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 .
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 1-10 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. It is not clear what the applicant means by metal thin film, and non-metal thin film and what is the thickness of the layers. For examination purposes it is considered as a metal film, and non-metal film.
For claim 9, it is not clear what the applicant means by Group 3, Group, or Group 5. For examination purposes it is considered as Group 3, Group 4, or Group 5.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan Willem Hub Maes et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0105515, here after Maes), further in view of Haripin Chandra et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2023/0058258, here after Chandra).
Claim 1 is rejected. Maes teaches a method of forming an area-selective thin film, the method comprising:
preparing a substrate in a chamber (ALD), the substrate including a growth region (metallic) and a non-growth region (dielectric), wherein the growth region is a metal (thin) film, and the non-growth region is a non-metal (thin) film [fig. 1A, 0076],
supplying a selectivity material into the chamber in which the substrate is placed, so that wherein the selectivity material (passivation) is configured to be adsorbed to the non-growth region of the substrate [fig. 1B, 0077-0078, fig. 4B, 0109-0110];
purging the interior of the chamber [0112];
supplying a metal precursor into the chamber, wherein the metal precursor is configured to be adsorbed to the growth region of the substrate [0201];
purging the interior of the chamber (it is an ALD deposition therefore has purging step after precursor and reactant to remove un adsorb or reactant and byproduct materials) [0201-0202];
supplying a reaction material into the chamber to form the area-selective thin film [00201], wherein the area-selective thin film formed on the growth region of the substrate has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of the area-selective thin film formed on the non-growth region of the substrate, thereby improving a selectivity between the growth region and the non-growth region [fig. 1D, 3B, 0108 last sentence]. Maes teaches the selectivity material is an organic material, but does not teach it is Trimethyl orthoformate. Chandra teaches a method of selectively deposit a film on a substrate by introducing an organic passivation agent (selectivity material), and teaches the selectivity material is Trimethyl orthoformate [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Maes when the selectivity material is Trimethyl orthoformate, because it is suitable passivation material for selectively deposition.
Claim 2 is rejected as Maes teaches the metal thin film of the growth region is a titanium nitride [0057 last 4 lines].
Claim 6 is rejected as Maes teaches the reaction material is selected from
O3, H2O [0179, 0180].
Claim 7 is rejected as Maes teaches the metal precursor is Al precursor [0176].
Claim 8 is rejected Maes teaches the area-selective thin film is formed by an atomic layer deposition (ALD) [0029].
Claims 3-5, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jan Willem Hub Maes et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0105515, here after Maes), Haripin Chandra et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2023/0058258, here after Chandra), further in view of Chang Ke et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0048762, here after Ke).
Claim 3 is rejected. Maes teaches the non-metal(dielectric) layer comprising low-k material such as silicon oxide, or aluminum oxide but not silicon nitride [0049]. Ke teaches a method of selectively deposit a film on a substrate by introducing an organic passivation agent (selectivity material), and teaches the substrate comprising metal region and non-metal(dielectric) region where the dielectric region comprising low-k materials such as silicon oxide, or silicon nitride [0019, fig. 3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Maes and Chandra where the dielectric region comprising silicon nitride because it is suitable low-k material for selectively deposition material compare to metal on it.
Claim 4 is rejected as Ke teaches silicon nitride film is SiON [0019].
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reason claim 1 and 3 are rejected above. Maes teaches the growth region is a titanium nitride film [0057] and Ke teaches the non-growth region is a silicon nitride film.
Claim 9 is rejected as Maes teaches the metal precursor is Al precursor [0176].
Claim 10 is rejected as Maes teaches the reaction material is selected from
O3, H2O [0179, 0180].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argument regarding 35 U.S.S112(b) rejection is not persuasive, although the applicant amended claim 1 to overcome the 35 U.S.S112(b) rejection, however another 35 U.S.S112(b) rejection has been made.
The applicant argues Chandra does not teach metal and non-metal regions on substrate, however Maes and Ke both teach this limitation (see claim rejection above). Maes and Ke both also teach the passivation layer (selectivity layer) inhibit growth on the non-metal(dielectric) layer therefore area selective thin film has more thickness on metal layer (growth region) than dielectric (non-growth) region.
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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718