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 .
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) 12-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ike et al, WO 2020/184212 in view of Tapily et al, US Patent Application Publication 2019/0295870 (both as cited in previous Office Action)
Regarding claim 12, Ike teaches a film formation method of selectively forming a film on a substrate, the method comprising:
a preparation process of preparing the substrate 10 having a first film 12 and a second film 11 exposed on a surface of the substrate (figure 4);
a first film formation process of forming a self-assembled monolayer 14 on the first film by supplying, onto the substrate, a compound for forming the self-assembled monolayer that has a functional group containing an alkyl group and prevents formation of a third film (figure 5 and [0019]);
a second film formation process 15 of forming the third film on the second film (figure 6); and
a first removal process of removing the third film formed in a vicinity of the self- assembled monolayer (which is 16 in figure 6 and 7) by applying energy to the surface of the substrate (the energy being oxidizing the nuclei 16, then fluorinated to become volatile titanium fluoride, then separates from the SAM structure),
wherein the third film is a film that is more likely than the first film to combine with hydrogen and carbon contained in the self-assembled monolayer to form a volatile compound (as stated on page 8 of the translation as “On the other hand, the nucleus 16 of the titanium oxide film on the SAM 14 is also fluorinated by the gas of the organic compound supplied into the SAM supply device 300 to become a volatile titanium fluoride compound and is separated from the SAM 14”)
Ike fails to teach the compound for forming the self-assembled monolayer does not containing fluorine
However, Tapily teaches that the self-assembled monolayer (SAM0 may be made of other materials, such as chlorodecyldimethylsilane, and tertbutyl(chloro)dimethylsilane, which are alkyl groups that contain chlorine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tapily with that of Ike because it is generally-known in the art that chlorodecyldimethylsilane, and tertbutyl(chloro)dimethylsilane are used in the art to form blocking self-assembled monolayers for semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 13, Ike teaches in the first removal process, nuclei of the third film formed on the self-assembled monolayer are removed by applying energy to the surface of the substrate (the energy being oxidizing the nuclei 16, then fluorinated to become volatile titanium fluoride, then separates from the SAM structure).
Regarding claim 14, Ike teaches the first film formation process, the second film formation process, and the first removal process are repeated plural times in this order (as recited in figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Ike teaches the surface of the substrate is exposed to plasma of a processing gas, and the surface of the substrate is irradiated with at least one of ions and active species contained in the plasma, so that energy is applied to the surface of the substrate (which is a processing gas of oxygen and the active species is fluorine, as recited in pages 7 and 8 of translation)
Regarding claim 16, Ike teaches the processing gas includes at least one of a noble gas, hydrogen gas, nitrogen gas, and ammonia gas (page 7, oxidation gas of H2O).
Regarding claim 17, Tapily teaches the first film is a metal film 206 [0021], the second film is an insulating film 204 [0021] , and the third film is an oxide film 210 [0033].
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Tapily teaches the compound for forming the self- assembled monolayer has a binding functional-group that is adsorbed to a surface of the first film and a functional functional-group that does not contain fluorine and contains an alkyl group [0030], wherein the compound for forming the self- assembled monolayer is a thiol-based compound, an organosilane-based compound, a phosphonic acid-based compound, or an isocyanate-based compound [0030].
Regarding claim 20, Ike teaches in the first removal process, a side portion of the third film adjacent to the self-assembled monolayer is removed by applying energy to the surface of the substrate (wherein the side portion of the third film that is removed is layer 17 in figure 7).
Regarding claim 21, Ike teaches the first film formation process, the second film formation process, and the first removal process are repeated plural times in this order (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 22, Ike teaches after the first film formation process, the second film formation process and the first removal process are performed, the first film formation process and the first removal process are performed one or more times in this order (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 23, while Ike teaches the first film formation process, the second film formation process and the first removal process are repeated plural times in this order (figure 2), Ike fails to teach a second removal process of removing the self-assembled monolayer on the first film, the second removal process being performed after the first removal process, wherein the second removal process are repeated plural times in this order.
However, Tapily teaches a second removal process of removing the self-assembled monolayer on the first film (step 322, figure 3), the second removal process being performed after the first removal process (step 318), wherein the second removal process are repeated plural times in this order (via 324), in conjunction with the first film formation process (step 310), the second film formation process (step 314), the first removal process (step 318) as a means to increase the thickness of the films on the substrate. Removal and subsequent repeated deposition of the SAM 208 on the substrate 200 may be desired if the SAM 208 becomes damaged during the film deposition and/or the etching process and therefore affects the film deposition selectivity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tapily with that of Ike because removal and subsequent repeated deposition of the SAM on the substrate may be desired if the SAM becomes damaged during the film deposition and/or the etching process and therefore affects the film deposition selectivity.
Regarding claim 24, Ile teaches in the first removal process, the surface of the substrate is exposed to plasma of a processing gas, and the surface of the substrate is irradiated with at least one of ions and active species contained in the plasma, so that energy is applied to the surface of the substrate (which is a processing gas of oxygen and the active species is fluorine, as recited in pages 7 and 8 of translation)
Regarding claim 25, Tapily teaches the first film is a metal film 206 [0021], the second film is an insulating film 204 [0021] , and the third film is an oxide film 210 [0033].
Regarding claim 26, Ike teaches the compound for forming the self- assembled monolayer has a binding functional-group that is adsorbed to a surface of the first film and a functional functional-group that does not contain fluorine and contains an alkyl group (figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Ike does not qualify as prior art under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(a), Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. Since there is not a certified transition of JP2020-204403, the earliest effective filing date to the current application is 25 November 2021. Since the reference of Ike et al is published 17 September 2020, the reference of Ike would then qualify as 35 USC 102(a)(1)
Therefore, the rejection of claims 12-26 under 35 USC 103 using the cited prior art of record is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
QVJ
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899