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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/26/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 8/26/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 4,7 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 18-22 have been withdrawn. Claim 23 has been added. Hence, claims 1-3,5,6, 8-15,17 and 23 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3,5,6,8-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550).
Li et al. (2019/0367743) teaches forming materials using alkyl amines and an organic solvent [0049]. Li et al. (2019/0367743) teaches coating a material (102) with the amine coating (104) and leaving the substrate (106) uncoated. While this doesn’t teach or state “selective coating” the Examiner takes the position that it does at least suggest selective coating of the material (102) vs the substrate (106).
Li et al. (2019/0367743) fails to teach a substrate having a metal or metal oxide surface and non-metal surface whereby the metal surface includes one of the metals or metal oxides claimed as well as the atmospheric pressure of depositing to be between 13 Pa and 67 kPa.
Tois et al. (2017/0352550) teaches a similar process of depositing organic films including selective deposition on one of the surfaces relative to the other surface. Polymer films are formed on the first metallic surface relative to the dielectric surface and the first metallic surface includes metals claimed including aluminum (Al), Copper (Cu), cobalt (Co)and nickel (Ni) (abstract and [0039]). Tois et al. (2017/0352550) also teach the atmospheric pressure for deposition to be from 1mTorr – 760 Torr which is equivalent to 0.133kPa – 133 kPa [0091] (which is overlapping to the claimed range of 13Pa to 67 kPa).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art for before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. (2019/0367743) process to form the organic film on a metallic surface including the claimed metals as well as the deposition in the claimed atmospheric pressures as evidenced by Tois et al. (2017/0352550) with the expectation of producing selective coating in the desired areas to avoid unnecessary subsequent removal steps which could damage substrate and/or coating.
Regarding claim 1, this would include where “n” is 0 then R4 and R5 are not present leaving a N as the nitrogen, R2 and R3 as hydrogens and R1 having the carbon having fewer than 3 carbons. With respect to the hetero atom selected from oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus, the hetero atom is claimed as “optional” and therefore can be omitted and hence the limitation of the hetero atom being oxygen, sulfur or phosphorus is not required.
Regarding claim 2, the coatings are in monolayers and would be applied to satisfy the claims 5 or higher as the coating is applied to the material (104) and not (106) which meets the selective coating (Fig. 1B)
Regarding claim 3, R2 and R3 would be hydrogen as the precursor is an amine (RNH2).
Regarding claim 4, the deposition can be in gaseous state as it can be applied between the melting and boiling temperatures which would make it a gaseous state [0025]. Also teaches liquid or gas state [0035].
Regarding claims 5 and 9-11, Li et al. (2019/0367743) teaches R2 and R3 would be hydrogen and the carbon groups would include C1-C30 and C6-C24 as the precursor is an alkyl amine including those claimed n-octylamine, n-hexylamine, n-decylamine and n-butylamine [0028],3[0054].
Regarding claim 6, the temperature of substrate during deposition is at room temperature which would be within the claimed range and teaches boiling temps of 78C for the claimed precursors n-butylamine and 133C for n-hexylamine [0054] with temperatures from 25-300C [0055].
Regarding claim 12-14, Li et al. (2019/0367743) teaches the claimed solvents and amounts as the claimed (isopropanol and ethanol) [0049] and [0027].
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. (2019/0367743) teaches cleaning, i.e. claimed washing, the coating with the solvent [0027].
Regarding claim 17, the dielectric part of the substrate includes a silicon dioxide [0039].
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) further in combination with Haukka et al. (2015/0299848).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) are incorporated here.
Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) fail to teach coating a second film on the second surface after coating a first film on the first surface.
Haukka et al. (2015/0299848) teaches a dual selective deposition process whereby a first material is coated on a first surface of a substrate and then a second material is coated on a second surface of the substrate (abstract). The deposition process includes ALD [0415].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) process to include coating a second layer on the second surface as evidenced by Haukka et al. (2015/0299848) with the expectation of producing selective coating layers on the surface of a substrate.
Claims 1-3,5,6,8-15,17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) further in combination with Maes et al. (2020/0105515).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) are incorporated here.
Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) fail to teach the claimed deposition pressures of 13PA to 67 kPa as well as coating a second film on the second surface after coating a first film on the first surface.
Maes et al. (2020/0105515) teaches a similar selective deposition process whereby a first surface is coated with an inhibitor and then a second surface relative to the first surface is coated with a layer (abstract). Maes et al. (2020/0105515) teaches the substrate surfaces to include metal and dielectric and selectively coating on the metallic surfaces by a vapor deposition process (includes CVD and ALD) [0090] while the coating layer to include amines [0125] and coating pressures of 1mTorr to 760 Torr [0122] which overlap the claimed pressures of 13Pa to 67 kPa or 0.1Torr to 500 Torr.
Therefore, it would have bene obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li et al. (2019/0367743) in combination with Tois et al. (2017/0352550) process to include the claimed deposition pressures and a second coating step as evidenced by Maes et al. (2020/0105515) with the expectation of similar success.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3,5,6,8-15,17 and 23 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.
Applicant argued Li et al. (2019/0367743) failed to teach the claimed atmospheric pressures for deposition as it teaches higher pressures.
The Examiner agrees and has applied Tois et al. (2017/0352550) which teaches overlapping ranges of the atmospheric pressures for deposition. It has been well settled that overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of Tois et al. (2017/0352550) pressure range (0.133kPa – 67 kPa) that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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 on 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715