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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 19-20 withdrawn
Claims 1-18 pending and elected
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 01/15/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-15 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.
The limitation “one or more deposition precursors comprise a metal-containing precursor and a fluorine-containing precursor” in claim 1 is unclear which renders the claim indefinite. As the limitation require minimum of “one deposition precursor” which “comprise a metal-containing precursor and a fluorine-containing precursor”, as it gives two possible meanings;
(1) the single precursor include a metal ligand with another fluorine ligand, as in M-F compound, where M is metal and F is fluoride;
(2) a flow of precursors materials including two precursors, first precursor is “metal-containing precursor” and a second precursor is “fluorine-containing precursor”.
However, following the instant specification as originally filed, and dependent claims 4-6, it seems that there are two separate precursors of first precursor is “metal-containing precursor” and a second precursor is “fluorine-containing precursor”.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets the above limitation as “providing a deposition precursors to the processing region, wherein the deposition precursors comprise a first precursor of a metal-containing precursor and a second precursor of a fluorine-containing precursor”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 112908822 A).
Consider Claim 1, Chen teaches the process of coating on a component for a semiconductor [n0001], where the process is within a reaction chamber [n0033]. The coating process include the use of precursor sources such as yttrium(III) hexafluoroacetylacetonate (metal containing precursor), and yttrium(III) trifluoromethanesulfonate [n0007] (fluorine containing precursor). Chen teaches the coating layer is yttrium oxyfluorine material [n0006].
Consider Claim 2, Chen teaches the component include ceramic plate [n0034].
Consider Claims 4-5, Chen teaches the metal precursor sources such as yttrium(III) hexafluoroacetylacetonate [n0007].
Consider Claim 6, Chen teaches the fluorine precursors include difluoride [n0054].
Consider Claim 7, Chen teaches the coating layer is yttrium oxyfluorine material [n0006].
Consider Claims 8-9, Chen teaches the use of oxygen source such as ozone [n0013].
Consider Claims 12-14, Chen teaches the heating/annealing to a temperature of 100℃-500℃ [n0030], and where the use of argon gas along with Oxygen gas in the chamber’s environment [n0029].
Consider Claim 15, Chen teaches the component include gas distribution plate [n0034].
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deepak (PG Pub 2020/0283897 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Deepak teaches the forming of semiconductor components such as OLED [0003], and forming fluorinated layer on the component/object (claim 1). Deepak teaches the process of forming the layer include placing the component/object in the processing region of an ALD/chamber (claim 1). Deepak teaches for the forming of the metal fluorine layer the use of fluorine precursor (FP) (Claim 1), and metal containing precursor (Claim 2).
Consider Claims 2-3, Deepak teaches component/object comprises Al2O3, as upper layer, where the metal-fluorine layer is deposited on top [0021].
Consider Claim 5, Deepak teaches the metal precursor include yttrium (claim 7).
Consider Claim 6, Deepak teaches the fluorine precursor include HF [0004]
Consider Claims 8-9, Deepak teaches the use of oxygen precursor such as Ozone (claims 2 and 5).
Consider Claim 10, Deepak teaches the use of nitrogen material (NF3) (claim 10).
Consider Claim 11, Deepak teaches the use of remote plasma/plasma effluents (claim 5).
Consider Claims 12-14, Deepak teaches the use of oxygen (O2, O3) in a processing environment under annealing temperature from 150-400℃ and pressure of 0.01-100 mbar [0025].
Consider Claim 16, Deepak teaches the forming of semiconductor components such as OLED [0003], and forming fluorinated layer on the component/object (claim 1). Deepak teaches the process of forming the layer include placing the component/object in the processing region of an ALD/chamber (claim 1). Deepak teaches for the forming of the metal fluorine layer the use of fluorine precursor (FP) (Claim 1), and metal containing precursor (Claim 2). Deepak teaches the purging in the processing region [0025]. Deepak teaches the use of remote plasma/plasma effluents (claim 5). Deepak teaches the processing environment is under temperature from 150-400℃ [0025].
Consider Claim 17, Deepak teaches component/object comprises Al2O3, as upper layer, where the metal-fluorine layer is deposited on top [0021].
Consider Claim 18, Deepak teaches the forming of metal-fluorine oxygen containing layer (abstract, [0024]), with 2% oxygen or less [0024].
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-15 (s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN 112908822 A).
Consider Claim 1, Chen teaches the process of coating on a component for a semiconductor [n0001], where the process is within a reaction chamber [n0033]. The coating process include the use of precursor sources such as yttrium(III) hexafluoroacetylacetonate (metal containing precursor), and yttrium(III) trifluoromethanesulfonate [n0007] (fluorine containing precursor). Chen teaches the coating layer is yttrium oxyfluorine material [n0006].
Consider Claim 2, Chen teaches the component include ceramic plate [n0034].
Consider Claims 4-5, Chen teaches the metal precursor sources such as yttrium(III) hexafluoroacetylacetonate [n0007].
Consider Claim 6, Chen teaches the fluorine precursors include difluoride [n0054].
Consider Claim 7, Chen teaches the coating layer is yttrium oxyfluorine material [n0006].
Consider Claims 8-9, Chen teaches the use of oxygen source such as ozone [n0013].
Consider Claims 12-14, Chen teaches the heating/annealing to a temperature of 100℃-500℃ [n0030], and where the use of argon gas along with Oxygen gas in the chamber’s environment [n0029]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 15, Chen teaches the component include gas distribution plate [n0034].
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-18 (s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deepak (PG Pub 2020/0283897 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Deepak teaches the forming of semiconductor components such as OLED [0003], and forming fluorinated layer on the component/object (claim 1). Deepak teaches the process of forming the layer include placing the component/object in the processing region of an ALD/chamber (claim 1). Deepak teaches for the forming of the metal fluorine layer the use of fluorine precursor (FP) (Claim 1), and metal containing precursor (Claim 2).
Consider Claims 2-3, Deepak teaches component/object comprises Al2O3 , as upper layer, where the metal-fluorine layer is deposited on top [0021].
Consider Claim 5, Deepak teaches the metal precursor include yttrium (claim 7).
Consider Claim 6, Deepak teaches the fluorine precursor include HF [0004].
Consider Claims 8-9, Deepak teaches the use of oxygen precursor such as Ozone (claims 2 and 5).
Consider Claim 10, Deepak teaches the use of nitrogen material (NF3) (claim 10).
Consider Claim 11, Deepak teaches the use of remote plasma/plasma effluents (claim 5).
Consider Claims 12-14, Deepak teaches the use of oxygen (O2, O3) in a processing environment under annealing temperature from 150-400℃ and pressure of 0.01-100 mbar [0025]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 16, Deepak teaches the forming of semiconductor components such as OLED [0003], and forming fluorinated layer on the component/object (claim 1). Deepak teaches the process of forming the layer include placing the component/object in the processing region of an ALD/chamber (claim 1). Deepak teaches for the forming of the metal fluorine layer the use of fluorine precursor (FP) (Claim 1), and metal containing precursor (Claim 2). Deepak teaches the purging in the processing region [0025]. Deepak teaches the use of remote plasma/plasma effluents (claim 5). Deepak teaches the processing environment is under temperature from 150-400℃ [0025]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 17, Deepak teaches component/object comprises Al2O3, as upper layer, where the metal-fluorine layer is deposited on top [0021].
Consider Claim 18, Deepak teaches the forming of metal-fluorine oxygen containing layer (abstract, [0024]), with 2% oxygen or less [0024].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/343,351 (PG Pub 2025/0003061 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because;
Claim 1 state “A processing method comprising:
providing a component for semiconductor processing to a processing region of a processing chamber;
providing one or more deposition precursors to the processing region, wherein the one or more deposition precursors comprise a metal-containing precursor and a fluorine-containing precursor; and
depositing a layer of material on the component for semiconductor processing in the processing region, wherein the layer of material comprises a metal-and-fluorine-containing material”.
This is disclosed in claim 1 and claim 6 of ‘351.
Claim 16 state “A processing method comprising:
providing a component for semiconductor processing to a processing region of a processing chamber;
depositing a layer of material on the component for semiconductor processing in the processing region, wherein the layer of material comprises a metal-and-fluorine-containing material, and wherein depositing the layer of material comprises:
exposing the component for semiconductor processing to plasma effluents of a first precursor;
purging the processing region; and
exposing the component for semiconductor processing to plasma effluents of a second precursor, wherein the layer of material comprises reaction products of the plasma effluents of the first precursor and the plasma effluents of the second precursor, and wherein a temperature within the processing chamber is maintained at greater than or about 400° C”
This is disclosed in claim 15 and claim 18 of ‘351.
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 are disclosed in claims 2-14 and 16-18 of ‘351.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM EST.
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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718