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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Susa et al. (US 2022/0251707).
As to claim 1, Susa et al. discloses a process for filling recesses on a surface of a substrate (see abstract) comprising placing a substrate on a susceptor within a reaction chamber where the substrate comprises a gap (see 2 of Fig. 1 and claim 1, Fig. 4); a deposition step comprising: flowing a carbon precursor into the reaction chamber (see 0059); wherein a chemical formula of the carbon precursor comprises: a cyclic compound having a cyclic structure comprising C, H, and N, (see 0060, claim 1); a carbonyl group (see 0060); and at least one methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, amine, or hydroxyl group (see 0060 and claim 13); and exposing the precursor to plasm where the carbon precursor forms a deposited material (see 0048, 0050, claim 1); and a treatment step comprising: exposing the deposited material to post-deposition treatment to cause the material to flow (see 0050-0051, step 106).
As to claim 2, the temperature during deposition is 30-700C (See 0053).
As to claims 3-5, an inert gas or oxygen containing can be used during the treatment step such as N2O, argon, helium (see 0052 and 0054).
As to claim 10, the post-deposition treatment comprises plasma treatment (see 0067).
As to claim 14, the frequency of the plasma is between 400kHz and 100MHz (see 0053).
As to claim 15, the cyclic structure can be one of the claimed materials (see 0060 and claim 12).
As to claim 16, the carbonyl can be aldehyde, ketone, carboxylic acid, etc. (see 0060).
As to claim 17, an electrode is part of the susceptor (see 0069).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susa et al. (US 2022/0251707).
The teachings of Susa et al. as applied to claim 1 are as stated above.
Susa et al. fails to teach the treatment is between 1 second and 1,800 seconds as required by claim 8.
However, Susa et al. does state the post treatment can occur for 5 to 3000 seconds (see 0051) which overlaps the claimed range. 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).
As to claim 9, Susa et al. states the post-treatment comprises heating to a temperature of 50-800C which overlaps the claimed range (see 0065). 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)
As to claim 13, the power of the plasma is 10-5000 W (see 0053) which overlaps the claimed range of 10-3000W. 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)
Claim(s) 6-7, 11-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Susa et al. (US 2022/0251707) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, in view of Nittala et al. (US 2012/0149213).
The teachings of Susa et al. as applied to claims 1 and 5 are as stated above.
Susa et al. fails to teach the use of oxygen gas or the ratio of oxygen gas is more than 25% in total gas as required by claim 6 and 7.
Nittala et al. discloses a process for forming a flowable material over a substrate having gaps (see 0004, 0016) and exposing the material to a post-deposition treatment to introduce dopants, chemically convert the deposit or densify the deposit (see 0095). Nittala stats the post-deposition treatment may be performed in situ or another chamber (see 0096) and further states the densification can be performed by ultraviolet radiation (see 0096, 0100). Nittala et al. additionally teaches that post-deposition annealing can be performed in oxidizing environments including O2, N2O, O3, H2O, and H2O2, nitriding environments including N2, N2O and NH3, and further a mixture of such environments can be used (see 0098).
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 Susa et al. to include the oxygen/nitriding gas environment taught by Nittala et al. because Nittala et al. teaches these post deposition treatments densify and chemically convert the films thereby improving the deposited films. It would have been further obvious to use the claimed ratio through routine experimentation in order to optimize the final film chemical composition.
As to claim 11 and 12, Nittala et al. teaches UV curing of the film and curing in a different chamber (see 0096, 100).
As to claim 18, Susa et al. modified by Nittala et al. teaches depositing a carbon-containing film followed by densification. Susa et al. states the process can increase the value of the film’s modulus (see 0026). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the conditions to achieve the desired mechanical properties such as providing an elastic modulus within the claimed range through routine experimentation especially absent any evidence of criticality in the film having the claimed elastic modulus.
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