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 .
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 1-32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/137, 157 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because clams 1-32 of the present Application are anticipated by claim 1-22 of copending Application No. 18/137, 157.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Givens (US 2021/0301391, cited in IDS) in view of Zyulkov (US 2021/0111025).
Regarding claim 1, Givens discloses a method for forming a mixed oxide dielectric film on a patterned substrate, the method comprising:(a) introducing a patterned substrate having metallic (204) and non-metallic regions (202) into a reaction zone of a deposition chamber and heating the reaction zone to about 175 °C to about 350 °C (Fig.2, [0048]; [0065]-[0068] and [0082]-[0085]);(b) exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a metal alkyl compound ([0071]); (c) purging the deposition chamber ([0050]); (d) exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom compound ([0084]); (e) purging the deposition chamber ([0050]; note: ALD); (f) exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of water ([0072])); (g) purging the deposition chamber ([0050]; note: ALD); and (h) repeating steps (b) to (g) until a desired mixed oxide dielectric film thickness is achieved ([0049]; note: ALD).
Givens does not disclose exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane.
Zyulkov however discloses exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane ([0191]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Givens with Zyulkov to expose the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound for the purpose of improved the coverage and the properties of an underlying film (Zyulkov, [0108]).
Regarding claim 17, Givens discloses a method for forming a mixed oxide dielectric film on a patterned substrate, the method comprising:(a) introducing a patterned substrate having metallic (204) and non-metallic regions (202) into a reaction zone of a deposition chamber and heating the reaction zone to about 175 °C to about 350 °C (Fig.2, [0048]; [0065]-[0068] and [0082]-[0085]);(b) exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a metal alkyl compound ([0071]); (c) purging the deposition chamber ([0050]); (d) exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom compound ([0084]); (e) purging the deposition chamber ([0050]; note: ALD); (f) exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of water ([0072])); (g) purging the deposition chamber ([0050]; note: ALD); and (h) repeating steps (b) to (g) until a desired mixed oxide dielectric film thickness is achieved ([0049]; note: ALD).
Givens does not disclose exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane; performing a plasma treatment step.
Zyulkov however discloses exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane ([0191]) and performing a plasma treatment step ([0188]- [0190]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Givens with Zyulkov to expose the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound and performing a plasma treatment for the purpose of improved the coverage and the properties of an underlying film (Zyulkov, [0108]).
Regarding claims 2, and 18 Zyulkov discloses performing a plasma treatment step prior to step (a) ([0188]- [0190]).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Zyulkov discloses performing at least one plasma treatment step before or after any of steps (a) to (g) ((a to (i) ([0188]- [0190]).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Givens discloses between steps (a) and (b) exposing the patterned substrate to a chemical compound that inhibits growth on some or all of the metallic regions and optionally removing the chemical compound after step (h) ([0032]- [0040]).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Givens discloses wherein the mixed oxide dielectric layer selectively forms on the non-metallic regions of the patterned substrate ([0032]- [0040]).
Regarding claims 6 ,7, 22, and 23, Givens discloses the metal alkyl compound is trimethyl aluminum ([0071]).
Regarding claims 8 ,9, 24, and 25, Zyulkov discloses that the heteroatom silacyclic compound is N-methyl-aza-2, 2, 4-trimethysilacyclopentane ([0191]).
Regarding claims 10 and 26, Givens discloses wherein the metallic region of the substrate comprises at least one of copper, cobalt, tungsten, ruthenium, and molybdenum ([0019]- [0023]).
Regarding claims 11 and 27, Givens discloses wherein the non-metallic region of the substrate comprises at least one of silicon, germanium, silicon-germanium alloy, silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, silicon oxycarbide, silicon oxynitride, silicon carboxynitride, aluminum oxide, hafnium dioxide, titanium dioxide, and zinc oxide ([0019]- [0023]).
Regarding claims 12 and 28, Givens discloses the substrate is silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or copper on silicon ([0019]- [0023]).
Regarding claims 13 and 29, Zyulkov discloses wherein the pulse length of the heteroatom silacyclic compound in step (d) is about 0.1 to about 10 seconds, the pulse length of the metal alkyl compound in step (b) is about 0.1 to about 10 seconds, and the pulse length of the water in step (f) is about 0.1 to about 10 seconds ([0172]).
Regarding claims 14 and 30, Givens does not disclose wherein the reaction zone in step (a) is heated to about 225 °C to about 275 °C.
Zyulkov however discloses wherein the reaction zone in step (a) is heated to about 225 °C to about 275 °C ([0120]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Givens with Zyulkov to adjust the temperature to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimization the deposition process.
Regarding claims 15 ,16, 31, and 32, Givens in view of Zyulkov does not disclose wherein the mixed oxide dielectric film has a thickness of about 5 nm to about 15 nm.
Givens however discloses that the process is repeated until the desired thickness is achieved ([0031]; [0087]).
It would have been however obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the thickness of the mixed oxide dielectric film to be in the claimed range for the purpose of optimizing deposition process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Zyulkov does not disclose exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane are not persuasive because Zyulkov discloses that the heteroatom silacyclic compound is N-methyl-aza-2, 2, 4-trimethysilacyclopentane ([0191]).
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does disclose using cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane asblocking agents for selective deposition techniques, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In the present case Givens discloses all limitations of claims 1 and 17 except exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane; performing a plasma treatment step. Zyulkov however discloses exposing the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound selected from the group consisting of a cyclic azasilane, a cyclic tellurasilane, and a cyclic thiasilane ([0191]) and performing a plasma treatment step ([0188]- [0190]). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Givens with Zyulkov to expose the patterned substrate to a pulse of a heteroatom silacyclic compound and performing a plasma treatment for the purpose of improved the coverage and the properties of an underlying film (Zyulkov, [0108]).
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891