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 .
Status of the Claims
By amendment filed September 09, 2025, claims 13 and 32 have been amended and claim 31 has been cancelled. Claims 22 through 30 were previously withdrawn. Claims 13 through 30 and 32 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 09, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because having the first processing liquid included 0.1% by volume to 10% by volume of the first raw material and the second processing liquid comprising 100% by volume of the second raw material would have been obvious based upon Kaufman-Osborn in view of Lee. As was discussed in the previous Office Action and again in this Office Action, concentration of the raw materials was a result effective variable. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence that the claimed concentration ranges produced unexpected and superior results over the prior art.
Furthermore, applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are not persuasive because the examples cited by applicant are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Therefore, the claimed volume ranges are not persuasive over the prior art. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP section 716.02(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 13-21 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman-Osborn et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0256402) in view of Lee et al (U.S. Patent # 10,867,850).
In the case of claims 13 and 32, Kaufman-Osborn teaches a method for forming a film (Abstract). The method comprised preparing a substrate 210 comprising on a surface of the substrate 210 a first region 222 in which a first material 216 was exposed and a second region 224 wherein a second material 218 different from the first material was exposed (Page 2 Paragraph 0023 and Figure 2A). Kaufman-Osborn further teaches having performed an operation 120 wherein a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) 240 was selectively formed in the first region 222 among the first 222 and second 224 regions (Pages2-3 Paragraph 0025 and Figure 2B) followed by operation 150 wherein a desired target film 280 was formed in the second region 224 using the SAM 240 formed in the first region 222 (Page 5 Paragraph 0050 and Figure 2C).
Furthermore, Kaufman-Osborn teaches that the SAM 230 was formed by selectively form the SAM 240 in the first region 222 using a first processing liquid including a first raw material 230 of the SAM 240 (Pages 2-3 Paragraph 0025) followed by a modification step 140 wherein operation 120 was repeated (Page 5 Paragraphs 0047-0048) and therefore a second processing liquid including a second raw material of the SAM was used to modify the SAM formed by the first processing liquid.
As for the requirement that the second processing liquid comprised 100% by volume of the second raw material and that the first processing liquid comprised 0.1% by volume to 10% by volume of the first raw material, specifically 1% by volume, Kaufman-Osborn does not teach this. However, section 2144.05.II.A of the MPEP states, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[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)”
Furthermore, Lee teaches a method for selectively depositing a film/material layer on a substrate using an SAM as a blocking layer formed from a SAM solution to prevent deposition on a region of the substrate (Abstract and Claim 2 Line 65 through Column 3 Line 6). Lee teaches that the concentration of the blocking compound of the SAM solution was a cause effective variable affecting the coverage of the layer on the substrate and the aggregation of the blocking compound/raw material (Column 4 Lines 5-13).
Based on the teachings of Lee, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal concentration for the first and second raw materials of the first and second processing liquid of Kaufman-Osborn through routine experimentation because the concentration of the SAM molecule/raw material 230 affected the coverage of the layer on the first region of the substrate and the aggregation of the SAM molecule compound/raw material.
As for claim 14, Kaufman-Osborn does not teach that the first processing liquid included the first raw material dissolved in a solvent. Kaufman-Osborn does teach that suitable raw materials/SAM molecules included phosphonic acid materials (Page 3 Paragraph 0028).
Lee teaches that a SAM solution/processing liquid was formed by dissolving phosphonic acid compound in a solvent (Column 17 Lines 52-55).
Based on the teachings of Lee, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have dissolved the raw materials/SAM molecules of Kaufman-Osborn in a solvent because this was a known process in the art for forming a processing liquid/SAM solution.
As for claims 15 and 16, Kaufman-Osborn teaches that the processing liquid was supplied as a vapor (Page 3 Paragraph 0035).
As for claims 17 and 18, Kaufman-Osborn teaches that the processing liquid was applied by dip-coating or spin-coating (Page 3 Paragraph 0034).
As for claim 19, Kaufman-Osborn teaches that between operation 120 using the first processing liquid to form the SAM and the modification operation 140 the substrate was exposed to an air atmosphere in operation 130 (Page 4 Paragraphs 0037, 0039 and 0043 and Figure 1).
As for claim 20, Kaufman-Osborn teaches an embodiment wherein the second material 218 was a dielectric/insulating material (Page 2 Paragraph 0023) and the raw materials/SAM molecules were thiol compounds (Page 3 Paragraph 0028).
As for claim 21, Kaufman-Osborn teaches that the second material was a conductive material (Page 2 Paragraph 0023 and Page 4 Paragraph 0036) and therefore was a metal or semiconductor and further teaches that the raw materials/SAM molecules were silane compounds (Page 3 Paragraphs 0031-0032).
Lee further teaches an embodiment wherein the substrate 100 included a conductive material region 110 made of metal and a dielectric/low-k region 120 (Column 4 Line 67 through Column 5 Line 12).
Conclusion
Claims 17 through 21 and 32 have been rejected and claims 22 through 30 were withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712