chamber before and/or at the same time as the hydrocarbon compound and a plasma is initiated to begin deposition (0034). They teach that the plasma initiating gas may be introduced into the PECVD chamber prior to the hydrocarbon source, which allows a stable plasma to be formed and reduces the chances of arcing (0034).
From the teachings of Behera, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have first supplied the plasma initiating gas and generated the plasma for an ignition period before supplying the carbon precursor because Behera teaches that supplying a plasma initiating gas prior to supplying a carbon source allows for a stable plasma to be formed and reduces the chances of arcing such that it will be expected to also provide these benefits in the process of Jiang. Therefore, the inert gas (plasma initiating gas/stable gas/first plasma gas) will be supplied and plasma will be ignited for an ignition period within the chamber and then the carbon precursor will be subsequently supplied.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang teaches depositing flowable carbon film and treating the carbon film, where the carbon layer fills the gaps (0008, 0029, and 0035), such that the process will be performed one time to fill the recesses, where since N is not defined, the process is considered to meet the claimed requirements.
Regarding claim 3, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang further teaches that the temperature in the reaction region of the substrate processing region may be low, e.g., less than 100°C (0035). They teach that during formation of the carbon layer, the substrate temperature maybe below of about 100°C (0035). They teach that when providing the plasma locally, low substrate temperatures (as outlined previously) are required in all embodiments in order to form a flowable carbon film (0038), indicating that the temperatures described in paragraph 0035 are also suitable for deposition using a local or direct plasma. They teach that the substrate is maintained at about the same temperature while exposing the substrate to the reactive plasma (depositing the flowable carbon film ) and the second plasma (curing the carbon film ) (0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the temperature in the reaction chamber to be below or about 100°C because Jiang indicates that such a temperature is suitable for deposition of the carbon film, where the substrate is maintained at the same temperature during the deposition and treatment steps. Therefore, the temperature will be within the claimed range. According to MPEP 2131.03, "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is "anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp.v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ275, 280 (CCPA1962)) (emphasis in original).
Regarding claim 4, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang further teaches that the flowable carbon film is cured by exposure to a second plasma formed by the excitation of a second plasma gas comprising one or more of hydrogen, argon, helium, or nitrogen (0058). They teach that the plasma utilized during the cure process may be an inductively coupled plasma or a conductively coupled plasma (0061). They teach that when using local excitation in place of remote plasma excitation, the plasma may be effected by applying RF energy by capacitively-coupled power between the gas distribution showerhead and the pedestal/substrate (0038). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the treatment plasma in the chamber because Jiang teaches generating the plasma using a conductively coupled plasma (understood to be a capacitively coupled plasma), where the direct plasma is also capacitively coupled between the showerhead and substrate such that it will be expected to be a suitable plasma for the treatment of the carbon film.
Regarding claim 9, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang further teaches that the local plasma excites the carbon-containing precursor, where the first plasma comprises a carbon-containing precursor and a first plasma gas (0008 and 0038). They teach that the stable precursor used for forming a plasma, understood to be the first plasma gas, may include noble gases such as Ne, Kr, Ar, Xe, He, ammonia, and hydrogen (0028). Therefore, the carbon-containing precursor and an inert gas such as argon or helium are provided together during the pulse period for plasma deposition of the flowable film.
Behera also teaches using plasma-initiating gases such as argon and helium that are provided with the hydrocarbon precursor (0028 and 0034). Therefore, Behera also indicates that an inert gas and a carbon precursor are flowed together for plasma deposition of a carbon film.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1, where it is suggested to provide the inert gas for ignition and deposition. Since there is no indication that the inert as is not continuously provided and it is indicated as being provided during deposition (0008, 0028, 0034, and 0038), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously provided the inert gas during the deposition cycle so as to generate the plasma for deposition since the stable gas/plasma gas/inert gas is indicated as being provided during deposition, and where Behera also teaches providing an inert gas during deposition (abstract and 0034-0035) such that it will be expected to provide a suitable gas mixture for the entirety of the plasma deposition process.
Regarding claim 12, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. As discussed above, Jiang teaches depositing the flowable film using a first plasma (0038). There is no indication that the plasma is pulsed or discontinuous during the deposition. Behera also teaches providing the plasma-initiating gas prior to the hydrocarbon gas for forming a stable plasma, where the film is deposited by PECVD (0034). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have continuously formed the plasma throughout the ignition period and the pulse period because Jiang teaches that the plasma is needed for deposition and there is no indication that the plasma is provided pulsed or discontinuously and Behera teaches providing the plasma initiating gas prior to the hydrocarbon gas for forming a stable plasma for a PECVD process such that it will be expected to provide the plasma as needed for deposition of the flowable film.
Regarding claim 16, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang teaches that when the flowable carbon layer reaches a desired thickness, the process effluent may be removed from the chamber (0037), indicating that the process is performed until the desire thickness is achieved. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the pulse period to be within the claimed range because Jiang teaches that the film is deposited until a desired thickness is achieved, indicating that the time for deposition is optimized depending on the thickness. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang teaches that the stable precursor used for forming a plasma, understood to be the first plasma gas, may include noble gases such as Ne, Kr, Ar, Xe, He, ammonia, and hydrogen (0028). Therefore, the inert gas comprises argon, helium, or nitrogen.
Behera also teaches using plasma-initiating gases such as argon and helium that are provided with the hydrocarbon precursor (0028 and 0034).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang further teaches that the carbon precursors includes hydrocarbons and can contain nitrogen (0023). They teach that exemplary precursors include ethane, ethylene, acetylene, propane, propene, cyclopropane, benzene, toluene, xylene, etc. (0024). Therefore, Jiang provides precursors meeting the claimed requirements.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Behera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seamons, US 2011/0151142 A1 and Thomas, US 2014/0049162 A1.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang teaches that when the flowable carbon layer reaches a desired thickness, the process effluents may be removed from the deposition chamber, where the effluents may include any unreacted radical precursor and carbon-containing precursor, diluent, and/or carrier gases, and reaction products that did not deposit on the substrate (0037). They teach that process effluents may be removed by evacuating the deposition chamber and/or displacing the effluents with non-deposition gases in the deposition region (0037). Therefore, they teach purging the reactor after depositing the film.
Jiang also teaches that the plasma may be effected by applying RF energy (0038), such that RF power is provided for generating the plasma.
They do not teach providing a transition period.
Seamons teaches methods for reducing defects during multi-layer deposition by exposing the substrate to a first gas mixture and an inert gas in the presence of a plasma to deposit a first material layer on the substrate, terminating the first gas mixture when a desired thickness of the first material is achieved while still maintaining the plasma and flowing the inert gas, and exposing the substrate to the inert gas and a second gas mixture that are compatible with the first gas mixture in the presence of the plasma to deposit a second material layer over the first material layer in the same processing chamber (abstract). They teach flowing one or more precursor gases and an inert gas to the chamber, applying an electric field to the gas mixture and heating the gas mixture to decompose the one or more precursor gases in the mixture to generate a plasma, depositing the first material on the substrate until a desired thickness of the first material is achieved, terminating at least one gas flow of the one or more precursor gases in the first gas mixture while flowing only the inert gas and maintaining the plasma, stabilizing a process condition for a second material within the processing chamber, providing a second gas mixture by flowing one or more precursor gases to the same chamber, and depositing a second material over the first material (0013). They teach using RF power to provide the plasma (0034). They teach that after the process gas precursor is terminated, a continuous flow of inert gas helps purge particles away from the substrate surface while making sure that there will not be a significant amount of unwanted deposition happening on the substrate during the transition stage (0035 and Fig. 3). They teach that by terminating the flow of the precursor gas immediately after the layer is deposited on the substrate, the source of the particle contamination is reduced inside the processing chamber, thereby lowering the chance for particles to fall down on the substrate surface (0035). They teach that while terminating the flow of the process gas precursor, the RF power is still maintained during step 311 such that the plasma is continuously ignited (0036). They teach that a continuous plasma will significantly reduce the change of substrate contamination because the particles formed during the deposition will remain negatively charged and suspended in the plasma due to repulsive force between particles and the negatively biased substrate surface, thereby preventing unwanted particles from falling onto the substrate surface (0036). They teach that by using continuous plasma between each deposition, reactive species present in non-stoichiometric and non-equilibrium concentrations can be completely reacted to form part of the film instead of agglomerating to form particles that will fall on top of the substrate when the plasma is extinguished (0036). They teach that while the RF power is still on, an optional purging step 313 may be performed by introducing a purging gas such as helium into the chamber for a desired time to purge any remaining precursor from the chamber (0037). After purging, the chamber may be stabilized to establish a process condition that is suitable for deposition of a desired material and then a second gas mixture is introduced into the chamber for the deposition of a desired material (0038-0039). They teach that after depositing the second layer an optional purge step is provided while RF power remains on while inert gases flow (0045-0046 and Fig. 3). They teach that RF power may be terminated prior to terminating the inert gas and pumping out step (0046 and Fig. 3). They teach that all gases are then turned off and any particles, contamination, gases, or plasma remaining in the chamber are pumped out (0047 and Fig. 3). They teach that by maintaining the plasma between each deposition, unwanted defects on the substrate is significantly reduced because (1) particles that are formed during the deposition, or any flake off the surfaces of the processing chamber, are suspended in the plasma until the final layer is finished, preventing them from falling on the substrate; (2) any remaining particles can be convected and/or pumped out of the processing chamber after the deposition of the last layer and prior to extinguishing the plasma; and (3) reactive species present in non-stoichiometric and non-equilibrium concentrations can be completely reacted to form part of the film instead of agglomerating to form particles that will fall on top of the substrate when the plasma is extinguished (0048).
From the teachings of Seamons, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ceased the flow of the carbon precursors while maintaining the flow of the inert/plasma initiating gas and application of RF power for generating plasma so as to provide a purge step and then the plasma treatment step because Seamons teaches that maintaining plasma during plasma depositions reduced contamination, where it is desirable to maintain plasma during a purge, and where plasma is provided by application of RF power, and Jiang teaches purging between plasma deposition and plasma treatment, where plasma is generated by RF power such that it will also be expected to reduce particle contamination in the process of Jiang in view of Behera by keeping the particles suspended during the process until they can be pumped out. Therefore, the process will include ceasing the flow of the carbon precursor, providing RF power for a transition period (purge), and then providing RF power for the treatment process such that plasma is continuously provided during the ignition, deposition, transition, and treatment steps, where the inert gas will also be continuously provided during these steps to maintain the plasma. Further, since the plasma will be stopped at the end of the process, this will provide ceasing the flow of the carbon precursor before the step of ceasing the plasma.
Claim 7, 8, 13, and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Behera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seamons, US 2011/0151142 A1 and Thomas, US 2014/0049162 A1.
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 14, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1.
They do no teach providing a transition period with reduced power during the transition period.
As discussed above for claim 6, Seamons provides the suggestion to have ceased the flow of the carbon precursors while maintaining the flow of the inert/plasma initiating gas and application of RF power for generating plasma so as to provide a purge step and then the plasma treatment step because Seamons teaches that maintaining plasma during plasma depositions reduced contamination, where it is desirable to maintain plasma during a purge, and where plasma is provided by application of RF power, and Jiang teaches purging between plasma deposition and plasma treatment, where plasma is generated by RF power such that it will also be expected to reduce particle contamination in the process of Jiang in view of Behera by keeping the particles suspended during the process until they can be pumped out. Therefore, the process will include ceasing the flow of the carbon precursor, providing RF power for a transition period (purge), and then providing RF power for the treatment process such that plasma is continuously provided during the ignition, deposition, transition, and treatment steps, where the inert gas will also be continuously provided during these steps to maintain the plasma.
They do not teach reducing the power during the transition period.
Thomas teaches methods to reduce particle-induced defects on a substrate by decreasing plasma spread prior to extinguishing the plasma, where the plasma is maintained at the decreased plasma spread while the particles are evacuated (abstract). They teach that the power is reduced to at or below a threshold power at which the plasma does not significantly generate particles from chamber surfaces, allowing particles to be swept out of the chamber while still being high enough to prevent the particles from falling on the substrate surface (0028). They teach that the low power is maintained for a first duration to allow at least a large fraction of the particles to be pumped out (0028). They teach that during the reduced power plasma step the gas composition may change to help sweep particles from the plasma, where inert gases can be used (0038). They teach stepping down the power from 250 W to 180 W to 110 W to 30 W to allow the plasma to shrink smaller but not collapse (0039-0040).
From the teachings of Thomas, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have reduced the plasma power during the purge step without allowing the plasma to collapse because Thomas teaches that reducing the plasma power helps to remove particles in a plasma by preventing the generation of particles from chamber component, where the plasma power is reduced without collapsing such that it will be expected to help purge the particles from the chamber during the purge step to help prevent contamination. Therefore, Jiang in view of Behera, Seamons, and Thomas provide the features of claim 7, where they also suggest providing the plasma continuously throughout the ignition period, the pulse period, the transition period, and the treatment cycle.
Regarding claim 8, Jiang in view of Behera, Seamons, and Thomas suggest the process of claim 7. Jiang teaches that during deposition of the flowable film, the plasma power may be in arrange of about 10 W to about 200 W, about 10 W to about 100 W, about 100 W to about 200 W and during the curing process, the plasma power is in a range of about 100 W to about 500 W, about 300 W to about 400 W, etc. (0048).
As noted above, Thomas teaches stepping down the power from 250 W to 180 W to 110 W to 30 W to allow the plasma to shrink smaller but not collapse (0039-0040).
Therefore, since the plasma power is suggested to be reduced in the transition period from deposition, and the power in the curing step is higher than the deposition step, the power during the treatment cycle will also be increased from the transition period.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Behera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas, US 2014/0049162 A1.
Regarding claim 15, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach providing a post-treatment period.
As discussed above, Thomas suggests reducing RF power after plasma processing to remove particles prior to extinguishing the plasma. They further teach that the method of reducing particle-induced defects applied to treatment operations (0002).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also reduced the plasma power to remove particles after the curing process because Thomas teaches that such a process reduces defects, where it applies to treatment processes as well such that it will be expected to also remove any particles in the plasma after the curing process to reduce film defects. Therefore, after the treatment cycle, RF power will be provided for a post-treatment period, wherein the RF power during the post-treatment period is reduced from the RF power provided during the treatment cycle so as to remove particles in the plasma.
Claim 16 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Behera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yeh, US 2006/0222771 A1 (note the second inventor has been used to differentiate between Seamons references).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang teaches that when the flowable carbon layer reaches a desired thickness, the process effluent may be removed from the chamber (0037), indicating that the process is performed until the desire thickness is achieved.
They do not teach the time required for the deposition cycle.
Yeh teaches a method for forming an amorphous carbon layer (abstract). They teach positioning a substrate inside of a chamber, providing a gas mixture by flowing one or more hydrocarbon compounds and an inert gas to the chamber, applying an electric field to the gas mixture and heating to generate a plasma, and depositing a material on the substrate (0012). They teach that at least one gas flow of the one or more hydrocarbon compounds is terminated while still flowing the inert gas to the deposition chamber for a first time period while any gas or plasma generated is pumped out of the chamber for a second time period to reduce particle contamination on the substrate (0012). They teach that terminating the flow of the one or more hydrocarbon compounds into the chamber before the flow of the other components of the gas mixture into the chamber helps to reduce particle contamination without the need for additional process steps (0034). They teach that the second deposition time, i.e., the deposition done on the substrate, is between about 5 seconds or longer, such as about 60 seconds (0045). They teach supplying power to the processing chamber to generate the plasma (0075), indicating it is a direct plasma.
From the teachings of Yeh, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the deposition process of Jiang wherein the duration of the step of forming the plasma within the chamber to form the initially viscous carbon material is between about 5 seconds or longer because Yeh teaches that such a time period is desirable for forming a carbon film on a substrate by exposing the substrate to a plasma comprised of a carbon precursor and an inert gas such ash it will be expected to provide the desire and predictable result of forming a carbon film on the substrate as desired. Therefore, the duration of the step of forming the plasma for deposition will overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Behera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang, US 2018/0274100 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Jiang in view of Behera suggest the process of claim 1. Jiang teaches curing or solidifying the carbon film by plasma using one or more of hydrogen, argon, helium, or nitrogen (0057-0058). They teach curing at a pressure in the range of 3 mTorr to about 2 Torr (0060). They teach that the plasma frequency maybe in the range of about 400 kHz to about 40 MHz (0061). They teach that the origin of the flowability may be linked to the presence of hydrogen in the film (0035), indicating the hydrogen makes the film flowable.
They do not teach the time required for curing.
Yang teaches a method of forming a layer of diamond-like carbon on a substrate supported in a chamber by forming a plurality of successive sublayers to form layers of DLC by alternating between depositing a sublayer of DLC and treating the sublayer with a plasma of inert gas (abstract and Fig. 4). They teach that an inert as of argon or helium is supplied to the chamber with a hydrocarbon compound and RF power is applied to the upper electrode to ignite plasma in the chamber for deposition of the DLC film (0067-0068 and 0071). They teach that deposition is carried out for 5-100 seconds and then the feedstock gas is evacuated from the chamber and the chamber is filled with inert gas for curing (0076 and 0084). They teach curing by supplying argon or helium to the chamber to provide a pressure of 10 to 200 mTorr (0078-0079). They teach that RF power is supplied to the upper electrode and the lower electrode with frequencies in the range of 100 kHz to 80 MHz (0080). They teach that the workpiece is subjected to these conditions for 2 seconds to 5 minutes (0081). They teach that the process drives off hydrogen from the layer, and can decrease dangling bonds and increase crosslinking to reduce stress in the deposited layer (0082). Therefore, they teach plasma curing a carbon layer on a substrate using an inert gas of argon or helium with pressures within the range used by Jiang and with frequencies overlapping the range of Jiang so as to drive off hydrogen from the film and increase crosslinking to reduce stress.
From the teachings of Yang, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Jiang to have performed the plasma curing process for a time of 2 seconds to 5 minutes because Yang indicates that such a time is suitable for curing a carbon layer using pressures within the range used by Jiang and frequencies overlapping the range of Jiang, where the process will drive off hydrogen and increase crosslinking (which is also expected to help solidify the film) while reducing the stress in the film, where since Jiang indicates that hydrogen in the film makes it flowable by removing the hydrogen as in the process of Yang it will be expected to solidify the film. Therefore, in the process of Jiang in view of Behera and Yang, the film will be cured for a time overlapping the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, "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). Further, since Jiang teaches curing for the purposes of solidifying the film, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the curing time to be within the claimed range so as to have provided a desirably solid or cured film. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, "Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights