Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/004,931

FILM FORMING METHOD AND FILM FORMING APPARATUS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 10, 2023
Examiner
MCCLURE, CHRISTINA D
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Tokyo Electron Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
29%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 6m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 29% of cases
29%
Career Allow Rate
106 granted / 371 resolved
-36.4% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 6m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
429
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
61.7%
+21.7% vs TC avg
§102
6.1%
-33.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 371 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Claims 11-13, 18-19, and 22-23 are pending and rejected. Claims 14-17 and 20 are objected to. Claims 1-10 are cancelled. Claims 24 is withdrawn. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 11-23 in the reply filed on 8/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/22/2025. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim at lines 12-15 should be reviewed for grammar. Appropriate correction is required. 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 11-13, 18, 19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu, US 2020/0013617 A1 in view of Saly, WO 2019/036188 A1. Regarding claim 11, Komatsu teaches a film forming method (a substrate treatment method that includes forming a metal oxide by an ALD or CVD process so as to provide a film forming method, abstract) comprising: preparing a substrate having a first region in which a metal film is exposed and a second region in which an insulating film is exposed (where a substrate has a first region including a metal atom such as copper, 0005, 0081, and 0089, and a second region consisting only of a nonmetal atom such as a silicon oxide so as to provide and insulating film, 0089, 0092, and Fig. 1); supplying an organic compound represented by the following Chemical Formula (1) to the substrate, the organic compound containing a triple bond between a carbon atom and a nitrogen atom in a head group and containing a double bond or triple bond between carbon atoms in a chain (where a film is overlaid on the surface of the substrate having the first region by using a directed self-assembling material which contains a compound having no less than 6 carbon atoms and including at least one cyano group, 0005, such that the direct self-assembling material will have a triple bond between a carbon atom and a nitrogen atom, where the compound is indicated as having an alkyenyl group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms or an alkynyl group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms, 0032-0033, such that it will have a head meeting the claimed requirements and a chain having a double or triple bond between carbon atoms); selectively adsorbing the organic compound to the first region among the first region and the second region (where the compound selectively interacts with a metal surface by way of its cyano group, 0018, so as to selectively modify the substrate by hydrophobilizing the metal region, 0013 and Fig. 1, indicating that the organic compound will be selectively adsorbed or formed on the first region). They teach provide an example of the compound as: PNG media_image1.png 170 282 media_image1.png Greyscale (0037), so as to meet the requirements of claimed chemical formula 1. They do not teach polymerizing adjacent chains of the organic compound in the first region to form a polymer film. Saly teaches methods of depositing a film selectively onto a first substrate surface relative to a second substrate surface by exposing the substrate to a blocking molecule to selectively deposit a blocking layer on the first surface (abstract). They teach that the blocking layer is exposed to a polymer initiator to form a networked blocking layer (abstract). They teach that a layer is selectively formed on the second surface, where the blocking layer inhibits deposition on the first substrate (abstract). They teach that the blocking molecule has the general formula A-L-Z, where A is a reactive head group, L is a linking group, and Z is a reactive tail group (0008). They teach that the Z group comprises one or more reactive moieties selected from alkenes, alkynes, nitriles, cyanates, etc. (0033). They teach that the blocking molecule comprises more than one reactive moiety (0034-0035). They teach that the tail groups can be the same or different to provide a homogeneous or heterogeneous SAM (0038). They teach that in some embodiments, the blocking compound comprises at least two different blocking molecules so that a heterogeneous SAM is formed (0038). They teach that the blocking compound can be delivered to the substrate as a single compound or sequential exposures of multiple compounds can be done to form the blocking layer 130 (0030). They teach that once the blocking layer is formed, it is exposed to a polymer initiator to form the networked blocking layer (0039). They teach that the initiator can be a chemical reaction, UV light exposure, electron beam exposure, and/or heat (0039). They teach that reaction of alkenes or alkynes with UV, thermal, chemical reactants, or plasma may produce carbon-based polymers to form the networked blocking layer (0049). They teach that the networked blocking layer is more effective at blocking the deposition of the layer than the blocking layer before it is exposed to the polymer initiator (0052). From the teachings of Saly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Komatsu to have polymerized the alkene or alkyne groups in the tail of the blocking compound to form a network because Saly teaches that polymerizing such groups provides a more effective blocking layer such that it will be expected to improve the selectivity of the deposition process. Therefore, since the alkene or alkyne groups are polymerized, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that adjacent chains will also be polymerized since the chains need to be close enough for the crosslinking to occur. Regarding claim 12, Komatsu in view of Saly suggest the process of claim 11. Komatsu further teaches that the cyano group is bonded with a chain hydrocarbon group such as an alkenyl group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms such as an ethenyl group or an alkynyl group having 2 to 20 carbon atoms such as an ethynyl group (0029-0033). Therefore, the chain will be an unsaturated hydrocarbon group. Regarding claims 13, 18, and 19, Komatsu in view of Saly suggest the process of claims 11 and 12. Komatsu further teaches that compound (A) has at least one selected from the group consisting of a structure represented by formula (1), formula (2), and formula (3) (0021-0024), indicating that the surface can be treated with multiple blocking compounds. As noted above, Saly teaches that the blocking compound can be delivered to the substrate as a single compound or sequential exposures of multiple compounds can be done to form the blocking layer 130 (0030). They teach that the tail groups can be the same or different to provide a homogeneous or heterogeneous SAM (0038). They teach that in some embodiments, the blocking compound comprises at least two different blocking molecules so that a heterogeneous SAM is formed (0038). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have supplied a second compound different from the organic compound and a third compound different from the first and second compound to the substrate and to copolymerize the first, second, and third compounds to form a networked blocking layer because Komatsu teaches that more than one blocking compound can be used, where they provide three different formulas that can be used, and Saly teaches that multiple blocking layers can be supplied to the substrate, where after the blocking layer is formed it is polymerized to improve the effectiveness of the layer such that it will be expected to provide a desirable blocking layer. Regarding claim 21, Komatsu in view of Saly suggest the process of claim 11, where Komatsu teaches that the metal film is a copper film (0081). Regarding claim 22, Komatsu in view of Saly suggest the process of claim 11, where Komatsu teaches that second region or surface is silicon oxide or silicon oxynitride (0090-0094), so as to provide an insulating film. Regarding claim 23, Komatsu in view of Saly suggest the process of claim 11. Komatsu further teaches forming a metal oxide on the second region, where the directed self-assembling film blocks the metal oxide formation (abstract, 0005, 0018, and Fig. 2). They teach that the metal oxide includes aluminum oxide, yttrium oxide, hafnium oxide, titanium oxide, etc. (0109). Therefore, they teach that a second insulating film (metal oxide) will be formed in the second region using the polymer film as a blocking layer. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-17 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the features of claim 14 wherein the organic compound is acrylonitrile and the second organic compound is 1,3-butadiene or the features of claim 20 wherein the organic compound is acrylonitrile, the second compound is 1,3-butadiene, and the third organic compound is styrene. The closest prior art is Komatsu and Saly as discussed above in addition to Berry, US 2020/0152744 A1 and Shin, US 2011/0033677 A1. Komatsu teaches that the directed self-assembling material contains a compound having no less than 6 carbon atoms (abstract), whereas acrylonitrile includes only three carbon atoms. Saly discusses using blocking molecules where the Z group is a nitrile (0033) and where L is –(CH2)n- and n is an integer from 4 to 18 (0031). Berry teaches forming a carbon-containing polymer such as ABS on a metal catalyst substrate (0063, 0067-0068). They teach that the carbon-rich polymer is treated to degrade to graphene (0067). They teach using the graphene layer in a transistor device, where the layer is formed on top of a dielectric layer such as SiN (0015, 0029, and Fig. 5A). Shin teaches printing a graphitization catalyst in a selected shape on a substrate on which the carbon-based material is formed using a printing method (0074). They teach selectively coating a carbon-containing polymer onto a substrate in a desired pattern or shape (0087). They teach that the carbon-containing polymer is decomposed to form carbon (0087). Therefore, Shin provides the suggestion to modify Berry to selectively form the metal layer (graphitization catalyst) on the SiN dielectric and then to have selectively formed the ABS carbon film on the catalyzation layer, such that a substrate will have a first region in which a metal film is exposed and a second region in which an insulating film is exposed and an organic compound will be supplied which will meet the requirements of chemical formula 1, i.e., ABS, however, the combination of Berry and Shin do not teach or suggest polymerizing the adjacent chains of the organic compound in the first region to form the polymer film or to supply acrylonitrile and 1,3-butadiene and/or styrene and to copolymerize the monomers in the first region. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. /CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 10, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 21, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592377
METHOD OF PREPARING NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12581875
PROCESSING TOOL CAPABLE FOR FORMING CARBON LAYERS ON SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566175
METHOD FOR FUNCTIONALIZING A SURFACE, PRODUCT HAVING A SURFACE FUNCTIONALIZED ACCORDING TO SAID METHOD, AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12534800
PRE-COATING METHOD AND PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529137
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, SUBSTRATE PROCESSING APPARATUS, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
29%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+35.1%)
3y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 371 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month