DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18003894 application filed December 29, 2022, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on November 21, 2025. Claims 1-9, 13, 15-18, 20-24, 29-30, 37 and 44 and are currently pending and have been considered below. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 10-12, 14, 19, 25-28, 31-36, 38-43 and 45-50 acknowledged. New grounds of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above. This Office action is made non-final.
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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation “the polymer film comprises polyaldehydes or polyacetals including a polymer backbone with alternating carbon-oxygen bonds” in the specification. Although the specification teaches that “the polymer film may be selected from a group consisting of polyoxymethylene, polyacetaldehyde, polypropionaldehyde, polybutyraldehyde, polyvaleraldehyde, polyheptaldehyde, polyoctanaldehyde, polynonanaldehyde, and polydecaldehyde. The polymer film may be a copolymer comprising a homopolymer selected from a group consisting of polyoxymethylene, polyacetaldehyde, polypropionaldehyde, polybutyraldehyde, polyvaleraldehyde, polyheptaldehyde, polyoctanaldehyde, polynonanaldehyde, and polydecaldehyde. In some embodiments, the copolymer may consist of homopolymers selected from a group consisting of polyoxymethylene, polyacetaldehyde, polypropionaldehyde, polybutyraldehyde, polyvaleraldehyde, polyheptaldehyde, polyoctanaldehyde, polynonanaldehyde, and polydecaldehyde” ([0015]), the term “polyaldehyde” are broader than these compounds Although the specification further teaches that “In other features, during deposition of the of the polymer film, the method includes delivering precursor selected from a group consisting of monomeric aldehyde and a precursor with alternating carbon-oxygen ring structures. The precursor is selected from a group consisting of 1,3,5-trioxane and paraldehyde. The monomeric aldehyde is selected from a group consisting of formaldehyde, ethanal, propanal, butanal, pentanal, hexanal, heptanal, octananal, nonanal, or decanal, or any non-linear branched version of these molecules”, the compounds that are produced from this method has a different scope than polyaldehyde. See MPEP, 2173.05i. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that there is support for the above limitation.
Claims 2-9, 13, 15-18, 20-24, 29-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9, 13, 15-18, 20-21 and 29-30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resnick et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190227437), hereinafter “Resnick”, in view of Kang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200251151), hereinafter “Kang”, Scott (U.S. Pat. No. 5096291), hereinafter “Scott”, Chandhok et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20150091175), hereinafter “Chandhok”, and Loo et al. (“Hot Filament Chemical vapor Deposition of Polyoxymethylene as a Sacrificial Layer for Fabricating Gap”, Electrochemical and Solid State Letters, 4 (11) G81-G84 (2001)), hereinafter “Loo”:--Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 18, 20-21, 29 and 44: Resnick teaches a method of processing a semiconductor device, comprisingi) depositing a buffer layer 25 on a substrate by using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the buffer layer 25 may be an oxide film ([0052], Fig. 7); ii) depositing a protective layer 27 on the buffer layer 25 by using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the protective layer 27 may be made of organic or inorganic polymers ([0051-0052], Fig. 7);iii) using the substrate in a plurality of processes, such as a planarization ([0057-0061]);iv) removing the protective layer 27, or both the protective layer 27 and the buffer layer 25, by using a fluorine-containing etchant, ultraviolet cleaning, dry or wet etching, etc. ([0064-0067]);v) depositing a new protective layer 27, or both the protective layer 27 and the buffer layer 25, on the buffer layer 25 by using chemical vapor deposition ([0065, 0051]).vi) repeating steps iii) – v) a plurality of times ([0061, 0065-0068]). Resnick fails to teach that the depositing the buffer layer 25 on the substrate by using chemical vapor deposition uses a processing tool operate at vacuum. Kang, also directed to processing a semiconductor device, teaches that an oxide layer and a polymer layer may be deposited in chambers having vacuum curtain in a cluster tool, wherein each chamber can run a different process on a different substrate simultaneously and wherein the substrate is transported between the process chambers by a robot in a transfer chamber ([0077, 0116-0122], Fig. 30]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the oxide film in either a first chamber or a second chamber, and the polymer film in either the first chamber or the second chamber in the cluster tool taught by Kang the invention of Resnick because Resnick is silent about an apparatus for the chemical vapor deposition, and Kang teaches that such apparatus would be effective. Resnick further teaches that the buffer layer 25 and the protective layer 27 protects the substrate from scratches and other defects ([0062, 0070]) and each of the buffer layer 25 and the protective layer 27 may comprise deposited oxide, anodized alumina, an organo-silane, an organosilicate material, an organic polymer, inorganic polymers, and any combination thereof. Resnick fails to teach that the organic polymer “comprises polyaldehydes or polyacetals including a polymer backbone with alternating carbon-oxygen bonds” . Chandhok, also directed to coating a protective layer on a semiconductor device, teaches that sacrificial layer that is formed of polyoxymethylene may be temporarily deposited over a interlayer dielectric layer then removed later by using an electron beam or a combination of thermos and chemical techniques ([0031, 0062, 0064, 0085). It is noted that polyoxymethylene is another name for polyacetal. Chandhok is silent about a method of depositing the polyoxymethylene layer. Loo teaches that polyoxymethylene is advantageously used as a sacrificial layer because it offers shorter removal time, decreased heat load, and ease of process integration, and that it may be deposited at high deposition rate by using a chemical vapor deposition technique (abstract) in a hot filament chamber at 10 Torr (Loo, “Experimental” section, page G81, Col. 2) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit polyoxymethylene by using chemical vapor deposition in the invention of Chandhok because Chandhok is silent about a method of deposition and Loo teaches that chemical vapor deposition technique would be effective. It would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit polyoxymethylene as the organic polymer by chemical vapor deposition for the protective layer and/or the buffer layer in the invention of Resnick because Chandhok and Loo teaches that it would be effective as a temporary protection layer and offers shorter removal time, decreased heat load, and ease of process integration. Resnick further teaches that each of the buffer layer and the protective layer may have a thickness of 11 nm to 5000 nm ([0053]). Although Resnick is silent about removing the substrate from the vacuum chamber after the chemical vapor deposition of the protective layer 27, since Resnick teaches that the substrate is subsequently used in a plurality of processes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to remove the substrate from the vacuum chamber after the chemical vapor deposition of the protective layer 27 and process the substrate in a dry process in another process equipment. Resnick fails to teach exposing the substrate and the protective layer to atmospheric condition. However, Resnick further teaches that the planarization comprises dispensing droplets of planarization precursor material on the substrate by using a fluid dispense system 32 (Fig. 1, [0059]), then inspecting the protective layer 27 by using a bright light inspection. Resnick is silent about an apparatus to perform the bright light inspection. Scott teaches that a wafer inspection system (Fig. 1) may comprise a robot (Fig. 2) that holds and rotates the wafer at different angles so that an operator may visually detect any particles on the wafer (Col. 3, Lines 3-21; Col. 3, Line 61 through Col. 4, Line 22). Since Scott does not disclose that the wafer inspection system operates in an atmospheric condition it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to operate in an atmospheric condition so that the operator may have a close view of the wafer to visually detect any surface anomaly or particulates. It is noted that this would expose the substrate and the protection layer to an atmospheric condition.--Claim 9: Loo further teaches that the chemical vapor deposition comprises using hot filament to initiate the deposition (Loo, “Experimental” section, page G81, Col. 2) --Claims 13, 15, 16, 17: Resnick further teaches that the protective layer may be removed by using Piranha clean at 100-150C ([0067]). Although Resnick is silent about the duration of the clean, since Resnick teaches that the protective layer may have a thickness 11-10,000 nm and may be formed of a variety of materials ([0051-0053]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the etch time, such as 1 sec - 5 minutes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.--Claim 30: Loo further teaches that the temperature of the filament is 700C while the wafer stage is cooled with liquid nitrogen (Loo, “Experimental” section, page G81, Col. 2). Although Vezza is silent about the temperature different between a stage that support the substrate and another spot elsewhere in the chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the optimum temperature distribution, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 22-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resnick in view of Kang, Chandhok and Loo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirayama et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20070031755), hereinafter “Hirayama”:--Claims 22, 23, 24: Resnick modified by Kang, Chandhok and Loo teaches the invention as above. Resnick, Kang, Chandhok and Loo fail to teach that the polymer is one that is recited in claim 22. Hirayama, also directed to a method of making a semiconductor device, teaches that a sacrificial polymer layer that is formed to protect a substrate and is removed later may be formed by condensing a phenol with aldehyde, such as formaldehyde or propionaldehyde ([0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use polyacetaldehyde to form the polymer in the invention of Resnick because Hirayama teaches that this would be effective as a sacrificial protection layer.
Claims 37 and 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resnick in view of Kang, Vezza et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190309414), hereinafter “Vezza”, and Kampf et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5213714), hereinafter “Kampf”:--Claims 37 and 44: Resnick teaches a method of processing a semiconductor device, comprisingi) depositing a buffer layer 25 on a substrate by using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the buffer layer 25 may be an oxide film ([0052], Fig. 7); ii) depositing a protective layer 27 on the buffer layer 25 by using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the protective layer 27 may be made of organic or inorganic polymers ([0051-0052], Fig. 7);iii) using the substrate in a plurality of processes, such as a planarization ([0057-0061]);iv) removing the protective layer 27, or both the protective layer 27 and the buffer layer 25, by using a fluorine-containing etchant, ultraviolet cleaning, dry or wet etching, etc. ([0064-0067]);v) depositing a new protective layer 27, or both the protective layer 27 and the buffer layer 25, on the buffer layer 25 by using chemical vapor deposition ([0065, 0051]).vi) repeating steps iii) – v) a plurality of times ([0061, 0065-0068]). Resnick fails to teach that the depositing the buffer layer 25 on the substrate by using chemical vapor deposition uses a processing tool operate at vacuum. Kang, also directed to processing a semiconductor device, teaches that an oxide layer and a polymer layer may be deposited in chambers having vacuum curtain in a cluster tool, wherein each chamber can run a different process on a different substrate simultaneously and wherein the substrate is transported between the process chambers by a robot in a transfer chamber ([0077, 0116-0122], Fig. 30]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the oxide film in either a first chamber or a second chamber, and the polymer film in either the first chamber or the second chamber in the cluster tool taught by Kang the invention of Resnick because Resnick is silent about an apparatus for the chemical vapor deposition, and Kang teaches that such apparatus would be effective. Kang is silent about a vacuum in the chamber. Vezza teaches that a layer may be deposited by using chemical vapor deposition or initiated chemical vapor deposition at a pressure 1-10 Torr ([0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the oxide film and the polymer film at 1-10 Torr the invention of Resnick because Resnick and Kang are silent about the pressure for the chemical vapor deposition, and Vezza teaches that such pressure would be effective. Although Resnick is silent about removing the substrate from the vacuum chamber after the chemical vapor deposition of the protective layer 27, since Resnick teaches that the substrate is subsequently used in a plurality of processes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to remove the substrate from the vacuum chamber after the chemical vapor deposition of the protective layer 27 and process the substrate in a dry process in another process equipment. Resnick further teaches that each of the buffer layer and the protective layer may have a thickness of 11 nm to 5000 nm ([0053]). Resnick further teaches that the buffer layer 25 and the protective layer 27 protects the substrate from scratches and other defects ([0062, 0070]) and each of the buffer layer 25 and the protective layer 27 may comprise deposited oxide, anodized alumina, an organo-silane, an organosilicate material, an organic polymer, inorganic polymers, and any combination thereof. Resnick fails to teach that the organic polymer comprises polyacetaldehyde. Kampf, also directed to coating a protective layer on a semiconductor substrate, teaches that the protective layer may advantageously comprise antistatic polymer to dissipate electrostatic charging (Col. 8, Lines 43-65). Kampf further teaches to use a protective layer comprising a conductive polymer and a non-conductive polymer, such as polyacetaldehyde (Col. 7, Lines 3-24) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the antistatic protective layer taught by Kampf as the protective layer 27 in the invention of Resnick because Kampf teaches that this would be dissipate electrostatic charging to prevent damages to the substrate.
Claims 22-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Resnick in view of Kang, Vezza, Kampf and Hirayama:--Claims 22, 23, 24: Resnick teaches a method of processing a semiconductor device, comprisingi) depositing a buffer layer 25 on a substrate by using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the buffer layer 25 may be an oxide film ([0052], Fig. 7); ii) depositing a protective layer 27 on the buffer layer 25 by using chemical vapor deposition, wherein the protective layer 27 may be made of organic or inorganic polymers ([0051-0052], Fig. 7);iii) using the substrate in a plurality of processes, such as a planarization ([0057-0061]);iv) removing the protective layer 27, or both the protective layer 27 and the buffer layer 25, by using a fluorine-containing etchant, ultraviolet cleaning, dry or wet etching, etc. ([0064-0067]);v) depositing a new protective layer 27, or both the protective layer 27 and the buffer layer 25, on the buffer layer 25 by using chemical vapor deposition ([0065, 0051]).vi) repeating steps iii) – v) a plurality of times ([0061, 0065-0068]). Resnick fails to teach that the depositing the buffer layer 25 on the substrate by using chemical vapor deposition uses a processing tool operate at vacuum. Kang, also directed to processing a semiconductor device, teaches that an oxide layer and a polymer layer may be deposited in chambers having vacuum curtain in a cluster tool, wherein each chamber can run a different process on a different substrate simultaneously and wherein the substrate is transported between the process chambers by a robot in a transfer chamber ([0077, 0116-0122], Fig. 30]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the oxide film in either a first chamber or a second chamber, and the polymer film in either the first chamber or the second chamber in the cluster tool taught by Kang the invention of Resnick because Resnick is silent about an apparatus for the chemical vapor deposition, and Kang teaches that such apparatus would be effective. Kang is silent about a vacuum in the chamber. Vezza teaches that a layer may be deposited by using chemical vapor deposition or initiated chemical vapor deposition at a pressure 1-10 Torr ([0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the oxide film and the polymer film at 1-10 Torr the invention of Resnick because Resnick and Kang are silent about the pressure for the chemical vapor deposition, and Vezza teaches that such pressure would be effective. Although Resnick is silent about removing the substrate from the vacuum chamber after the chemical vapor deposition of the protective layer 27, since Resnick teaches that the substrate is subsequently used in a plurality of processes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to remove the substrate from the vacuum chamber after the chemical vapor deposition of the protective layer 27 and process the substrate in a dry process in another process equipment. Resnick further teaches that each of the buffer layer and the protective layer may have a thickness of 11 nm to 5000 nm ([0053]). Resnick further teaches that the buffer layer 25 and the protective layer 27 protects the substrate from scratches and other defects ([0062, 0070]) and each of the buffer layer 25 and the protective layer 27 may comprise deposited oxide, anodized alumina, an organo-silane, an organosilicate material, an organic polymer, inorganic polymers, and any combination thereof. Resnick fails to teach that the organic polymer comprises polyacetaldehyde. Kampf, also directed to coating a protective layer on a semiconductor substrate, teaches that the protective layer may advantageously comprise antistatic polymer to dissipate electrostatic charging (Col. 8, Lines 43-65). Kampf further teaches to use a protective layer comprising a conductive polymer and a non-conductive polymer, such as polyacetaldehyde (Col. 7, Lines 3-24) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the antistatic protective layer taught by Kampf as the protective layer 27 in the invention of Resnick because Kampf teaches that this would be dissipate electrostatic charging to prevent damages to the substrate. Resnick, Kang, vezza and Kampf fail to teach that the polymer is one that is recited in claim 22. Hirayama, also directed to a method of making a semiconductor device, teaches that a sacrificial polymer layer that is formed to protect a substrate and is removed later may be formed by condensing a phenol with aldehyde, such as formaldehyde or propionaldehyde ([0044]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the method taught by Hirayama to form the polyacetaldehyde in the invention of Resnick modified by Kampf because Hirayama teaches that this would be effective.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered as follows:--First it is noted that typical publications do not include common details, such as a vacuum is required for a CVD process or exposing a substrate to an atmospheric condition between processes, multiple references are cited in the Office action just to provide evidences for such mundane features, which are routinely performed in the art but usually not included in a technical publication.--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature ““the polymer film comprises polyaldehydes or polyacetals including a polymer backbone with alternating carbon-oxygen bonds” recited in claim 1, this argument is persuasive. New grounds of rejection based on newly found arts is shown above. It is noted that this feature may not have support in the specification.
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 extension fee 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 THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713