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 .
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.
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 14, 16, 28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al, US 2015/0217330 A1, in view of Yamazaki et al, US 2020/0299858 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Haukka et al teaches that a substrate processing method comprising: a catalyst component supplying process of supplying a catalyst component, which is to be adsorbed on a substrate, to the substrate; a film-forming component supplying process of supplying a film-forming component, which forms an insulating film on the substrate in the presence of the catalyst component, to the substrate (Paragraph 0309); and an inhibition component supplying process of supplying an inhibition component, which is to be adsorbed on the substrate and inhibits adsorption of the catalyst component on the substrate, to a front surface or a back surface of the substrate (Paragraph 0032), wherein the inhibition component supplying process is performed before the catalyst component supplying process (step 520), wherein the inhibition component is an organic silane compound that forms a self-assembled monolayer (Paragraph 0030-0032, 0376) on the second surface of the substrate, and wherein the self-assembled monolayer inhibits adsorption of the catalyst component on the second surface such that the catalyst component is adsorbed on the first surface and not adsorbed on the second surface.
Haukka et al differs from the present invention in that Haukka et al does not teach that the inhibition component supplying process is configured to supply the inhibition component to the back surface of the substrate to form an insulation film selectively on a front surface of the substrate by suppressing the catalyst component from being adsorbed on the back surface of the substrate.
Yamazaki et al teaches an inhibition component (Ta Paragraph 0058) supplying process is configured to supply the inhibition component (Ta Paragraph 0058) only to the back surface of the substrate to form a film selectively on a front surface of the substrate by suppressing the component (Group III metal) from being adsorbed on the back surface of the substrate. (Paragraph 0058, Claims 1, 7, and 8)
The motivation for supplying the inhibition component to the back surface of the substrate of Haukka et al is to suppress the absorption of the catalyst and to prevent deposition of the insulation layer on the back surface of the substrate of Haukka et al as taught by Yamazaki et al. Furthermore, it has been held that applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to supply the inhibition component to the back surface of the substrate of Haukka et al as taught by Yamazaki et al.
Regarding claim 16, Haukka et al teaches that the film-forming component is an aminosilane (Step 530) which is an organic silane compound.
Regarding claim 28, Haukka et al teaches that the catalyst component is a metal compound. (Paragraph 0309)
Regarding claim 30, Haukka et al teaches that the catalyst component supplying process and the film-forming component supplying process are repeated. (Figure 5, Paragraph 0309)
Regarding claim 32, Haukka et al teaches that the inhibition component supplying process, the catalyst component supplying process, and the film-forming component supplying process are repeated each time the process of Figure 5 is conducted.
Claims 17, 18, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al as applied to claims 14, 16, 28, 30, and 32 above, and further in view of Mizoguchi et al, US 20220005693 A1.
Regarding claim 17:
Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the organic silane compound is tris(tert-pentoxy)silanol or tris(tert-butoxy)silanol.
Mizoguchi et al teaches using tris(tert-pentoxy)silanol in an ald process. (Paragraph 0045)
The motivation for replacing the aminosilane of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al with tris(tert-pentoxy)silanol as taught by Mizoguchi et al is to provide an alternate silane source. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the aminosilane of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al with tris(tert-pentoxy)silanol as taught by Mizoguchi et al.
Regarding claim 18, Haukka et al teaches that the catalyst component is a metal compound.
Regarding claim 33:
Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al was discussed above.
Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach a controller programed to control the claimed method.
Mizoguchi et al teaches using a controller 26 to control a method.
The motivation for programing the controller of Mizoguchi et al with the method of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al is to enable the apparatus of Mizoguchi et al to execute the method of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to program the controller of Mizoguchi et al with the method of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al.
Claims 19, 20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, and Mizoguchi et al, as applied to claims 14, 16-18, 28, 30, 32, and 33 above, and further in view of Illobero et al, US 20210301394 A1.
Regarding claim 19:
Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, and Mizoguchi et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the metal compound is trimethylaluminum or trimethylgallium.
Illobero et al teaches using trimethylaluminum (TMA) as a metal catalyst. (Paragraph 0007)
The motivation for replacing the metal catalyst (Hf(Net2)4) of Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, and Mizoguchi et al with trimethylaluminum (TMA) as taught by Illobero et al is to provide an alternate metal catalyst. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the metal catalyst (Hf(Net2)4) of Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al and Mizoguchi et al with trimethylaluminum (TMA) as taught by Illobero et al.
Regarding claim 20, Haukka et al teaches the catalyst component supplying process and the film-forming component supplying process are repeated. (Figure 5)
Regarding claim 22, Haukka et al teaches that the inhibition component supplying process, the catalyst component supplying process, and the film-forming component supplying process are repeated each time the process of Figure 5 is conducted.
Regarding claim 23, Yamazaki et al teaches removing the inhibition component adsorbed on the substrate, wherein the removing process is performed after the film-forming component supplying process. (Paragraph 0064)
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, Mizoguchi et al, and Illobero et al as applied to claims 14, 16-20, 22, 23, 28, 30, 32, and 33 above, and further in view of Gadda et al, US 20210311394 A1.
Regarding claim 24:
Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, Mizoguchi et al, and Illobero et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that the removing process, plasma of an oxygen-containing gas is supplied to the substrate.
Gadda et al teaches a removing process using an oxygen plasma. (Paragraph 0202
The motivation for using an oxygen plasma in the method of Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, Mizoguchi et al, and Illobero et al is to provide an alternate method of removing the inhibition component as taught by Gadda et al. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to add an oxygen plasma method of Gadda et al to the removing process method of Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, Mizoguchi et al, and Illobero et al.
Regarding claim 25, Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, Mizoguchi et al, Illobero et al, and Gadda et al differ from the present invention in that they do not teach that in the removing process, H2, NH3, plasmarized H2 or NH3, or a hydrazine-containing gas is supplied to the substrate. The Examiner notes that H2, NH3, plasmarized H2 or NH3, or a hydrazine-containing gas are all well known in the art as cleaning gases commonly used to remove material from a substrate. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to supply H2, NH3, plasmarized H2 or NH3, or a hydrazine-containing gas to the substrate in the removing process method of Haukka et al, Yamazaki et al, Mizoguchi et al, Illobero et al, and Gadda et al.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al as applied to claims 14, 16, 28, 30, and 32 above, and further in view of Illobero et al, US 20210301394 A1.
Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al differs from the present invention in that they do not teach that the metal compound is trimethylaluminum or trimethylgallium.
Illobero et al teaches using trimethylaluminum (TMA) as a metal catalyst. (Paragraph 0007)
The motivation for replacing the metal catalyst (Hf(Net2)4) of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al with trimethylaluminum (TMA) as taught by Illobero et al is to provide an alternate metal catalyst. Furthermore, it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to replace the metal catalyst (Hf(Net2)4) of Haukka et al and Yamazaki et al with trimethylaluminum (TMA) as taught by Illobero et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed April 6, 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection are made in view of Yamazaki et al, US 2020/0299858 A1.
Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the arguments directed to Haukka et al, the Examiner disagrees. Haukka et al teaches depositing an inhibitor on a surface to prevent the deposition of a catalyst on the second surface and that the inhibitor can be a SAM film (Paragraphs 0030-0032 and 0376). Thus Haukka et al teaches the newly added limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art teaches the technological background of the invention. US 20230245924 A1, US 20210301392 A1, and KR 20090017073 A teach the use of TMA. US 20230245924 A1, WO 2020195903 A1, CN 109841571 A, and CN 109841575 A teach the use of inhibitors and self-assembled monolayer. US 20210143003 A1, US 20190333763 A1, US 20190311947 A1, KR 20190058342 A teach the use of TPSOL. US 20190096750 A1 teaches the use of TPSOL and TBSOL. CN 114341740 A and WO 2015044529 A1 teach a protective coating on the bottom of the substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrie R Lund whose telephone number is (571)272-1437. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5 pm (Monday-Friday).
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, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at (571) 272-1435. 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.
/Jeffrie R Lund/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716
Prosecution Insights