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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11-12, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (US 2017/0102612) in view of Meyers et al. (US 2016/0116839).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Meyers et al. (US’612) teach a method of forming a metal-oxo photoresist [0009,0029,0034] on a substrate, comprising: repeating a deposition cycle [0033], wherein each iteration of the deposition cycle comprises: a) flowing a metal-comprising precursor into a chamber comprising the substrate (CVD, PVD, ALD); and b) flowing an oxidant (water) into the chamber, wherein the oxidant and the metal-comprising precursor react to form the metal-oxo photoresist [0009], wherein the metal-comprising precursor comprises a general formula of MRxLy, where X = 1, 2 and Y = 4-X (i.e. RnSnXn-4) (Claim 9; [0007,0009,0144]), and wherein M is a metal (e.g. tin, hafnium, zirconium, tungsten, tantalum, cobalt, nickel, indium, antimony, bismuth, tellurium), and R is a linear, branched, or cyclic alkyl [0058,0032,0034,0047,0143-0145]). L, designated “X” in US’612 can be Cl (i.e. chloro ligand) in combination with hydrocarbyl R groups that include both straight-chain and branched-chain alkyl, cyclo-alkyl [0080]. US’612 further suggests a broader halide group [0051,0058,0077]. US’612 fails to teach specifically a bromine. Meyers et al. (US’839) is analogous art in the field of organotin precursors for vapor deposition [0119] and teaches analogous general formulas for hydrolysable organotin compounds (e.g. RSnX3, X=1, Y=3, and X can be Br) (Claim 29; [0016]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’612 with an organotin precursor with the recited formula, including X = Br, because US’839 suggests that the chlorine of a hydrolysable organotin precursor with a general formula in US’612 can be substituted with a bromine to obtain a suitable hydrolysable organotin precursor for vapor deposition.
Regarding Claim 2, US’612 teaches at least one iteration of the deposition cycle, the chamber is purged between operation a) and operation b) [0143-0145].
Regarding Claim 3, US’612 teaches that in at least one iteration of the deposition cycle, the chamber is purged after operation b) and before operation a) of a successive deposition cycle [0144-0145].
Regarding Claim 4, the oxidant (water) comprises two or more constituents (H and O) and the metal-comprising precursor comprises two or more constituents (see formulas in the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 5, US’612 teaches different metalorganic precursors (i.e. “metal precursor”) and cycles including a metalorganic precursor and a second precursor containing oxygen (See rejection of Claims 1 and 11 above). US’612 fails to expressly teach a first and second deposition cycle using different metalorganic precursors. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to practice the invention including cycles of metalorganic precursor and oxidant with a taught metalorganic precursor, whether the same or different, without evidence that one would necessarily restrict it to a single precursor, because US’612 does not specifically limit cycles of deposition to a single species of precursor.
Regarding Claim 7, since US’612 teaches cycles of precursors the end of one cycle of a) and b)) is followed by a cycle a); in other words, b) happens before a).
Regarding 12, an oxidant comprises water [0145].
Regarding Claim 14, US’612 teaches a method of forming a metal-oxo photoresist [0009,0029,0034] on a substrate, comprising: repeating a deposition cycle [0033], wherein each iteration of the deposition cycle comprises: a) flowing a metal-comprising precursor into a chamber comprising the substrate; and b) flowing an oxidant (water) into the chamber, wherein the oxidant and the metal-comprising precursor react to form the metal-oxo photoresist, wherein the metal-comprising precursor comprises a general formula of MRxLy, where X = 1, 2 and Y = 4-X (i.e. RnSnXn-4) (Claim 9; [0007,0009,0144]), and wherein M is a metal (e.g. tin, hafnium, zirconium, tungsten, tantalum, cobalt, nickel, indium, antimony, bismuth, tellurium), and R is a linear, branched, or cyclic alkyl [0058,0032,0034,0047,0143-0145]). L, designated “X” in US’612 can be Cl (i.e. chloro ligand) in combination with hydrocarbyl R groups that include both straight-chain and branched-chain alkyl, cyclo-alkyl [0080]. US’612 further teaches treating the metal-oxo photoresist with a plasma treatment after a first number of iterations of the deposition cycle [0004,0098]. US’612 further suggests a broader halide group [0051,0058,0077]. US’612 fails to teach specifically a bromine. Meyers et al. (US’839) is analogous art in the field of organotin precursors for vapor deposition [0119] and teaches analogous general formulas for hydrolysable organotin compounds (e.g. RSnX3, X=1, Y=3, and X can be Br) (Claim 29; [0016]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’612 with an organotin precursor with the recited formula, including X = Br, because US’839 suggests that the chlorine of a hydrolysable organotin precursor with a general formula in US’612 can be substituted with bromine to obtain a suitable hydrolysable organotin precursor for vapor deposition.
Regarding Claim 19, US’612 teaches a method of forming a metal-oxo photoresist [0009,0029,0034] on a substrate, comprising: repeating a deposition cycle [0033], wherein each iteration of the deposition cycle comprises: a) flowing a metal-comprising precursor into a chamber comprising the substrate; b) purging the chamber after each step of inputting a precursor [0145]; c) flowing an oxidant (“second precursor,” including, for example,water) into the chamber, wherein the oxidant and the metal-comprising precursor react to form the metal-oxo photoresist, wherein the metal-comprising precursor comprises a general formula of MRxLy, where X = 1, 2 and Y = 4-X (i.e. RnSnXn-4) (Claim 9; [0007,0009,0144]), and wherein M is a metal (e.g. tin, hafnium, zirconium, tungsten, tantalum, cobalt, nickel, indium, antimony, bismuth, tellurium), and R is a linear, branched, or cyclic alkyl [0058,0032,0034,0047,0143-0145]). L, designated “X” in US’612 can be Cl (i.e. chloro ligand) in combination with hydrocarbyl R groups that include both straight-chain and branched-chain alkyl, cyclo-alkyl [0080]. US’612 further teaches d) purging the chamber after each step of inputting a precursor [0145]. US’612 further suggests a broader halide group [0051,0058,0077]. US’612 fails to teach specifically a bromine. Meyers et al. (US’839) is analogous art in the field of organotin precursors for vapor deposition [0119] and teaches analogous general formulas for hydrolysable organotin compounds (e.g. RSnX3, X=1, Y=3, and X can be Br) (Claim 29; [0016]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of US’612 with an organotin precursor with the recited formula, including X = Br, because US’839 suggests that the chlorine of a hydrolysable organotin precursor with a general formula in US’612 can be substituted with a bromine to obtain a suitable hydrolysable organotin precursor for vapor deposition.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (US 2017/0102612) in view of Meyers et al. (US 2016/0116839) as applied to Claims 1,14, and 19 above, and further in view of Huotari et al. (US 2020/0176246).
Regarding Claim 6, US’612 teaches an oxidant and suggests that one oxidant is water [0145]. The combination of US’612 in view of US’839 fails to teach specific other oxidants. US’246 is analogous art in the field of forming metal oxo photoresists by a series of deposition cycles including flowing a first precursor, followed by an oxidant (See rejection of Claim 1 above). In addition, US’246 teaches oxidants, including water, and other alternatives [0063]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’612 in view of US’839 by using a suggested oxidant in a first deposition cycle and a suggested oxidant in a second deposition cycle, whether the oxidant is the same or different, because US’246 suggests that any of various oxidants are suitable for a deposition cycle.
Regarding Claims 8, 15, and 20, US’612 teaches an oxidizing plasma [0098] after a first number of iterations of the deposition cycle (and also after developing), but the combination of US’612 in view of US’839 fails to teach plasma treatment before a first iteration of a deposition cycle. US’246 is analogous art in the field of forming metal oxo photoresists by a series of deposition cycles including flowing a first precursor, followed by an oxidant (See rejection of Claim 1 above). In addition, US’246 teaches treating the metal-oxo photoresist with a plasma treatment after a first number of iterations of the deposition cycle as an oxygen containing precursor (oxidant)(Figs. 1-3; [0011,0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’612 in view of US’839 by using an oxygen plasma as the “second precursor” oxidant in US’612 after a first number of iterations of a deposition cycle as a suggested oxidant.
Regarding Claims 16-18 and 20, US’612 teaches multiple deposition cycles, and US’246 teaches multiple cycles of a) and b) and the use of plasma during a cycle [0063], and Claim 15 does not provide any features which distinguish a “first iteration” from later iterations. Claims 16-18 further support this interpretation, since that iterations can be restarted or divided into sets of iterations. Because iterations can be divided or restarted, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the process of the combination of references in the order recited in each of Claims 15-17, because any later iteration can be considered a “first iteration,” wherein plasma is used before the “first iteration,” and it would have been obvious to use a suggested oxidant, whether plasma or an alternative suggested oxidant, in any of the deposition cycles to oxidize the first precursor.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (US 2017/0102612) in view of Meyers et al. (US 2016/0116839) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwak (US 2015/0140786).
Regarding Claims 9 and 13, US’612 teaches that a reactor, such as an ALD reactor, can be used to perform the claimed process [0033]. The combination of US’612 in view of US’839 fails to teach rotating the substrate to a first and second region of a chamber. Kwak (US’786) is analogous art for ALD processes [0049] and suggests separately distributing different reactant gasses (source, reactant, purge) to different regions of a reactor and rotating a substrate to the various regions for processing with a gas in that region. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the process of the combination of US’612 in view of US’839 by implementing each of operations a) and operation b) in different regions of a reactor, and rotating the substrate to each region for processing with that region’s gas, because US’786 suggests such steps for processing a substrate with different reactant gasses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 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.
In response to Applicant’s argument that US’612 fails to teach a bromine (Br) (Remarks, p. 8), substituting one halogen for another halogen (e.g. bromine for chlorine) is a simple substitution, and Meyers et al. (US’839) is now cited as evidence that such a substitution would have obtained a suitable hydrolysable precursor.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 ALEXANDER M WEDDLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5346. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30.
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, 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.
ALEXANDER M WEDDLE
Examiner
Art Unit 1712
/ALEXANDER M WEDDLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights