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 filed 7/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art combination does not teach the amended limitations because KR teaches over using TMA, and Mays does not teach an adduct precursor. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). While KR has one purpose of having its aluminum compound transportable by air, it also includes that the prior art need not be limited to this issue (p1). Further, including the adduct throughout the document alleviates the issue of instability for travel by air. KR teaches an ALD method that includes a purge and thin film formation with an adduct precursor using a metal compound and compound of Chemical formula 1 on p 3 (trimethyl aluminum, for example, as an adduct with ‘L’ that may be of claimed formula 1 on p 4) that is mixed in a 1:1 ratio as in the Example. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the 35 USC 103 rejections are maintained.
Due to amendments, the 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn. Any new grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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) 1-2, 11-12, 18, 20-23 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101965219B1 (hereafter KR with citation taken from the attached Google translate document) in view of Mays et al. (US 2020/0365447 A1)
As to claim 1, KR teaches an ALD method that includes a purge and thin film formation with an adduct precursor using a metal compound and compound of Chemical formula 1 on p 3 (trimethyl aluminum, for example, as an adduct with ‘L’ that may be of claimed formula 1 on p 4) that is mixed in a 1:1 ratio as in the Example. The KR method is applied to semiconductor devices in general but does not explicitly teach gapfill.
Mays et al. teaches using a TMA compound in a gapfill application for semiconductor ALD for non flowable, conformal deposition (para 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify KR to include its process for gapfill as Mays et al. teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would want to use the adduct precursors of KR in the process of Mays et al. because they are more stable (p2).
As to claims 2 and 11-12, the adduct is made from trimethylaluminum and tetrahydrofuran in KR p 4.
As to claim 18, Mays et al. teaches making an oxide for gapfill applications in para 0043.
As to claim 20-21, KR teaches the claimed temperature in its Examples.
As to claims 22-23, the device in Mays et al. may be a memory device in para 0026.
As to claim 28, Mays teaches this feature as broadly claimed in the Figures (4C-4E), for example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art does not teach sulfur containing adducts in combination with the other features of claim 1.
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