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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, with claims 1-8 and 14-15 indicated by Applicant to read thereon, in the reply filed on 11/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-13 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/19/2025.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Re claim 15, the phrase “wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer is not on a sidewall of the opening” does not positively recite the active processing step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al., US Pub. No. 2018/0315651.
Re claim 1. Takeda et al. disclose a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a structure on a substrate 300 (e.g., figs. 2A, 6B, 7B 8), wherein the structure comprises an opening 308, 308b (e.g., figs. 6A, 7A); loading 206 the substrate 300 into a process chamber 201 (e.g., fig. 9); forming at least one two-dimensional material layer 310 (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8) on an upper surface of the structure so as to overlie the opening and form an air-gap 309, Ga, 309b, Gb (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8) , wherein an upper portion of the air-gap is defined by the at least one two-dimensional material layer 310 (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8); and unloading 206 the substrate 300 from the process chamber 201 (e.g., fig. 9), see figs. 1-12 and pages 1-10 for more details.
Re claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer 310 (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8) comprises a plurality of two-dimensional material layers 310 (e.g., 310 is comprises of plurality of the sublayers of the same material, figs. 6B, 7B, 8), and wherein the plurality of two-dimensional material layers are formed by growing a two-dimensional material in transverse and longitudinal directions on the upper surface of the structure 310 (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8).
Re claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer 310 (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8) comprises between 2 and 30 two-dimensional material layers (e.g., 310 is comprises of two sublayers of the same material, figs. 6B, 7B, 8).
Re claim 14. Takeda et al. discloses a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a structure on a substrate 300 (e.g., figs. 2A, 6B, 7B 8), wherein the structure comprises an opening 308, 308b (e.g., figs. 6A, 7A); and forming at least one two-dimensional material layer 310 (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8) on an upper surface of the structure so as to overlie the opening and form an air-gap 309, Ga, 309b, Gb (e.g., figs. 6B, 7B, 8), see figs. 1-12 and cols. 1-10 for more details).
Claims 1-2, 6-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raju et al., CN 110383472A.
Re claim 1. Raju et al disclose a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a structure 202-206 on a substrate 201 (e.g., fig. 2), wherein the structure comprises an opening 207-210 (e.g., fig. 2); inherently shows loading the substrate 201 into a process chamber/environment (e.g., for forming layer 302 on the structure, fig. 6); forming at least one two-dimensional material layer 302/501 (fig. 1, 6) on an upper surface of the structure so as to overlie the opening and form an air-gap 207-210 (e.g., fig. 6), wherein an upper portion of the air-gap is defined by the at least one two-dimensional material layer 302 (e.g. paragraph 59 fig. 6); and unloading the substrate 201 from the process chamber (e.g., fig. 8), see figs. 1-8 and pages 1-8 for more details.
Re claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer 302 (e.g., figs. 1) comprises a plurality of two-dimensional material layers 302 (e.g., paragraph 66), and wherein the plurality of two-dimensional material layers are formed by growing a two-dimensional material in transverse and longitudinal directions on the upper surface of the structure 302 (fig. 1).
Re claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein a width of the opening is about 1 nm to about 1 µm (e.g., paragraph 58).
Re claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer 302 (e.g., fig. 1) comprises between 2 and 30 two-dimensional material layers (e.g., 2 or more, paragraph 66).
Re claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer comprises a carbon material layer, a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) material layer, a black phosphorous material layer, or a hexagonal boron-nitride (hBN) material layer (e.g., paragraph 59.
Re claim 14. Raju et al discloses a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising: forming a structure on a substrate 201 (e.g., fig. 2), wherein the structure comprises an opening 207-210 (fig. 2); and forming at least one two-dimensional material layer 501/302 (fig. 1) on an upper surface of the structure so as to overlie the opening and form an air-gap 207-210 (e.g. fig. 1), see figs. 1-8 and pages 1-10 for more details.
Re claim 15. The method of claim 14, wherein the at least one two-dimensional material layer 501/302 is not on a sidewall of the opening (e.g., fig. 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, 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 3-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al., US Pub. No. 2018/0315651.
Takeda et al. disclosed above; however, Takeda et al. does not explicitly show the growth rate (e.g., Re claim 4), thickness (e.g., Re claim 5) of the two-dimensional material and/or width (e.g., Re claim 6) of the opening.
Although the exact recitation “wherein a growth rate of the two-dimensional material in the transverse direction is higher than a growth rate of the two-dimensional material in the longitudinal direction” of the instant claim 3 is not explicitly stated by Takeda et al. in the related text, it appears that growth rate of the two-dimensional material in the transverse direction is higher than the longitudinal direction (e.g., see figs. 6B, 7B, 8). Therefore, the instant claim appears to be Prima Facie obvious over Takeda et al.
The growth rate, thickness of the two-dimensional material and/or width of the opening range of claims 3-6 are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as thickness, temperature and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any growth rate, thickness range and the width of the opening range suitable to the method in process of Takeda et al. in order to optimize the process.
Further in this regard, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. – the growth rate, thickness and/or width of the opening) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 8, using a carbon material layer, a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) material layer, a black phosphorous material layer, or a hexagonal boron-nitride (hBN) material layer for the two-dimensional material layer has been known in the semiconductor art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co., Inc. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig - saw puzzle." 65 USPQ at 301.).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to select any suitable material for two-dimensional material layer in the method of Takeda et al. in order to improve the performance of the device (e.g., sealing the airgap properly; eliminate the undesirable crosstalk between the interconnect structure; provide excellent coverage; large wafer capacity and high throughput etc.).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raju et al., CN 110383472A.
Raju et al. disclosed above; however, Raju et al. does not explicitly show the growth rate (e.g., Re claim 4), thickness (e.g., Re claim 5) of the two-dimensional material.
Although the exact recitation “wherein a growth rate of the two-dimensional material in the transverse direction is higher than a growth rate of the two-dimensional material in the longitudinal direction” of the instant claim 3 is not explicitly stated by Raju et al. in the related text, it appears that growth rate of the two-dimensional material in the transverse direction is higher than the longitudinal direction (e.g., see figs. 1). Therefore, the instant claim appears to be Prima Facie obvious over Raju et al.
The growth rate, thickness of the two-dimensional material range of claims 4-5 are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as thickness, temperature and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any growth rate, thickness range suitable to the method in process of Raju et al. in order to optimize the process.
Further in this regard, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. – the growth rate, thickness) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights