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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 1/27/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. Examiner notes the amendment to claims. Claims 1-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Here, as outlined at length, taking the level of one of ordinary skill in the art as well as the full disclosure of the prior art, the examiner maintains that a prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth in the below office action. If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Here, the applicant’s mere arguments that the specific claimed times are not specifically disclosed together is not sufficient rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal evidence may include evidence of "secondary considerations," such as "commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, [and] failure of others." Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 4459, 467. See also, e.g., In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1473, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (commercial success). Rebuttal evidence may also include evidence that the claimed invention yields unexpectedly improved properties or properties not present in the prior art. Rebuttal evidence may consist of a showing that the claimed compound possesses unexpected properties. Dillon, 919 F.2d at 692-93, 16 USPQ2d at 1901. A showing of unexpected results must be based on evidence, not argument or speculation. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343-44, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2145.
Here, the claims are open to any number of substrate materials, SAM materials, deposition materials (undefined, see e.g. claim 5), precursors materials (comprise TEA, but can include any other materials not specifically defined), reactant materials (undefined by the claims, but can include any materials) and other process parameters (temperature, pressure, etc., see e.g. Wu as discussed above as well as dependent claims) that directly affect the deposition and the very narrow arguments that appear to align with a very specific example in the specification does not support the entire breadth of the claims as drafted.
Applicant argues that the number of cycles is not a result effective variable. The examiner disagrees, as noted by Wu, the process cycle can be repeated to form a film having a desired thickness and thus supports the position that the cycles do have a specific result. The Applicant’s argue that the instant claimed 75 cycles have a selectivity above 0.98 are noted, but this is specific to a single embodiment that is not specifically emcompassed by the totality of the claim as claimed. As for the total number of cycles, the examiner notes that Wu discloses repeating the cycles (0101, 0105) more than once and thus overlaps the claimed range and makes obvious such. Additionally, Wu discloses that the number of cycles is to provide a thickness and thus the amount of cycles is a result effective variable, directly affecting the deposited thickness and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum thickness through routine experimentation to deposit the desired and optimum coating thickness.
Regardless, Wu discloses the blocking/selectivity and discloses “The process cycle may be repeated to form an aluminum oxide film on the metal layer, the aluminum oxide film having a thickness of about 2 nm to about 10 nm, and the dielectric layer substantially free of aluminum oxide.” And discloses “As used herein, the term “substantially free” means that there is less than 5%, including less than 4%, less than 3%, less than 2%, less than 1%, and less than 0.5% of the metal oxide that forms the metal oxide film 302 present on the dielectric layer 104” (0083) and therefore meets the claim requirement of greater than 0.98.
All other arguments are deemed to be unpersuasive as unsupported by commensurate factual evidence and thus mere attorney speculation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20200090924 by Wu et al.
Examiner incorporates herein by reference the Response to Arguments Section above.
Claim 1: Wu discloses a method for selective atomic layer deposition (ALD), the method comprising: applying an ALD precursor to a substrate and performing selective ALD of a deposition material over the substrate (title, 0033, examples). Wu discloses triethyl aluminum as precursors for forming the ALD film (0056). Wu discloses a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) over the substrate to pattern for the selective ALD (0133, 0034) as a “blocking layer” and thus meets the requirement of minimizing deposition, inherent in “blocking” function without etching. At the least, the prior art discloses a SAM and the same precursors and thus must necessarily have the same result as claimed.
Wu does not explicitly disclose the Veff as claimed. However, a full and fair reading of the specification illustrates that this is a physical property of the vapor gases, specifically, the effective average molecular size is a latent property of the precursor, see 0076 of the applicant’s specification which illustrates the Veff ¬of the disclosed precursors, including TEA. Therefore the examiner notes that this Veff is a latent property and would be embodied by the prior art disclosure of the same precursors as applicant’s disclose has the claimed the effective average molecular size. The latent properties are merely a recognition of properties that would flow naturally from the use of the known precursors. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
In other words, Veff while unrecognized by the prior art, this property appears to be no more than a physical property that flows naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art. The submission of evidence that a new product possesses unexpected properties does not necessarily require a conclusion that the claimed invention is nonobvious. In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979). See the discussion of latent properties and additional advantages in MPEP § 2145.
Wu discloses performing selective ALD of the deposition material over the substrate comprises using one or more process parameters optimized to the ALD precursor, including one or more process parameters optimized to the ALD precursor comprise one or more of growth temperature, precursor partial pressure, precursor dosing time, precursor dosing pressure, purging time, reactant dosing time, reactant dosing pressure, and number of cycles (0084-0091).
Wu also disclosing controlling the process relative to the SAM and blocking and controlling the process to block ALD deposition and increase blocking and minimize the deposition on the SAM and 0083 related to minimizing the deposition (0083) to provide selectivity. Wu discloses “reaction conditions, including temperature, pressure, processing time . . . can be selected to obtain the desired level of selective deposition” (0084). Wu discloses a precursors exposure, first purge, reactant exposure, purge and a total number of cycles, see Figure 1. As for the reactant and precursors times, Wu specifically discloses 1 second at 0087 and 0088. As for the purge time, the examiner notes that the purge time is a result effective variable, to “chamber is purged of the organometallic precursor and/or reactant”(0089) and therefore illustrates that the purge time is a result effective variable directly affecting the degree of purge (too low and improper removal and too high will not result in added benefits of additional removal) and determination of the optimum time of purge would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As for the total number of cycles, the examiner notes that Wu discloses repeating the cycles (0101, 0105) more than once and thus overlaps the claimed range and makes obvious such. Additionally, Wu discloses that the number of cycles is to provide a thickness and thus the amount of cycles is a result effective variable, directly affecting the deposited thickness and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimum thickness through routine experimentation to deposit the desired and optimum coating thickness.
Additionally, the examiner notes Wu discloses the use of the organometallic precursors that include a large diameter and such leads to selectivity improvements (0083) and that when the diameter of the precursor are larger the SAM inhibits the adsorbing of the precursor more readily and enhanced blocking exists (00132). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have controlled and optimized the molecular size, including the average molecular size, as Wu discloses the size of the vapor molecules will directly affect selectivity. Wu discloses controlling the process parameters to achieve desired selective deposition and their effect on the deposition and as such it would have been obvious through routine experimentation to increase and/or decrease the known variables to achieve the desired and optimum deposition.
As for the selectivity above 0.98, the examiner notes Wu discloses the blocking/selectivity and discloses “the process cycle may be repeated to form an aluminum oxide film on the metal layer, the aluminum oxide film having a thickness of about 2 nm to about 10 nm, and the dielectric layer substantially free of aluminum oxide.” And discloses “As used herein, the term “substantially free” means that there is less than 5%, including less than 4%, less than 3%, less than 2%, less than 1%, and less than 0.5% of the metal oxide that forms the metal oxide film 302 present on the dielectric layer 104” (0083) and therefore meets the claim requirement of greater than 0.98. At the very least, Wu discloses the selectivity and blocking is optimized and desired to increase so as to increase selectivity and prevent deposition on non-desired areas (see 0086 “decrease in process pressure with help with blocking”, 0042 “deposited using a large diameter aluminum precursor provides much better selectivity”, 0085, “higher process temperature leads to higher selectivity.” And therefore as Wu specifically desires to increase selectivity, it would have been obvious to have optimized selectivity to achieve the desired selectivity, including 0.995 (less than 0.5%) via routine experimentation.
Claims 2-4: TEA is taught by the applicants as having a Veff of 140.2.
Claims 5: Wu discloses alumina (metal chalcogenide).
Claims 6-7: Wu discloses performing selective ALD of the deposition material over the substrate comprises using one or more process parameters optimized to the ALD precursor, including one or more process parameters optimized to the ALD precursor comprise one or more of growth temperature, precursor partial pressure, precursor dosing time, precursor dosing pressure, purging time, reactant dosing time, reactant dosing pressure, and number of cycles (0084-0091).
Claim 8: Wu discloses performing selective ALD of aluminum oxide over the substrate using the one or more process parameters comprises decreasing the precursor partial pressure or precursor dosing time to improve selectivity of the ALD (0086, sating decreasing process pressure will help with blocking, see also 0087 related to dosing time)
Claim 9: Wu discloses performing selective ALD of aluminum oxide over the substrate using the one or more process parameters comprises increasing the purging time (0089), the results of adjusting the adjusting the purging time will necessarily flow from the use.
Claim 10: Wu discloses performing selective ALD of aluminum oxide over the substrate using the one or more process parameters comprises decreasing the growth temperature to improve selectivity of the ALD (0085, related to undesirable damage).
Claim 12: Wu discloses selective ALD, the method comprising: applying an ALD precursor to a substrate, wherein the ALD precursor comprises an aluminum alkyl compound that meets the claim requirement (TTBA, TEA, 0056) and performing selective ALD of a deposition material over the substrate.
Claims 13-14: Alumina is taught by Wu at 0131, which is a metal chalcogenide.
Claim 15: Wu discloses performing selective ALD of the deposition material over the substrate comprises using one or more process parameters optimized to the ALD precursor, the one or more process parameters comprising one or more of growth temperature, precursor partial pressure, precursor dosing time, purging time, purging pressure, reactant dosing time, reactant dosing pressure, and number of cycles (0084-0091),
Claim 16: Wu discloses performing selective ALD of the deposition material over the substrate using the one or more process parameters comprises, including the temperature, pressure and times to obtain the desired level of selectivity, including lower temperature, decreasing precursor partial pressure, see e.g. 0085-0088).
Additionally with respect to each of Claim 6-11, 15-16: Wu discloses controlling the process parameters to achieve desired selective deposition and their effect on the deposition and as such it would have been obvious through routine experimentation to increase and/or decrease the known variables to achieve the desired and optimum deposition.
Claim 18: Wu discloses the substrate comprises silicon (0038).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu taken with US Patent Application Publication 20190164749 by Tapily.
Wu discloses the substrate comprises a metal and dielectric (0133) and depositing a SAM; however, fails to disclose the type of SAM for blocking. However Tapily, also discloses a SAM as a blocking layer for selective deposition and discloses organosilane (0025, 0026) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have modified Wu to use the known SAM, including organosilanes, as Wu discloses using SAMs for blocking for ALD deposition and Tapily discloses organosilanes are known SAMs for blocking for ALD deposition. A predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a predictable result is prima facie obvious. See KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718