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 1-20 are pending and rejected.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 requires that the precursors consist of the listed materials. The claim is being interpreted as though a reactant gas is separate from a precursor in the rejection over Rathod. The claim is alternatively being interpreted as though the term “precursor” includes reactant gases in the rejection over Rathod in view of Liou.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17, the claim recites the limitation "the inert gas" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is dependent on claim 1, however, claim 1 does not require an inert gas. It is noted that claim 4 provides antecedent basis for the claim. Therefore, claim 17 is interpreted as depending on claim 4 such that the inert gas during curing consists of helium. 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 1-6, 8-11, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod, US 2015/0118863 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rathod teaches a method of forming a cured low-k material layer on a surface of a substrate (methods for forming flowable dielectric films on a substrate, where the film is cured, abstract, 0003, 0006, and Fig. 1, and where the film is a low-k film, 0045), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber of a reactor system (providing a substrate to a deposition chamber, 0025 and Fig. 1, where the chamber is part of a system, 0113 and Fig. 7);
providing one or more precursors to the reaction chamber for a first time period (providing a dielectric precursor into the deposition chamber and then stopping the flow of the precursor, such that it will be provided for a first time period, 0032, 0034, and Fig. 1);
providing plasma power to polymerize the one or more precursors within the reaction chamber to form low-k material (exposing the film to a plasma to densify the flowable film and drive the overall deposition reaction closer to completion to form the flowable film, 0035, and where the process provides a polymerization reaction, 0045 and Fig. 1); and
curing the low-k material with activated species to form the cured low-k material layer (curing the film by exposure to plasma, 0097),
wherein the one or more precursors comprise one or more of octamethoxydodecasiloxane (OMODDS), dimethoxymethylsilane (DMOMS), phenoxydimethylsilane (PODMS), dimethyldioxosilylcyclohexane (DMDOSH), dimethoxydiphenylsilane (DMDPS), and dicyclopentyldimethoxysilane (DcPDMS) (where the precursor includes dimethoxymethylsilane, 0070).
While they do not specifically teach the dielectric constant (as defined at 0032 of the instant specification), since they provide the claimed process using a precursor meeting the claimed limitations, the resulting film is expected to have a dielectric constant meeting the definition in the specification. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 2, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. They teach that the process includes flowing a dielectric precursor and a co-reactant to a deposition chamber (0003). They teach using carbon-doped silicon precursors either in addition to another precursor or alone (0067). They teach that examples of carbon-doped precursors include dimethoxymethylsilane (0070). 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 provided DMOMS as the carbon-doped silicon precursor alone because they indicate that such a precursor is suitable and that they can be provided alone. Therefore, the one or more precursors will consist of DMOMS.
Regarding claim 3, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach that the plasma is provided after the first time period, i.e., after the precursor flow has stopped (0035 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach that the plasma for curing may be inert, where helium and argon plasma are examples of inert plasmas (0097). Therefore, since they teach providing helium as an inert plasma, where they do not indicate that other gas species are required, the activated species is considered to consist of an inert gas such as helium. As noted in the 112(b) rejection above, the inert gas of claim 17 is interpreted as being the gas for forming the activated species as in claim 4.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach that the temperature during curing ranges from 0-600°C or from about 200-550°C (0098), such that the temperature overlaps the claimed ranges. 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.”
Regarding claim 6, Rathod suggests the process of claim 4. They further teach that the deposition chamber may include an RF electrode for generating plasma environments within the reaction area, where the electrodes are configured to produce RF energy in the range of 50 kHz and 60 MHz (0127). They teach performing the curing step in the deposition chamber (0040). 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 used a plasma frequency in the range of 50 kHz to 60 MHz because Rathod teaches that such a frequency is used for providing the plasma in the deposition chamber such that it will also be expected to provide a suitable frequency range for forming the curing plasma. Therefore, the step of curing will use a frequency overlapping VHF (understood to be 30-300 MHz) for the inert gas (helium). 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.”
Regarding claim 8, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. Rathod further teaches performing the plasma polymerization treatment and then curing the solidified flowable film (Fig. 1), such that there is no indication that an intervening step is needed between the step of providing plasma power to polymerize the one or more precursors and the step of curing the low-k material. They teach performing both the plasma polymerization or solidification treatment and the curing step in situ (0022, 0040, 0046, and 0095). Therefore, the process is understood to have no intervening step when the processes are all performed in situ so as to provide the plasma polymerization treatment followed by the plasma curing process.
Regarding claims 9-11, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1, where since they provide the process of claim 1, the curing process is also expected to result in lowering the dielectric constant, increasing the elastic modulus, increasing the hardness, increasing the breakdown voltage, lowering a leakage current density, and decreasing the Si-CH3 bonds of the low-k material. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Regarding claim 15, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. Rathod further teaches that the process pertains to filling high aspect ratio (typically at least 6:1, or example 7:1 or higher) gaps (0017). They teach that the aspect ratio of the gap is between 3:1 and 60:1 (0027), where the gap is on the substrate (0027 and Fig. 2B-C). Therefore, the substrate will comprise one or more features having an aspect ratio within the range of claim 15 and the low-k material will be formed within the one or more features to fill the feature. 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.”
Regarding claim 19, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach that the pressure during curing may be from 0.1-10 Torr, about 13 to 1333 Pa, with high oxidant pressures for removing carbon (0098). While they indicate that this pressure is with high oxidant pressures, since they teach that the plasma can be helium or inert as an alternative to oxygen plasma (0097), using such a pressure during the plasma curing process is also expected to provide suitable results. 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 used a pressure in the range of 13-1333 Pa during the plasma curing process because Rathod teaches that such a pressure is suitable during a plasma curing process. Therefore, the pressure during curing 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 2 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liou, US 2020/0043721 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. As noted above they teach that the process includes flowing the precursor and a co-reactant such as oxygen, where DMOMS is suggested to be provided alone as the precursor (0003 and 0074).
They do not teach that the gas does not include a reactant.
Liou teaches methods for forming low-k dielectric materials (abstract). They teach that the deposition techniques include PECVD, PEALD, etc. where precursors such as TEOS and MDEOS may provide the requisite O-atoms and O2 gas may not be used as one of the reactants (abstract). They teach forming the low-k dielectric using a PECVD technique wherein the precursor gases do not include O2 (0038). They teach that a first precursor gas which contains oxygen, such as TEOS or MDEOS, also referred to as DEMS (diethoxymethylsilane), may be used to provide the O atoms incorporated into the low-k dielectric to form the Si-O bonds (0038). They teach that the film may be formed using PEALD, where the gases do not include oxygen (0041). They teach providing TEOS or MDEOS as the first precursor and then providing a second precursor including a gas containing a hydrocarbon (0041). Therefore, Liou teaches that a silicon precursor containing oxygen can be used to provide the oxygen needed in a low-k film such that a separate oxygen reactant is not needed, where DEMS is suitable for providing oxygen.
From the teachings of Liou, 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 Rathod to have provide the precursor gas consisting of DMOMS because Liou teaches that a silicon precursor containing oxygen can be used to provide the oxygen needed in a low-k film such that a separate oxygen reactant is not needed, where DEMS is suitable for providing oxygen and DMOMS has a similar structure to DEMS in that it also has the same number of oxygen atoms per molecule suggesting that it will also be a suitable precursor for supplying oxygen to the silica film without requiring a separate oxygen reactant. Therefore, the one or more precursors will consist of DMOMS.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaillard, US 2004/0152338 A1, Torres, US 2012/0024223, and LaVoie, US 2013/0210241 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. They teach providing the precursor gases with an inert carrier gas such as helium (0061 and 0081). They teach that the plasma polymerization is performed using helium, nitrogen, or argon (0035-0036). They teach that the gas for curing can be helium or argon (0097).
They do not teach that the step of providing the inert gas begins prior to the step of providing the one or more precursors to the reaction chamber.
Gaillard teaches a method for depositing a low dielectric constant film that includes at least one silicon oxycarbide layer and at least one substantially silicon-free layer comprising carbon and hydrogen (abstract). They teach that the film is deposited by a plasma process (abstract). They teach that in some processes, an inert gas such as helium or argon is flowed into the chamber to stabilize the pressure in the chamber before reactive process gases are introduced into the chamber (Col. 6, lines 63-66).
From the teachings of Gaillard, 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 Rathod to have flowed the helium gas prior to introducing the precursor to the reactor for the purposes of stabilizing the pressure because Gaillard indicates that such a step is desirable in a plasma deposition process.
Rathod in view of Gaillard do not teach that the flow of helium ends after the step of curing.
Torres teaches a chemical vapor deposition method to deposit silicon-containing films over substrates with cyclohexasilane (abstract). They teach that after the deposition process is terminated, the process chamber maybe flushed with a purge gas or the carrier gas and/or the process chamber maybe evacuated with a vacuum pump so as to remove excess deposition gas, reaction by-products and other contaminants (0097). They teach that inert carrier gases include helium and argon (0048).
From the teachings of Torres, 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 Rathod in view of Gaillard to have continued flowing helium after finishing the curing step so as to purge the reactor from any curing by-products and remove any other contaminants because Torres indicates that upon finishing a process in a reactor it is desirable to purge the reactor using gases such as helium and argon. Therefore, in the process of Rathod in view of Gaillard and Torres the step of providing the inert gas consisting essentially of helium will begin prior to the step of providing the one or more precursors so as to stabilize the pressure in the reactor, it will flow during deposition and during curing, and then it will end after curing so as to purge the reactor from any curing by-products and contaminants.
They do not teach that the inert gas flows continuously. Rathod teaches that the flow of other gases in the process gas may or may not be stopped when the dielectric precursor is stopped (0034).
LaVoie teaches a method of depositing a film on a substrate surface by providing a substrate in a reaction chamber, introducing a silicon-containing reactant into the reaction chamber under conditions allowing it to adsorb onto the substrate surface, introducing a second reactant in vapor phase into the reaction chamber while the silicon-containing reactant is adsorbed on the substrate surface, and exposing the substrate surface to plasma to drive a reaction between the silicon-containing reactant and the second reactant on the substrate surface to form the film (abstract). They teach a sequence of introducing reactant A, purging A, introducing reactant B and striking a plasma, and purging (0072). They teach plasma treating the deposited film (0074 0075). They provide an example sequence that includes the deposition steps including plasma activation and a subsequent plasma treatment step (0134-0136 and Fig. 3). They teach providing inert gas continuously throughout the process (Fig. 3). They teach that examples of the inert gas include nitrogen, argon, and helium (0119). They teach that the inert gas maybe provided to assist with pressure and/or temperature control of the process, evaporation of a liquid precursor, more rapid delivery of the precursor and/or as a sweep gas for removing process gases from the process station and/or process station plumbing (0119).
From the teachings of LaVoie, 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 Rathod in view of Gaillard and Torres to have continuously provided the inert gas consisting of helium because LaVoie teaches that an inert gas can be provided continuously in a process similar to that of Rathod in view of Gaillard and Torres (i.e. provide a precursor, provide plasma, plasma cure), where they desire the inert gas such as helium to be provided before providing the precursors, during deposition, and during curing such that it will provide the inert gas as needed during the deposition process while also using it to assist with pressure and/or temperature control of the process, and more rapid delivery of the precursor as indicated by LaVoie. Therefore, in the process of Rathod in view of Gaillard, Torres, and LaVoie the inert gas is provided continuously starting before the step of providing the precursor, through the deposition step, curing step, and after the step of curing.
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above for claims 1, 3-9, and 17, Rathod in view of Gaillard, Torres, and LaVoie are considered to provide the features of claim 20, where the inert gas is suggested to be helium for the carrier gas, plasma gas, and curing gas so as to provide an inert gas consisting of helium.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fox, US 7,622,400 B1.
Regarding claim 12, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. Rathod teaches that the curing process increases the density and hardness of the film (0040). Rathod further teaches performing curing in situ using a direct plasma (0040 and 0096), such that plasma will be produced in the reaction chamber to provide the activated species.
They do not teach the plasma power during curing.
Fox teaches method of forming a dielectric layer having a low dielectric constant and high mechanical strength (abstract). They teach depositing a sub-layer of the dielectric material on a substrate, followed by treating the sub-layer with a plasma (abstract). They teach that the process of depositing and plasma treating the sub-layers is repeated until a desired thickness has been reached (abstract). They teach that the dielectric layer can be formed using a PECVD process to provide a carbon doped silicon oxide (Col. 2, lines 1-40). They teach that the precursor used maybe methyldimethoxysilane among others (Col. 2, lines 13-40). They teach that the treatment may include both heavy atoms like Ar and light atoms like He (Col. 2, lines 13-40). They teach supplying argon and helium at 15 Torr (about 2000 Pa) using 500 W of power at a frequency of 13.56 MHz for the plasma treatment (Col. 2, lines 13-40), indicating that the plasma treatment can be done using a gas consisting of argon and helium. They teach that plasma forming gases can include hydrogen, helium, argon, oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and fluorine containing gases, or any combination thereof (Col. 5, lines 52-63), such that the plasma treating gas can consist essentially of helium and optionally with argon and/or nitrogen. They teach that the power of the plasma may range from 50-5000W or between about 100 and 3000 W with a frequency of about 200 kHz to 13.56 MHz, and a pressure range of between 10 mTorr and 20 Torr, i.e., about 1.33-2666 Pa (Col. 6, lines 20-41). They teach that the process is a hardening treatment (Col. 5, lines 53-63), such that it is considered a curing treatment since it will harden the layers. They teach that a radio frequency source is used to generate the plasma (Col. 7, lines 21-38).
From the teachings of Fox, 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 Rathod to have performed the plasma curing process with a power in the range of 50-5000 W or 100 and 3000 W because Fox teaches that such a plasma power is suitable forhardening a film similar to that of Rathod, i.e., a silicon-containing film formed from dimethoxymethylsilane, using similar gases, i.e., Ar or He, such that it will be expected to provide a desirable plasma for hardening or curing the film. Therefore, in the process of Rathod in view of Fox, the power of the plasma during curing will overlap the range of claim 12. 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.”
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hyodo, US 2004/0038514 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. Rathod teaches using precursors such as DMDMOS, etc. as alternatively to dimethoxymethylsilane (0070).
They do not teach the power of the plasma during polymerization.
Hyodo teaches a method for forming a silicon-containing insulation film and a silicon containing hard film on a substrate (abstract, 0029, and 0095), where the insulation film has a dielectric constant of 2.7 or less (0038), and the hard film has a dielectric constant of 3.5 or lower, 0023, such that the films are considered to be low-k. They teach that the film is formed on a substrate using a plasma CVD apparatus including a reaction chamber and the film is formed by polymerizing gases in the chamber (0021 and 0095). They teach introducing a silicon-containing hydrocarbon compound into the chamber along with an additive gas (0021, 0095, and 0098), where the additive gases include argon and helium (0087 and 0089) and where a carrier gas maybe selected from the group consisting of N2, He, Ne, and Ar (0097). They teach performing a plasma polymerization reaction to form the film (0021 and 0095). Hyodo teaches using precursors of formula 2, which include DMDMOS, where the same silicon hydrocarbon can be used for forming the hard film and the insulation film (0049-0050, 0100, and 0110). They further teach using RF power to form the plasma (abstract). Hyodo further teaches that the formation of the hard film can be conducted in accordance with the processes of forming an insulation film, including conditions such as concentration of gases, flowrates, pressure, and temperature (0102). They teach forming the hard film using a HF power of 1400, 1500, and 1600 W, where the LF power is 200 and 300 W (0114-0115, 0129-0130, and 0144-0145). Therefore, the power to produce the plasma during the step of providing plasma power to polymerize the one or more precursors is within the claimed range for the HF source.
From the teachings of Hyodo, 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 used a HF plasma power of 1400, 1500, or 1600 W and a LF plasma power of 200 or 300 W to polymerize the flowable film because Hyodo teaches that such a plasma power is suitable for polymerizing a film similar to that of Rathod, i.e., a silicon containing film formed from a precursor such as DMDMOS, such that it will be expected to provide a desirable plasma for polymerization and solidification of the flowable film when using dimethyoxymethylsilane since they are indicated as being alternatives to one another by Rathod. Therefore, the HF power 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.”
Regarding claim 14, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach using a HF and LF plasma power for polymerizing the precursors.
As discussed above, Hyodo provides the suggestion of using a HF and LF power to polymerize the flowable film during solidification. Hyodo further teaches that the formation of the hard film can be conducted in accordance with the processes of forming an insulation film, including conditions such as concentration of gases, flow rates, pressure, and temperature (0102). They teach applying low-frequency RF power and high-frequency RF power (abstract). They teach that the frequency of the low frequency source is 2 MHz or less, including 400 kHz, 200 kHz, etc. (0096). They teach that the frequency of the high-frequency source is greater than 2MHz, such as 13.4 MHz (0096 and 0114).
From the teachings of Hyodo, 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 used a HF plasma with a frequency in the range of greater than 2 MHz, such as 13.4 MHz and LF plasma with a frequency in the range of 2 MHz or less, including 400 kHz, 200 kHz, etc. because Hyodo teaches that such plasma frequencies are suitable for polymerizing a film similar to that of Rathod such that it will be expected to provide a desirable plasma for polymerization and solidification of the film. Therefore, the frequency of the power to produce the plasma during the step of providing the plasma power to polymerize the one or more precursors comprises a high frequency and a lower frequency within the claimed ranges. 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.”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ditizio, US 2010/0285237 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Rathod suggests the process of claim 1. Rathod does not indicate that the plasma has any directionality or applying a bias. They teach that the process of filling the gap may be multicyclic, including the curing step (0041 and Fig. 1).
They do not specifically teach that the plasma is isotropic during curing.
Ditizio teaches a nanolayer deposition process that includes a cyclic sequential deposition process and then introducing a second precursor for plasma treating the deposited layer (abstract). They teach that the plasma can be isotropic, anisotropic, or a combination thereof to optimize the effectiveness of the treatment of the thin deposited layers (abstract). They teach that the plasma is used to modify the film properties or surface properties of the deposited film by one or more of extracting unwanted impurities, incorporating additional or new elements, exchanging elements in the deposited film, and changing the stoichiometry of elements in the layer (0024). They teach that other changes to the film properties, such as electrical or thermal resistivity or crystallinity, among others, might occur concurrently with these changes (0024). They teach that an isotropic plasma (e.g. non-directional) can react equally in all directions, thus allowing similar treatment of sidewall surface in a high aspect ratio trench as compared to the preferential treatment of only the top and bottom planar surface (0051). They teach that a bias can be applied to attract the plasma species toward the substrate (0052). They teach that when the bias power is very low or zero watts in the "low" state of a pulsed bias power operational mode, the treatment is more isotropic leading to more effective treatment of vertical sidewalls in device features on a substrate (0069).
From the teachings of Ditizio, 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 Rathod to have optimized the plasma during curing to include an isotropic plasma treatment because Rathod does not indicate that a bias or direction is provided during curing and because Ditizio teaches that an isotropic plasma, anisotropic plasma, or combination thereof can be used to optimize the plasma treatment of a film, where isotropic plasma treatments are non-directional so as to react equally in all directions to allow a similar treatment on sidewall surface such that it will be expected to provide a suitable plasma for treating the entire surface of the substrate during the multicycle process of filling the gap.
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