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 .
Applicants’ response of 4/14/2026 has been considered and entered in the record. Amended Claims 1, 4 and 6-18, and new Claims 21-22 are under consideration. The following new rejections are made in view of Applicants’ amendment. Applicants arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires “transferring at an atmosphere the substrate on which the protective film is formed”, and also requires a preceding step, “wherein the forming of the protective film is performed at the atmosphere”. The element “at an atmosphere” is introduced at a latter step (after the formation of the protective film), whereas the formation of the protective film occurs at “the atmosphere”, an element which has been already been introduced. Moreover, if the substrate is transferred, the transfer would involve a different atmosphere, unless the term “atmosphere” refers to the earth’s atmosphere. The metes and bounds of the Claim are not properly set forth, and therefore the Claim is properly rejected as being indefinite. Claims 4, 6-18 and 21-22 are rejected based on their dependence on Claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 14-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010-025656A in view of Lu et al (2017/0029959) or Li (CN 104241618A) .
With respect to Claim 1, JP 2010—025656A discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising: applying a liquid material containing an ionic liquid (paragraph 25) on a substrate to form a protective film (paragraph 25); transferring at an atmosphere the substrate on which the protective film is formed (Figures 1-2); and removing the protective film from the substrate that has been transferred (paragraph 27). See Figures 1-2 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 18-27.
JP 2010—025656A does not disclose “wherein the forming of the protective film is performed at the atmosphere”, as JP 2010—025656A discloses the formation step occurs in a vacuum.
Lu et al pertains to deposition processes which use ionic liquids and disclose the equivalence of a vacuum or an atmosphere of inert gas to perform the process. See paragraph 33.
Li pertains to deposition processes which use ionic liquids and disclose the equivalence of a vacuum or an atmosphere of inert gas to perform the process, and its benefit in protection of the reaction. See last 20 lines of page 3 and first 20 lines of page 4.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use an atmosphere of inert gas in the process of JP 2010—025656A, for its known benefit of providing a protective/inert medium for a process involving ionic liquids as disclosed by the Lu et al and Li references. The use of a known medium for a known process would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 4, JP 2010—025656A discloses wherein removing the protective film is performed in a vacuum. See paragraph 18.
With respect to Claim 6, JP 2010—025656A discloses wherein removing the protective film is performed at the atmosphere. See paragraph 18.
With respect to Claim 14, the limitation “ a physical property of the ionic liquid changes depending on an environmental factor” is inherent. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact. For example, changes in temperature affect the viscosity of a liquid.
With respect to Claim 15, the limitation “wherein the environmental factor includes temperature” is inherent. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact. For example, changes in temperature affect the viscosity of a liquid.
With respect to Claim 16, the limitation, “wherein the physical property includes at least one of viscosity and adhesiveness” is inherent. The Examiner takes Official Notice of this fact. For example changes, in temperature affect the viscosity of a liquid.
With respect to Claim 17, JP 2010—025656A discloses wherein the ionic liquid has a property of not evaporating in a vacuum, as it is coated as liquid in vacuum. See paragraphs 18-21 of JP 2010—025656A .
With respect to Claim 21, and the limitation “wherein the removing the protective film: includes: heating the substrate”, changes in temperature are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, with respect to the limitation “performing physical manipulation of the substrate”, JP 2010—025656A discloses moving the substrate in and out of the chamber. See Figure 2 and corresponding text of JP 2010—025656A .
With respect to Claim 22, and the limitation “wherein the removing the protective film: includes: heating the substrate to cause a phase transfer of the ionic liquid”, changes in temperature are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The process described by JP 2010—025656A in Figure 2 would inherently cause a phase transfer, as the ionic liquid is removed from its state as a coating, to being carried off by the inert gas. Moreover, with respect to the limitation “performing physical manipulation of the substrate”, JP 2010—025656A discloses moving the substrate in and out of the chamber. See Figure 2 and corresponding text of JP 2010—025656A .
Claims 7-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2010—025656A in view of Lu et al (2017/0029959) or Li (CN 104241618A as applied to claims 1-4, 6 and 14-17 above, and further in view of Cohen et al (EP 2102900).
JP 2010—025656A, Lu et al (2017/0029959) and Li (CN 104241618A are relied upon as discussed above. Moreover, JP 2010—025656A discloses the use of the protective film in deposition apparatus which uses an electron microscope. See paragraphs 1 and 6.
However, JP 2010—025656A, Lu et al (2017/0029959) and Li (CN 104241618A do not disclose forming a film by plating (Claims 5, 7 and 8) or removing an oxide with HF gas (Claims 9-13) or the presence of a conductive material (Claim 18) as required by the Claims at hand.
Cohen et al pertains to deposition processes and discloses the use of plating and removal of oxides on substrates which comprise a conductive material, and the analysis of the substrates by an electron microscope. See paragraphs 11 and 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the formation of the protective film as disclosed by JP 2010—025656A, Lu et al (2017/0029959) and Li (CN 104241618A , in a process as disclosed by Cohen et al, for its known benefit of forming a semiconductor device as disclosed Cohen et al. As Cohen et al discloses plating and removal of oxides as known process steps of substrates which contain a conductive material, and their evaluation by electron microscopes, the application of the process of forming protective layers in the process of JP 2010—025656A, Lu et al (2017/0029959) and Li (CN 104241618A to the processing steps of Cohen et al, for its benefit of forming semiconductor devices, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 7, the combined references make obvious after removing the protective film, forming a film on the substrate at the atmosphere. See paragraph 11, lines 35-40 of Cohen et al.
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references make obvious wherein in forming the film, the film is formed by a plating method. See paragraph 11, lines 35-40, and paragraph 21 of Cohen et al.
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references make obvious further including, before forming the protective film, removing the oxide generated on the substrate. See paragraphs 21 and 25 of Cohen et al.
With respect to Claim 10, the combined references make obvious herein removing the oxide is performed at the atmosphere. See paragraphs 21 and 25 of Cohen et al.
With respect to Claim 11, the combined references make obvious wherein removing the oxide includes removing the oxide with chemical solution containing (HF). See paragraphs 21 and 25 of Cohen et al.
With respect to Claim 12, the combined references make obvious wherein removing the oxide is performed in a vacuum. The Examiner takes Official Notice that performing semiconductor processing in a vacuum is well known in the art.
With respect to Claim 13, the combined references make obvious wherein removing the oxide includes: supplying a mixed gas containing a gas containing a halogen element and a basic gas to the substrate to transform the oxide to generate a reaction product; and removing the reaction product. Even though Cohen et al disclose HF solutions and not gas, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of HF solutions and gases are well known in the art, for their known benefit of removing oxides.
With respect to Claim 18, the combined references make obvious wherein the substrate has a region where a conductive material is exposed on a surface. See paragraph 21 of Cohen et al.
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 ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
June 18, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights