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 1-12 are pending. Claim 12 is withdrawn. Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 6/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/4/2026.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0061628) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0056817).
Regarding claims 1-5 and 9-11, Ou teaches a method for bottom-up filling of a recess (see Figures 4E and 4F) comprising: preparing a substrate having a recess in a surface thereof (see recess 403 in substrate 401, Figure 4A); forming a film in the recess (claims 1 and 2), wherein the film can be silicon nitride (claim 14); forming a sacrificial film in the recess (claim 1 and element 422, Figure 4A); removing the sacrificial film (claim 1); and filling the recess with the film of silicon nitride after removing the sacrificial film (claims 2 and 3). Ou teaches that the sacrificial film can be formed to have a lower step coverage than the silicon nitride film (see Figure 4A). Ou teaches that the sacrificial film can be formed two or more times during the forming of the silicon nitride film and that the sacrificial film is formed before forming the silicon nitride film (claims 1, 16 and 17). Ou also teaches forming the silicon nitride film by alternately supplying precursors of a silicon compound and a nitriding gas (0056-0057 and 0068), and that forming the sacrificial film is stopped before the sacrificial film is formed on a silicon nitride film at the bottom surface of the recess (see Figures 4E and 4F). Finally, Ou teaches that all the process steps can be performed in a single chamber including multiple stations (see Figure 7) and that the sacrificial layer can be etched with chlorine gas (0062). Ou fails to teach that the sacrificial film is an amorphous silicon film.
However, Kim teaches that amorphous silicon (0057) can be used in combination with silicon nitride (0058), where the amorphous silicon is a sacrificial layer (0057) that can be selectively etched with chlorine gas (0057). 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 Ou’s process by substituting Kim’s sacrificial amorphous silicon layer for the sacrificial layer disclosed by Ou. One would have been motivated to make this substitution as one having ordinary skill in the art could have made this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Kim teaches amorphous silicon as a sacrificial layer in a similar process that can also be etched with chlorine gas similar to Ou’s process), and the predictable result of providing a method for filling a recess completely from the bottom up without leaving gaps.
2. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aisou (U.S. Pat. No. 5885889).
Regarding claims 6-8, Ou in view of Kim make obvious claim 1, but fail to teach forming the amorphous silicon by simultaneously supplying a silicon-containing gas and an oxygen or phosphorous containing impurity gas followed by supplying the impurity containing gas after stopping supplying the silicon-containing gas.
However, Aisou teaches that it is known to form amorphous silicon by simultaneously supplying a silicon-containing gas and an impurity containing gas (column 9, lines 41-47), and then continuing to supply an impurity containing gas after stopping supplying the silicon-containing gas (column 9, lines 50-58). Aisou teaches that the impurity containing gas can be a phosphorous (phosphine) or oxygen (oxygen in nitrogen) containing gas (column 9, lines 50-52). 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 Ou in view of Kim’s process by depositing the amorphous silicon film as disclosed by Aisou. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Aisou teaches that preparing the amorphous silicon in this manner segregates the dopant of the amorphous silicon and prevents diffusion of the amorphous silicon dopant/impurity (see Aisou at column 5, lines 20-39).
Conclusion
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claim 12 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
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/
August 21, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights