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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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 6, 10 and 20 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.
Claim 6 contradicts claim 1 that requires a constant supply of the growth inhibitor, not a pulse, making claim 6 indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the metal halide precursor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 contradicts claim 17 that requires a constant supply of the growth inhibitor, not a pulse, making claim 20 indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 contradicts claim 1 that requires a constant supply of the growth inhibitor, not a pulse. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 contradicts claim 17 that requires a constant supply of the growth inhibitor, not a pulse. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni et al. (US 2022/0372618 A1, hereafter Ni) in view of Abelson et al. (US 11584986 B1, hereafter Abelson).
As to claim 1, Ni teaches providing a substrate comprising a hydrogen-terminated surface in a reaction chamber (para 0030-0036, 0054-0058); and depositing a thin film on the substrate by a plurality of deposition cycles comprising: contacting the substrate with a first vapor phase metal precursor; contacting the substrate with a second vapor phase reactant; and contacting the substrate with a vapor phase growth inhibitor, wherein the growth inhibitor comprises a halide growth inhibitor or an organic growth inhibitor (As shown in Figs 1 and 3).
Ni does not teach that the growth inhibitor is constantly flowed throughout the deposition process. Abelson teaches that it is known in the art to constantly flow an inhibitor during a similar deposition process in order to reduce the film nucleation rate on less desired surfaces in col. 1 lines 45-55, col. 13-14 lines 53-11. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Ni to include that the growth inhibitor is constantly flowed throughout the deposition process as taught by Ableson in order to reduce the film nucleation rate on less desired surfaces.
As to claim 2, the surface is as claimed in Ni para 0030-0036, 0054-0058.
As to claims 3 and 6, Ni et al. does not explicitly teach a pulse time or a temperature. However these are both experimental quantities to achieve a desired result. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed temperature or pulse times, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claims 4-5, a purge occurs after each introduction in Ni Figs 1 and 3.
As to claim 7, the vapor phase growth inhibitor is HBr, for example, in Ni para 0053.
As to claim 8, the inhibitor is as claimed in Ni para 0035.
As to claims 9, Ni teaches a titanium precursor in the abstract. Abelson teaches metalorganic titanium precursors along with other metals having carbonyl and allyl ligands in col. 1 line 63-col. 2 line 25.
As to claims 12, 14-15 and 17-19, the film is titanium nitride, the reactant is ammonia, the precursor is titanium tetrachloride and the inhibitor is HBr in the abstract and para 0053, Figs 1 and 3 of Ni.
As to claim 20, the introduction occurs sequentially and cyclically in Ni Figs 1 and 3.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni and Abelson in view of Bhatnagar (US 2021/0125832 A1).
As to claims 10-11 and 16, Ni and Abelson do not teach the claimed Ti precursor. The claimed titanium precursors, along with other precursors are known in Bhatnagar para 0063, 0070 for Ti ALD.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to modify Ni and Abelson to include the claimed Ti precursors and other precursors as Bhatnagar teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
As to claim 13, Ni and Abelson teach ammonia. Bhatnagar teaches alternatives to ammonia for nitrogen sources such as those claimed in para 0068.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to modify Ni and Abelson to include the claimed N precursors as Bhatnagar teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights