DETAILED ACTION
As of the Response to Restriction/Election Requirement filed on June 11, 2026, claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 19 – 20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I, claims 1 – 18 in the reply filed on June 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/720214, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1:
Claim 1 as presented comprises the steps of [emphasis added]:
providing a substrate within a reaction chamber, the substrate comprising one or more recesses formed on a surface of the substrate;
forming a first carbon layer overlying the surface by depositing a first carbon layer and treating the first carbon layer with a first ion energy level and a first flux;
forming a second carbon layer overlying the first carbon layer by depositing a second carbon layer and treating the second carbon layer with a second ion energy level and a second flux, wherein, at least one of:
the second ion energy level is greater than the first ion energy level, or the second flux is greater than the first flux.
The claims as presented are not originally presented in the originally filed claims of the parent application, and are not expressly recited terms in the originally filed parent application. The closest originally filed claims to the claimed subject matter within the parent application include original claim 1 and original dependent claims 4, 8, and 9. In each of these parent application-claims, the claims require that the formed carbon layers have specific initial flowabilities and that such initially flowable layers are subsequently treated. However as presented, instant claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1 does not require an initially flowable layer that is subsequently treated. The scope of the claims therefore allow for initially solid carbon layers that are subsequently treated. The scope of instant claim 1 and claims dependent on claim 1 therefore is of a broader scope than what is originally claimed. For instance, the instant claims can encompass initially deposited diamond layers that are subsequently treated with solar radiation such as e.g. solar wind or with a variable ion beam or electron beam. Likewise the original disclosure focuses on carbon layer films having an initial flowability and/or a consideration of flowability.
While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. See MPEP 2163.02 and In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200, 170 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1971). If a claim is amended to include subject matter, limitations, or terminology not present in the application as filed, involving a departure from, addition to, or deletion from the disclosure of the application as filed, the examiner should conclude that the claimed subject matter is not described in that application. MPEP 2163.02.
As stated above, the disclosure substantially is limited to discussion of the treatment and solidification of initially flowable carbon films and treatment from plasma sources. See e.g. paragraphs [0009] – [0010], [0034] – [0035], [0037], [0070].
While paragraph [0025] of the originally filed parent specification does indicate that the exemplary methods can form two or more carbon layers having different properties in general, it does not disclose that any initially deposited carbon layer is subsequently treated, but rather only those initially deposited carbon layers that have the property of flowability as determinable with respect to recesses of a substrate surface and a ratio of film thickness after a given deposition (see [0034]).
The instant claims can therefore be thought as broader than the disclosure in the parent application by omission of a limitation, which raises an issue regarding whether the inventor had possession of a broader, more generic invention. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As the parent application insists on the criticality of depositing initially flowable layers and then subsequent treatment with the ion flux and or an ion density from a plasma source, the instant claims omits an element which applicant describes as an essential or critical feature of the invention originally disclosed, which does not comply with the written description requirement and introduces New Matter. See Gentry Gallery, 134 F.3d at 1480, 45 USPQ2d at 1503; In re Sus, 306 F.2d 494, 504, 134 USPQ 301, 309 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, there is no reasonable conveyance to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor or joint inventor has possession of the claimed invention at the time the parent application was filed.
For the purpose of art rejections, the Examiner determines that the effective filing date of the present application to be November 26, 2025.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. US 2018/0274100 A1 (hereinafter “Yang”) in view of Gottheim et al. US 2019/0385907 A1 (hereinafter “Gottheim”) and Li et al. US 2022/0364230 A1 (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18:
Yang is directed to methods of forming layers of diamond-like carbon on workpieces (Abstract). Yang discloses that embodiments of their method comprise: providing a substrate/workpiece into their disclosed processing chamber ([0009], [0041], [0048]); depositing a first diamond-like carbon layer onto the substrate and then subsequently treating the first carbon layer, thus forming a first carbon layer (Fig. 4; [0084]); and repeating the steps of depositing a diamond-like carbon layer and then treating the first carbon layer [with a cycle of 1], thus forming a second carbon layer [with a cycle of 1, partially meeting claim 18](Fig. 4; [0084]).
Yang discloses that the treatment process for the deposited diamond-like carbon layers comprises supplying an inert gas ([0079]); supplying radio frequency power between an upper electrode and a lower electrode 114 or 110 ([0080], [0083]) and thus exposing the substrate/workpiece to a plasma with or without a secondary beam of electrons.
Yang does not expressly teach that the substrate comprises one or more recesses formed on a surface thereof; and that the second ion energy level is greater than a first ion energy level.
With regards to the substrate comprising on or more recesses formed on a surface thereof:
Gottheim is directed to processes for high bias deposition of materials for gapfill applications (Abstract), particularly of carbon-based materials ([0005], [0009]). Gottheim discloses that their process may be practiced with an apparatus that is similar to those disclosed by Yang (see Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0038] – [0045] of Gottheim and compare to Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0040] – [0055] of Yang).
Gottheim discloses that the substrates that are processed contain narrow trenches [recesses] that are to be filled in order to separate circuit elements ([0003] – [0005], [0148]; Fig. 5A, 5B). Gottheim further discloses that carbon films having large amount of diamond/sp3 hybridization are advantageous in filling such trenches; such films have high density and modulus alongside low stress, and high etch selectivity ([0032] – [0033], [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yang by processing a substrate containing recesses because Gottheim teaches that carbon gapfilling processes are advantageous to such substrates because carbon-material, as processed by a chemical vapor deposition such as those taught by both Yang and Gottheim, create gapfills with desired properties such as high etch selectivity and low stress.
With regards to the second ion energy level is greater than a first ion energy level:
In analogous arts, Li is directed to methods and apparatus for forming barrier layers, including e.g. carbon-doped silicon oxides and other carbides ([0016], [0021], [0027], [0059]). Li discloses a method comprising the steps of depositing a layer on a substrate comprising a feature such as a trench, wherein the layer becomes an exposed layer; and then treating the exposed layer by pulsing a bias power applied to a substrate support while the substrate is exposed to a plasma, and then repeating the steps where the newly deposited layer becomes the new exposed layer (Fig. 2; [0046] – [0048], [0016], [0055] – [0057]). The treatment process is used to e.g. increase film density ([0045]).
In an embodiment, Li also discloses that the treatment process may apply a radio frequency bias power a monotonically increasing or decreasing magnitude over time ([0050]; Fig. 3). The lower bias power level may be used to initially soft treat an exposed surface and prepare a surface to receive a high-power mode, which would bring more ions that allow for opening of a recessed feature or assist with sidewall treatment of such features [fully meeting growth for claim 18, claim 5] ([0045]). Such a feature also helps prevent damage to the film or underlying dielectric layer.
Li therefore expressly suggests that each repetition of the formation of a film may comprise a treatment at a first lower bias level and a higher bias level; thus mapping to a first deposited carbon layer including a first treatment at a first lower bias level (alongside a higher second bias level), and a second deposited carbon layer including a second treatment at a second higher bias level (alongside a lower first bias level).
Li likewise also fairly implies treatments where first layers are treated at lower bias levels while subsequent layers are treated at higher bias levels in order to minimize damage to underlying layers ([0045]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the ion energy and ion flux is directly proportional to the applied bias power on a substrate pedestal in at least plasma processes involving a radio frequency substrate bias, as evidenced by e.g Kikuchi US 20120100725 A1 at paragraph [0035], and Ahn et al. US 8211626 B2 at col 1 line 45 – col 2 line 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yang in view of Gottheim by exposing the first carbon film and the second carbon film to both a first flux/ion density and a second flux/ion density via control of a RF substrate bias, wherein the second flux/ion density is greater than the first flux/ion density. Alternatively it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yang in view of Gottheim by exposing the first carbon film to a first flux/ion density and expose the second carbon film to a second flux/ion density via control of a RF substrate bias, wherein the second flux/ion density is greater than the first flux/ion density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Li teaches that such treatments allow for an initial soft treat of a substrate or underlying film and prepare a surface to receive a high-power mode, which would bring more ions that allow for opening of a recessed feature or assist with sidewall treatment of such features, and increases overall film density.
Regarding claims 3, 4:
Yang discloses that the feedstock precursor gas for depositing films may be e.g. C2H2 [x = 2, y is a natural number of 2, z is 0, a is 0] ([0067]).
Regarding claim 9, 12:
Yang does not expressly teach that the first carbon layer is treated with the first plasma process for a first treatment time, wherein the second carbon layer is treated with the second plasma process for a second treatment time, and wherein the second treatment time is greater than the first treatment time. Similarly, Yang does not expressly teach the recited differences in deposition time.
Li discloses that a total treatment does is a function of ion energy and time of treatment ([0045]). Li also suggests that the duration of treatment between a low bias magnitude treatment may be different from the duration treatment of a high bias magnitude treatment (Fig. 3; [0049] – [0050]). Each treatment is disclosed to improve different resultant properties ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Yang in view of Gottheim and Li by having the first carbon layer treated with the first plasma process for a first treatment time, have the second carbon layer treated with the second plasma process for a second treatment time, having the second treatment time is greater than the first treatment time, and/or forming the first and second carbon layers with different deposition times as a matter of routine experimentation in order to obtain a carbon gapfill with desired gradient properties. "[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 claims 14, 15:
Yang discloses that the deposition process may be carried out at temperatures between 10 to 60 °C ([0075]) and that curing occurs in the same chamber as deposition in alternation ([0084]).
Regarding claims 16, 17:
Yang discloses that the curing/plasma treatment occurs using inert gases such as He or Ar ([0079]).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanquart et al. US 2020/0013612 A1 (hereafter “Blanquart”) in view of Li.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7:
Blanquart is directed to a method of depositing silicon-free carbon-containing films onto substrates with multiple recesses such as multiple trenches (Abstract; [0003], [0042]; Fig. 9). In an embodiment, Blanquart discloses a method comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction space of a reactor ([0087] – [0088], [0113] – [0116]); depositing a first Si-free C-containing film without filling capability under first process conditions to act as a reference film ([0087], [0069]; Claim 15); and 1.) depositing a second Si-free C-containing film with filling capability under second process conditions onto the substrate with the deposited reference film and then treating the Si-free C-containing film with a plasma [meeting claim 5] ([0063], [0093] – [0097]). Blanquart defines filling capability as a “flowable film” ([0062]), thus Blanquart teaches a specific embodiment where the first carbon layer has an initial flowability of zero1, and a second carbon layer having an initial flowability that is more than zero.
Blanquart does not expressly teach that the first process conditions include a first ion energy level and a first flux, the second process conditions include a second ion energy level and a second flux, and that that the second ion energy or the second flux is greater than the first ion energy or the first flux, respectively.
The disclosure of Li discussed above in the rejection of the claims under 35 USC over Yang in view of Gottheim and Li also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blanquart by exposing the first carbon film and the second carbon film to both a first flux/ion density and a second flux/ion density via control of a RF substrate bias, wherein the second flux/ion density is greater than the first flux/ion density. Alternatively it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blanquart by exposing the first carbon film to a first flux/ion density and expose the second carbon film to a second flux/ion density via control of a RF substrate bias, wherein the second flux/ion density is greater than the first flux/ion density. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Li teaches that such treatments allow for an initial soft treat of a substrate or underlying film and prepare a surface to receive a high-power mode, which would bring more ions that allow for opening of a recessed feature or assist with sidewall treatment of such features, and increases overall film density.
Regarding claims 3, 4:
The precursors between the reference film and fillable film may be the same ([0087]).
Furthermore, that precursor may be e.g. mesitylene (1,3,5-trimethyl benzene) [CxHyNzOa compound, where z and a are 0] ([0069]).
Regarding claim 8:
Blanquart discloses that in some embodiments, the plasma power used for treatment [second plasma process in view of the indefiniteness of the claims] may be conducted at a power ranges between 50 to 10000W with a 300mm wafer as a reference ([0097]). Blanquart also discloses that the plasma power during deposition [first plasma process] may likewise be within the same range ([0083]) and that the filling-capable film can be deposited at power of e.g. 175 in specific embodiments (Table 8). Blanquart therefore suggests embodiments where the plasma power at deposition overlaps with the plasma power at treatment. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66(Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, 12:
Blanquart does not expressly teach that the first carbon layer is treated with the first plasma process for a first treatment time, wherein the second carbon layer is treated with the second plasma process for a second treatment time, and wherein the second treatment time is greater than the first treatment time.
The disclosure of Li discussed above in the rejection of the claims under 35 USC over Yang in view of Gottheim and Li also apply to the present rejection, mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Blanquart in view of Li by having the first carbon layer treated with the first plasma process for a first treatment time, have the second carbon layer treated with the second plasma process for a second treatment time, having the second treatment time is greater than the first treatment time, and/or forming the first and second carbon layers with different deposition times as a matter of routine experimentation in order to obtain a carbon gapfill with desired gradient properties. "[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 13:
Blanquart discloses that the growth of the filling-capable film results in a planar surface, i.e. the surface is planarized ([0041]).
The resultant second carbon layer is planarized as a substantially planar surface is formed ([0065]).
Regarding claim 16, 17:
During formation of the second carbon film, the deposition of the initial film my occur suing a carrier gas of He N2 or Ar. Treatment of second carbon film the same ([0092]), [0097]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12506000 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the application claims 1 – 18 are to be found in patent claims 1 – 21 (as the application claims fully encompasses patent claim 1 – 21). The difference between the application claims 1 – 18 and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claims include many more elements and is thus more specific. Thus the invention of claims 1 – 21 of the patent are in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of the application claim 1 – 18. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated" by the “species". See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir.1993). Since application claims 1 – 18 is anticipated by claims 1 – 21 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1 – 21 of the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Narwankar et al. US 2001/0001175 A1
Dornfest et al. US 2009/0017222 A1
Fields et al. US 2022/0351940 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:30.
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 on (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.
/JOSE I HERNANDEZ-KENNEY/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
1 The Examiner notes that a non-flowable film would still have an initial flowability under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims consistent with the specification. See e.g. paragraph 34 which defines that the scope of considered flowability includes “None”, i.e. 0.
Prosecution Insights