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 1-3 and 5-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-21 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 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, 5-13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0114465) in view of Chen et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8440580).
I. Regarding claims 1, 5-10 and 13, Kalutarage teaches in a specific example a method of filling a gap (0004 and Figure 14) comprising: introducing into a reactor chamber (0054) a substrate including a gap (0075); introducing N,N’-disilyltrisilazane
PNG
media_image1.png
126
286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(note this compound has the formula (i) where R1-R4 are SiH3) as a precursor into the reactor chamber (0068); introducing a plasma activated co-reactant into the chamber, which is NH3 (0068) and can be introduced continuously (0039); such that the precursor and co-reactant react to form a gap filling fluid comprising silicon and nitrogen (0068 and 0043) and potentially noble gases (0057) which at least partially fills the gap (Figure 14). Kalutarage further teaches curing the gap filling fluid (0075). Kalutarage fails to explicitly teach generating the plasma in the reactor chamber in the example cited. Kalutarage also fails to explicitly teach the pressure in the chamber as claimed in claims 1 and 8 and maintaining the temperature in the range as claimed in claims 1 and 9. Further, Kalutarage fails to teach forming a silicon nitride cap layer using a plasma gas comprising SiH4 and NH3.
First, Kalutarage does teach that the method can alternatively comprise introduction of the precursor and co-reactant to the chamber and then generating a direct plasma in the chamber (0029). 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 Kalutarage’s specific example by utilizing a direct plasma generated in the chamber rather than introducing a previously plasma activated co-reactant. One would have been motivated to make this modification as one could have substituted one plasma generation method for another with a reasonable expectation of success (particularly given that Kalutarage teaches that both processes are applicable to providing a gap filling fluid from the silicon precursor), and the predictable result of providing a method for filling a gap on a substrate.
Second, Kalutarage teaches that the temperature in the reactor can be maintained in a range which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range (0042). Furthermore, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Additionally, Kalutarage specifically teaches that the pressure is a result-effective variable that will need to be optimized based on the specific substrate and precursors that are used (0042). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges for pressure through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Third, Chen teaches forming a silicon nitride cap layer over a cured cap filled fluid (abstract) by plasma enhanced chemical deposition (column 6, lines 20-22) using a gas comprising SiH4 and NH3 (column 6, lines 20-29). 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 Kalutarage’s process by additionally forming a silicon nitride cap layer as disclosed by Chen. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Chen teaches that the cap layer can improve efficiency of the device and improves the gap filling capability (column 3, lines 46-53).
II. Regarding claims 11 and 19, Kalutarage in view of Chen make obvious all the limitations of claims 1 and 13 (see above), but fail to teach the flow rate of the co-reactant and the time for curing. However, adjusting the flow rate of the co-reactant will adjust the proportion of the co-reactant in the reactor thereby adjusting the proportion of this element in the final film and ultimately the properties of the final film produced. Additionally, the time spent on curing will dictate the degree of curing as well as the properties of the resultant film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
III. Regarding claim 12, Kalutarage in view of Chen make obvious the process of claim 1 (see the Example cited above), but fail to explicitly teach providing the precursor and plasma in a plurality of pulses and including a purge step separating the introducing pulse and a plasma pulse. However, Kalutarage does teach that the process can include a plasma process wherein the precursor and plasma are both pulsed (0037) and the inclusion of a purge step in between introducing the precursor and a plasma pulse (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 Kalutarage in view of Chen’s process by introducing the precursors and plasmas by pulsing and including a purge step as disclosed by Kalutarage. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Kalutarage teaches that the process can include pulsing and purging and one could have substituted this plasma process for the process in Kalutarage’s example with a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result of providing a plasma to initiate reaction between the precursor and the co-reactant.
IV. Regarding claim 20, Kalutarage in view of Chen make obvious all the limitations of claim 13 (see above), and including a step of annealing in combination with curing (see Kalutarage at 0044-0046). Kalutarage in view of Chen fail to explicitly teach annealing prior to curing. However, this is simply the selection of the order of two process steps and changing the order would not be expected to materially change the resultant product produced. Furthermore, selection of any order of performing process steps has been held as prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
2. Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage in view of Chen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chatterjee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8889566).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kalutarage in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 13 (see above), but fails to teach curing using a direct noble gas plasma. However, Chatterjee teaches a similar method for filling a gap (column 2, lines 8-10) comprising: introducing a substrate provided with a gap into a reaction chamber (claim 1); introducing a precursor, such as trisilylamine (claim 4, which is a precursor consisting of silicon, nitrogen and hydrogen) into the reaction chamber (claim 1); introducing a co-reactant, such as argon, hydrogen or ammonia (claim 3) into the reaction chamber (claim 1); generating a plasma in the reaction chamber (claim 1) causing reaction between the reactants (column 4, lines 57-59) to form a gap filling fluid (claim 1) that consists of silicon, nitrogen and hydrogen (column 4, lines 59-62), that at least partially fills the gaps (column 5, lines 64-66). Chatterjee further teaches an additional step of curing the gap filling fluid by a direct plasma of argon, which comprises a plurality of cycles of gap filling and plasma curing being alternated (column 6, lines 26-40). 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 Kalutarage in view of Chen’s process by curing using a direct noble gas plasma as disclosed by Chatterjee. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Chatterjee teaches that plasma curing allows for deposition and curing to be conducted in the same chamber (column 6, lines 26-40) allowing for a more efficient process.
3. Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage in view of Chen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Citla et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2020/0090946).
I. Regarding claims 15-17, Kalutarage in view of Chen teach all the limitations of claim 13 (see above), but fail to teach curing with a pulsed noble gas plasma with on and off pulses as claimed in claim 17. However, Citla teaches the use of a pulsed plasma (abstract) potentially including a noble gas (claim 10) with plasma on and plasma off pulses (abstract, 0030 and 0055) on the order of 210 microseconds to 100 miniseconds (0063, and note that this overlaps with the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness) for use in generating and maintaining a plasma (0030) for filling a gap with a dielectric material (abstract and Figures 4A and 4B). 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 Kalutarage in view of Chen’s process by performing the plasma curing by utilizing a pulsed plasma as disclosed by Citla. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Citla teaches the use of a pulsed plasma eliminates overly energetic or aggressive reactive species and allows for control and directionality of the deposition (0062).
II. Regarding claim 18, Kalutarage in view of Chen and further in view of Citla make obvious claim 16 (see above), but fail to explicitly teach the on pulse lasting for 0.1 second and the off pulse lasting 0.5 second. However, adjusting the time for on and off pulses will alter the thickness of the grown film in each deposition step as well as the efficiency of the process and the characteristics of the final film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
4. Claim(s) 16 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalutarage in view of Chen as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 10707116).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Kalutarage in view of Chen make obvious all the limitations of claim 13, but fail to teach curing using a micropulsed direct plasma comprising a mixture of helium and hydrogen.
First, Liang teaches that similar flowable gap filling fluids (abstract) can be cured after being deposited (abstract) using a pulsed (column 7, lines 54-58) direct plasma (column 7, lines 9-21) potentially including helium and hydrogen gas (column 7, lines 34-36). 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 Kalutarage in view of Chen’s process by including an additional plasma curing step as disclosed by Liang. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Liang teaches that this curing allows for densifying the deposited gap filling fluid (column 7, lines 16-21).
Second, Kalutarage in view of Chen and further in view of Liang fail to explicitly teach that the pulses are micropulses. However, adjusting the time for on and off pulses will alter the densification of the grown film in each deposition step as well as the efficiency of the process and the characteristics of the final film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed range of micropulses through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2 and 3 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest the process wherein R1, R2, R3 and R4 are selected from the groups as claimed in claims 2 and 3.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending.
Claims 1 and 5-21 are rejected.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to.
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 24, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights