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 1-2, 5-9, 12, 21-22 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.
Claim 1 requires treating the molybdenum film with a plasma to remove carbon. However, claim 1 has been amended to no longer require carbon in the molybdenum film. Therefore, claim 1 is vague and indefinite because it is not clear how plasma treatment to remove carbon would occur in a film that does not contain carbon. Claims depending from claim 1 are similarly rejected for inheriting this problem.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/03/24.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 12, 21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Synthesis Of Molybdenum Containing Thin Films Using Organic Reducing Agents And Synthesis Of Magnesium Silyl Intermediate Complexes For Use In Atomic Layer Deposition” to Overbeek in view of WO 2021-035236 to Blakeney.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 21:
Overbeek teaches depositing a molybdenum film directly on a substrate surface (Fig. 45) by subjecting the substrate to a molybdenum precursor (MoCl5) and an organosilane reducing agent (compound 1; 2-methyl-1,4-bis(trimethylsilyl)-2,5- cyclohexadiene
PNG
media_image1.png
255
177
media_image1.png
Greyscale
) at a temperature of 385°C using ALD (pg. 54-55). The resulting film has molybdenum-carbon bonds (pg. 53) and is grown directly on a SiO2 substrate (Fig. 47). The molybdenum precursor was supplied using a Picosolid booster (i.e., first ampoule) at 120°C and compound 1 was supplied using a Picosoild booster (i.e., second ampoule) at 65°C (pg. 69). Overbeek does also describe the other molybdenum precursors including MoF6 (Fig. 10). Overbeek does not teach an additional step for plasma treatment to remove carbon from the molybdenum film. However, Blakeney teaches a method form forming a substantially carbon free molybdenum film wherein the deposited molybdenum film is subjected to plasma post-treatment, resulting in a substantial decrease in film resistivity (pg. 16). The plasma post treatment includes remote plasma of nitrogen and silane (pg. 14). It would have been understood that this decrease in resistivity is due to removal of carbon from the film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice the method of Overbeek and further subject to the film to plasma post-treatment in order to reduce the resistivity of the film. Blakeney teaches such a plasma post-treatment, and the combination amounts to the use of known steps for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish an expected result.
Claim 8:
Temperature is addressed above, the ALD reactor was maintained at 7-10 mbar (Overbeek; pg. 69 referencing pg. 51).
Claim 12:
Blakeney is depositing film having a carbon content of less than 2 atomic % (pg. 7). The plasma treatment will further reduce this value. Based on the resistivity values given on pg. 19, the carbon content will be near 0.2%.
Claims 23-24:
Overbeek also teaches the nitrogen containing version of the reducing agent (DHP) (Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Synthesis Of Molybdenum Containing Thin Films Using Organic Reducing Agents And Synthesis Of Magnesium Silyl Intermediate Complexes For Use In Atomic Layer Deposition” to Overbeek in view of WO 2021-035236 to Blakeney in view of US 2015/0004315 to Winter.
Previously cited prior art does not teach the reducing agent of formula (III). However, Winter teaches reducing agents for ALD including those illustrated in Fig. 2. This includes those having a carbon ring structure (top left), nitrogen substituted ring structure (center), and double ring structures (bottom). The double ring structures are analogous to claimed formula (III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the reducing agents of Overbeek with the reducing agents of Winter. This predictably results in the reduction of molybdenum to form a molybdenum film [0053].
Additional Evidence
US 6319766 is provided as additional evident to show that plasma treatment to remove carbon impurities reduces resistivity (11:31-53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/27/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of co-filed claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of further review of the art and further search.
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 ALEX A ROLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5355. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 5712721234. 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.
/ALEX A ROLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759