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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/3/25 has been entered.
The amendment filed 11/3/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 1-20 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
Considering the amendment filed 11/3/25, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (11,621,161) in combination with Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) further in combination with either Illiberi et al. (2021/0301392) or Todd (2021/0118684).
Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches a selective deposition of a passivation film on a metal surface before deposition of a dielectric material on the dielectric surface by applying a docking precursor to form the passivation film (abstract). Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches polymerization of the docking layer to form the passivation film on the metal surface to allow dielectric layer to be applied to the dielectric surface (col. 3, lines 43-52). Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches a pyrrole or an aniline (col 3, lines 53-65 and col. 4, lines 11-18). These are like the claimed vinyl aniline and vinyl pyrrole and would meet the claimed “Si free”. Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches some crosslinking, up to 5%, which meets the claimed limitation of “using crosslinking” as well as teaching “In some embodiments, the silane groups cross-link with each other after deposition (col. 9, lines 12-14).
Wang et al. (11,621,161) fails to teach the pretreatment of the substrate to be a nitrogen N2 plasma.
Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) teaches surface treatment for selective deposition including a surface pretreatment comprising exposing the substrate with a first and second surface to modify the first surface and apply a blocking layer on the modified first surface and selectively forming a layer on the second surface (abstract). Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) teaches the first surface modified and blocking layer applied thereto is a metal surface and the second surface having the coating deposited thereon is a dielectric surface. The pretreatment includes a nitrogen containing reactant including N2 (Fig. 1 and [0032]-[0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang et al. (11/621,161) process to include a plasma pretreatment as evidenced by Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) with the expectation of aiding in selective deposition of the blocking layer to the surface thereof as well as facilitating the removal when needed.
Wang et al. (11,621,161) in combination with Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) further in combination with either Illiberi et al. (2021/0301392) or Todd (2021/0118684).
Illiberi et al. (2021/0301392) teaches selectively forming a polymer passivation layer whereby the polymer reactant has boiling point of less than 400C to less than 100C and the deposition temperatures range from 80-250C which would meet the claimed deposition temperature in a boiling point of the inhibitor material” [0067]-0081].
Todd (2021/0118684) teaches forming passivation layer including claimed amines which can be applied at lower temperatures and the substrate temperature (claimed deposition temperature as this is the temp at what the deposition would occur) is below the boiling point of the passivation precursors [0118]-[0121].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang et al. (11,621,161) in combination with Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) selective deposition using passivation layers with the passivation layer deposition temperature being “in the boiling point range” of the passivation material as evidenced by Illiberi et al. (2021/0301392) or Todd (2021/0118684) with the expectation of similar success as well as lower deposition temperatures.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches the metal surface to include copper, tungsten and cobalt (col. 3, lines 60-65, col. 5, lines 48-52).
Regarding claims 3,11 and 18, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches a pyrrole or an aniline (col 3, lines 53-65 and col. 4, lines 11-18). These are like the claimed vinyl aniline and vinyl pyrrole and hence one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of achieving similar success with any “inhibitor/blocking/passivating” material absent a showing of criticality of the claimed material.
Regarding claims 4,12 and 19, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches polymerization of the blocking layer and the temperature at which the polymerization would be achieved would be a matter of design choice dependent upon the materials utilized as the blocking layer and would be expected to be above 100C absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding claims 5,13 and 20, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches using a catalyst for polymerization but fails to teach photoinitiation using UV radiation for polymerization. The Examiner takes the position that one skilled in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success regardless of the manner of polymerization utilized absent showing to the contrary specifically related to the claimed polymerization process.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches using a catalyst for polymerization, i.e. claimed chemical initiator (col. 7, lines 28-35).
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches plasma treatment before and/or after applying the passivation layer to remove it which would meet the claimed “reducing thickness”.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches applying a dielectric layer to the dielectric surface not passivated and the dielectric layer applied include aluminum oxide (col. 9, lines 39-41 and col. 10, lines 9-11).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches the thickness of the dielectric layer applied is the same as that of the passivation layer which is 1 angstrom to 500 angstroms which is 0.05-50 nanometers (col. 9, lines 6-21).
Regarding claim 10, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches the metal surface to include copper, tungsten and cobalt (col. 3, lines 60-65, col. 5, lines 48-52). Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches using a catalyst for polymerization, i.e. claimed chemical initiator (col. 7, lines 28-35).
Regarding claim 16, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches the metal surface to include copper, tungsten and cobalt (col. 3, lines 60-65, col. 5, lines 48-52). Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches using a catalyst for polymerization, i.e. claimed chemical initiator (col. 7, lines 28-35). Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches applying a dielectric layer to the dielectric surface not passivated and the dielectric layer applied include aluminum oxide (col. 9, lines 39-41 and col. 10, lines 9-11).
Regarding claims 1,10 and 16, Leal Cervantes et al. (2022/0275501) teaches nitrogen plasma pretreatment in selective deposition on a dielectric layer while blocking the metal layer as well as the blocking layer being directly applied to the metal layer and being silicon free ([0038] and Fig. 1)
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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.
Applicant argued Wang et al. (11,621,161) fails to teach crosslinking of the dielectric layer as Applicant points out that Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches “substantially no crosslinking between silane groups which results in less than 5%, 2% or 1% crosslinking.
The Examiner agrees in part. While Wang et al. (11,621,161) does teach “substantially no crosslinking”, Wang et al. (11,621,161) does also teach some crosslinking, up to 5%, which meets the claimed limitation of “using crosslinking” as this is not limited to higher percentages as seems to be argued by Applicant. In addition, Wang et al. (11,621,161) teaches “In some embodiments, the silane groups cross-link with each other after deposition (col. 9, lines 12-14). Hence, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, Wang et al. (11,621,161) does clearly teach polymerizing by crosslinking of the silane docking/inhibitor layer.
Applicant argued the prior art fails to teach deposition temperatures of the docking/inhibitor layer to be at the boiling point range of the docking/inhibitor layer material.
Illiberi et al. (2021/0301392) or Todd (2021/0118684) teach this as detailed above.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached on 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715